If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Food industry: Customers, we hear you. You hate GMOs. Rather than force a bunch of new regulations, we'll start labeling foods that use them with a few exceptions, the main one being that we'll only do it when we want. We good now?   (npr.org) divider line 151
    More: Stupid, GMOs, food industry, American food, National Council of La Raza, exceptions, Environmental Working Group  
•       •       •

2885 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2014 at 5:20 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-07 11:03:54 AM

meat0918: In practice however, labeling them GMO reduces choice because in places like Japan. "You won't ever find a label that says, 'This is GMO,'" Akatsuka said. "You can only find labels that say, 'This is not GMO' because of the fact that companies are very, very aware that having a GMO label would effectively stigmatize their product."

And I would argue the evidence that China has a history of selling non-food as food, as well as killing pets with their food, stands in stark contrast to your claim that there is "no health-based reason for a purchasing customer to know what country a product came from".


It's good to see that the Japanese people have the ability to chose to purchase what they desire thanks to labeling.

American-grow foods have killed more Americans (and American pets) than Chinese-grown foods (although it seems like the Chinese are trying to catch up). Regardless, all countries-of-origin are required to be labeled, even if they've never killed an American with their product. Food-supply safety is a separate issue (and a rather frightening one, IMO) than country-of-origin labeling and one that affects all foods, regardless origin.

And with that, I'll bow out of the conversation. I think I've made my view clear. I believe I should be able to purchase food based upon my personal opinion of GMO (like I'm able to purchase food based upon my personal opinion of being a vegetarian), and believe that others should be provided that choice as well.

It was nice talking with you all. Thanks for being civil.
 
2014-02-07 11:12:07 AM

Cashew: Come on, who doesn't like caulisheep?
[theroadnotprocessed.com image 300x251]


SHUTUPANDTAKEMYMONEY.JPG
 
2014-02-07 11:13:36 AM

jgbrowning: meat0918: In practice however, labeling them GMO reduces choice because in places like Japan. "You won't ever find a label that says, 'This is GMO,'" Akatsuka said. "You can only find labels that say, 'This is not GMO' because of the fact that companies are very, very aware that having a GMO label would effectively stigmatize their product."

And I would argue the evidence that China has a history of selling non-food as food, as well as killing pets with their food, stands in stark contrast to your claim that there is "no health-based reason for a purchasing customer to know what country a product came from".

It's good to see that the Japanese people have the ability to chose to purchase what they desire thanks to labeling.

American-grow foods have killed more Americans (and American pets) than Chinese-grown foods (although it seems like the Chinese are trying to catch up). Regardless, all countries-of-origin are required to be labeled, even if they've never killed an American with their product. Food-supply safety is a separate issue (and a rather frightening one, IMO) than country-of-origin labeling and one that affects all foods, regardless origin.

And with that, I'll bow out of the conversation. I think I've made my view clear. I believe I should be able to purchase food based upon my personal opinion of GMO (like I'm able to purchase food based upon my personal opinion of being a vegetarian), and believe that others should be provided that choice as well.

It was nice talking with you all. Thanks for being civil.


You can buy food labeled "no GMOs" in the United States as well as in Japan.

Also, considering that the vast amount of food eaten in the United States is also grown here, and that China imports very little food to the United States, the statement "American-grow foods have killed more Americans (and American pets) than Chinese-grown foods (although it seems like the Chinese are trying to catch up)." is completely meaningless.
 
2014-02-07 11:19:51 AM
GMO's have been around since the 1700's. Ever hear of a guy named Mendel?
 
2014-02-07 11:33:49 AM

jgbrowning: I can understand how it could be difficult if you wanted to try and separate our existing chain into non-GMO and GMO. The cost-effective solution would be to simply label everything in that supply chain as GMO since there is no way to distinguish the end product and that would let those who want to produce non-GMO material bear the costs of using an alternative supply chain.


That would be the likely result, and is something a lot of companies would want to avoid, even if they do not purposefully use GMO.  When the public sees "Contains GMO" on 99% of their food, including almost all fresh produce, even more will freak out than are currently upset about the situation.

Without significant expense, most of the farmers would not even be able to guarantee their products had not been contaminated with GMO seeds, even if they've never purposefully used any.  There have already been cases showing that (and Mosanto's responsive to that).  It is almost impossible to avoid that possibility, and incorrect required food labels tend to have costly consequences, so the safest route is to label everything GMO.  Then it doesn't tell you anything more than the voluntary 'no-GMO' sort of label would, but does get to feed a ton of outrage, and still not point out what actually is using significant amounts of GMO.  Corn bought directly from the company modifying it wouldn't be any more obvious than corn from the local small time farmer who simply hasn't paid for extensive containment methods and seed from a seed bank with similarly expensive guarantees on every source.  Even if you are trying to avoid GMO, that situation is unlikely to be of much help.

A voluntary non-GMO label would have the same effective end result.  In either case, only companies willing to pay for the additional expense over the products entire supply chain would be able to have enough certainty of that condition to apply a legal label to their product, and would gain the associated marketing benefit from their expenditures in a legally defined label.  In addition, the non-labeled foods are more indicative of what they, for the most part, actually are: unknown.
 
2014-02-07 11:38:37 AM
Nope, you need to do it ALL the time. Just slap those three little letters on the ingredients label after every ingredient they describe. Ta-Daaa!
 
2014-02-07 11:40:54 AM

drxym: Consumers irrationally hate GMOs.


When you have to turn to blaming the customer...
 
2014-02-07 11:43:26 AM

Lando Lincoln: GMO's have been around since the 1700's. Ever hear of a guy named Mendel?


Oh look, it's this false equivalence again.
 
2014-02-07 11:56:29 AM
meat0918

Any food that has corn, soy, or sugar that isn't listed as cane sugar, assume it has GMO ingredients unless it says Organic or non-GMO on the label. Because the GMOs are cheaper to produce. Also, I'd just flat out assume most organic soy or corn probably also contains some of the GMO genes, because pollens a promiscuous substance, and I'd be willing to be it has cross pollinated into the organic varieties by accident.

Some interests have latched on to GMO as a vehicle for anti-corporate control of food (good IMHO), anti-monoculture (again, good), and anti-Monsanto (also good imho).

And Fark Monsanto. Fark them fark them fark them.

Rather than using this technology to improve nutrition profiles and improve resistance to disease, or speed up plant breeding, they've taken the route of making them resistant to herbicides and engineering pesticides (albeit ones that are also approved for Organic use, and shown to be harmless to people) into the food.

I'm pissed because it is a good technology, and it's being abused by these companies, leaving a lot of good research languishing because they people freak out about GMO food.


I do so like a good response from someone who actually thinks. Excellent post.

I recall when the GMO fuss started up, decades back and I also recall how it was supposed to help produce more food faster and cheaper for the then booming global population. It already had been noticed that there was a diminished availability of prime farm land as realtors and developers bought up prime acreage and paved it over.

The battle for the Rainforest had just begun, but anyone with a brain could see that poverty ridden people were not going to be able to use more expensive farming techniques just to conserve it. They wanted to be able to eat and slash and burn was about the cheapest way.

Somewhere about the same time, science-fiction movies popped up with genetic monsters as their horror themes and various programs spread their attention gathering webs by concentrating on the possible horror of unregulated genetic mutations.

Monsanto didn't help at all by promptly finding a way to have single yield crops developed, meaning farmers using their seeds could no longer save some from their crops, to cut down on the cost of buying next years seed. Most of the yield in seed would not sprout due to a genetic modification. They had to buy new seed.

Then the company moved quietly to essentially nearly monopolize the agricultural industry. He who controls the food, controls the wealth.

With the assistance of crossbreeding, genetics and newer, better farming machinery, technically we should have had an abundance of cheap food by now. Starvation rates would had dropped globally. Famine would have been cut in half. A person going shopping would spend less than half what they do today on the basic groceries. Loss from crop damage due to weather could be markedly diminished. There was speculation on engineering the slow growth hardwood trees to grow faster to make up for their diminishing availability and soaring cost of their wood.

Sometime in the 70s, before the oil crash, there was (1) a beef crisis, which lasted a year but tripled the cost of meat, which has never come down, which affected all of the secondary meats, like chicken and pork. (2) Something drove the cost of tomatoes and green bell peppers along with lettuce to record highs. (3) Apple growers demanded higher rates, claiming it cost nearly as much to harvest their crops as to grow them and the cost of the fruit tripled. (4) The diet and health craze drove the cost of seafood to historic highs in record time.

Then, the oil crisis hit and, pretty much, everything went to hell. In the process, GMO became associated with science-fiction like horrors and a process which could possibly produce more food cheaply, including making it more nourishing, has been determinedly delayed.

Actually, I've read more about the problems with Kudzu than any wildly out of control GMO crops. People have screwed up the environment of Florida with imported plants, animals and fish beyond repair more than anything GMO related. People sucking down millions of gallons of water for their huge cities have created droughts which created crop failures and their stupidity has enabled an enormous spread of disease.

Genetic modification has contributed nothing as harmful as the things folks have done to themselves.
 
2014-02-07 12:10:55 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Lando Lincoln: GMO's have been around since the 1700's. Ever hear of a guy named Mendel?

Oh look, it's this false equivalence again.


Don't use the farking term if you don't actually mean "genetically modified organism."

Use "rDNA modified" or something like that.
 
2014-02-07 12:11:39 PM
Like the  NSA if food manufacturers say they've stopped, how will you know?

/show your work
 
2014-02-07 12:15:52 PM
All the anti-GMO ramblings just seem to reenforce that the U.S. continues to blow in teaching science.
 
2014-02-07 12:16:00 PM

Rik01: Monsanto didn't help at all by promptly finding a way to have single yield crops developed, meaning farmers using their seeds could no longer save some from their crops, to cut down on the cost of buying next years seed. Most of the yield in seed would not sprout due to a genetic modification. They had to buy new seed.


Fark wanted to snip most of the quote, but if you are talking about "terminator" seeds, they never entered the market.

Since the introduction of hybrid seed, which happened in the 1920s or so, farmers haven't been saving as much seed.  You can save it, but it won't breed true.  It's not a new issue.

Given the choice of having to plant extra crop or selling less of the crop so he can save seeds, processing them for storage and then storing them, or selling the whole crop and buying new every year, it seems most farmers, as well a gardeners, would rather just buy new seed each year.   It's a pretty simple formula for the farmer.  Is the extra expense in order to save seed worth it.  If it is to the farmer, he'll save the seed.  If not, he'll buy it.

My grandfather was the last farmer I knew that saved seed, his wheat seed, and the last time he did that, mice got into it, and it was bad.  Not Australian plague of mice bad, but bad enough.  Boy was my mother pissed, because the seed was stored about 300 yards from our house out in the pole barn.

I am of the opinion that if you are labeling GMOs because they are "unnatural" we should damn well be labeling hybrids as well, because they're about as naturally occurring as GMOs.
 
2014-02-07 12:20:31 PM

liam76: they do it in the EU.


The EU started enforcing those regulartions while GM products were almost non-existent in their food supply chain.  The EU defrays the cost by supporting the testing and labeling with tax moneys, and charges to GM producers.  They also provide a fund to compensate non-GM producers for any supply line contaminations.  So, the cost is largely hidden and redirected, to keep the prices of GM and non-GM products closer.  Though, some measures still put this at close to 20% of the base crop's production cost, at the EU's requisite GM % levels.  Their cost is also lesser, because they have approved very few GM products, and have very little of it in their market.  Even then, they still cannot regulate it without extensive testing on imports and the final products.  Controls on the supply chain still fail.

About 70% of our supermarket products contain at least one GMO - and even more probably contain one without realizing it.  The US produces about 50% of the world's GM crops.  All of Europe produces 0.08% of them.  Once we've had harvests with 80-90% of a certain crop showing modified genes, you cannot really segregate it again in a way to be sure your crop has eliminated that influence.  It would cost to try, cost in lesser yeild, and then someone would have to pay every time it fails and the crop turns out to be contaminated.  At that point, the cheapest way to produce a product meeting non-GM standards would be to import it from a country which has minimalized GMO planting, and pays part or all of the associated cost increases.

Comparing costs between the two situations is almost entirely pointless.
 
2014-02-07 12:29:19 PM
GMOs: the left's Global Warming. Anti-science is non-partisan.
 
2014-02-07 12:30:21 PM
groups representing farmers, seed companies and other food producers

lol, who could that be with big pockets and a litigious nature?
 
2014-02-07 12:47:43 PM

That Guy Jeff: GMOs: the left's Global Warming. Anti-science is non-partisan.


I'm pretty left in most issues and I think anti-GMO people are nuts.
 
2014-02-07 12:59:07 PM

Egoy3k: That Guy Jeff: GMOs: the left's Global Warming. Anti-science is non-partisan.

I'm pretty left in most issues and I think anti-GMO people are nuts.


And plenty of right wing peeps think the anti-global warming stuff is nuts. Yay science!
 
2014-02-07 01:00:12 PM
Yawn... too early for this - but the gist: Most of the rational discussion of the GMOs can be summed up in one Skeptoid episode.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112

That said, I even posted on the discussion because there are - to me anyway - a couple of things that weren't entirely accurate in the episode. His science is solid, he provides sources, etc etc...

When defending GMOs though, there is no need to defend Monsanto or their business/litigious practices. The biggest case on the subject is largely misunderstood. It's a shame such a  landmark case involved someone who wanted to "beat the system" and basically get GMOs for nothing. The discussion over how, when, why etc, to litigate because of cross pollination, when seeds move, or a million other little things isn't settled. THAT is not a science argument, that's a legal/public policy argument. I don't like seeing the two conflated.

You can get to the core of it by talking about a particularly large apple tree, or if you want to give yourself migraines, 2 of them. Sometimes they overlap property bounds, sometimes the fruit moves, sometimes their roots do things, etc. You can discuss pretty much all law (save perhaps criminal) by discussing such theoretical landholders and their hypothetical trees. DO NOT paint those issues as simple. Anyone who has gone to law school would be able to tell you how vastly complicated such simple seeming examples can actually be and how little consensus there may be depending on where you are.

Sometimes it feels like when people run out of science and such, or are told straight up not to do things like post pictures of Spragues-Dawley rats or other animals that get lots of unsightly tumors because of their breed, or other stuff that's off subject, that they switch to legal arguments, IP discussions, and lawsuits. This isn't a good idea. The discussion goes from being about science and things we can study empirically to a parade of horribles that is really a matter of subjective elements.

There's no magical forum force that can keep discussions on the rails outside of insane mods, but still... if you're going to post some pro/anti screeds - try to set your goalposts and not move them when convenient.

/shrug
 
2014-02-07 01:29:51 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Stopwhining about GMO,dumbasses. There are plenty of real problems with the same farking industry.


Yeah, well, I'm tired of Big Food buying all the politicians that are supposed to be representing me, so I'll continue my guerrilla campaign, thank you very much. The more fronts they have to defend on, the more pain they feel.
 
2014-02-07 01:37:22 PM

ErinPac: liam76: they do it in the EU.

The EU started enforcing those regulartions while GM products were almost non-existent in their food supply chain.  The EU defrays the cost by supporting the testing and labeling with tax moneys, and charges to GM producers.  They also provide a fund to compensate non-GM producers for any supply line contaminations.  So, the cost is largely hidden and redirected, to keep the prices of GM and non-GM products closer.  Though, some measures still put this at close to 20% of the base crop's production cost, at the EU's requisite GM % levels.  Their cost is also lesser, because they have approved very few GM products, and have very little of it in their market.  Even then, they still cannot regulate it without extensive testing on imports and the final products.  Controls on the supply chain still fail.

About 70% of our supermarket products contain at least one GMO - and even more probably contain one without realizing it.  The US produces about 50% of the world's GM crops.  All of Europe produces 0.08% of them.  Once we've had harvests with 80-90% of a certain crop showing modified genes, you cannot really segregate it again in a way to be sure your crop has eliminated that influence.  It would cost to try, cost in lesser yeild, and then someone would have to pay every time it fails and the crop turns out to be contaminated.  At that point, the cheapest way to produce a product meeting non-GM standards would be to import it from a country which has minimalized GMO planting, and pays part or all of the associated cost increases.

Comparing costs between the two situations is almost entirely pointless.


Food already has lables. Adding a GM stamp to existing lables int he next year or so is a very trivial cost.


Unless farmers don't know what they are planting, the cost of testing is also negligable.

I am not some nut terrified, or even worried, about GMO's. I have a problem with the food industry in general making it difficult to know what, exactly, is in our food. And trying to stop people who do.
 
2014-02-07 01:39:23 PM

liam76: ErinPac: liam76: they do it in the EU.

The EU started enforcing those regulartions while GM products were almost non-existent in their food supply chain.  The EU defrays the cost by supporting the testing and labeling with tax moneys, and charges to GM producers.  They also provide a fund to compensate non-GM producers for any supply line contaminations.  So, the cost is largely hidden and redirected, to keep the prices of GM and non-GM products closer.  Though, some measures still put this at close to 20% of the base crop's production cost, at the EU's requisite GM % levels.  Their cost is also lesser, because they have approved very few GM products, and have very little of it in their market.  Even then, they still cannot regulate it without extensive testing on imports and the final products.  Controls on the supply chain still fail.

About 70% of our supermarket products contain at least one GMO - and even more probably contain one without realizing it.  The US produces about 50% of the world's GM crops.  All of Europe produces 0.08% of them.  Once we've had harvests with 80-90% of a certain crop showing modified genes, you cannot really segregate it again in a way to be sure your crop has eliminated that influence.  It would cost to try, cost in lesser yeild, and then someone would have to pay every time it fails and the crop turns out to be contaminated.  At that point, the cheapest way to produce a product meeting non-GM standards would be to import it from a country which has minimalized GMO planting, and pays part or all of the associated cost increases.

Comparing costs between the two situations is almost entirely pointless.

Food already has lables. Adding a GM stamp to existing lables int he next year or so is a very trivial cost.


Unless farmers don't know what they are planting, the cost of testing is also negligable.

I am not some nut terrified, or even worried, about GMO's. I have a problem with the food industry in general making it difficult ...


Ok, but I want testing of it all, Organic included, because pollen is a whore.
 
2014-02-07 02:11:23 PM
FTA: "The results of the enormous misinformation put out there, particularly in California and Washington, really compelled us and 28 other groups to step forward and say, 'Enough is enough. We need some help,' " , president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, another group in the coalition, said during the teleconference."

Translated: "We had to spend so much money bulsh*tting the public by lying through our f*cking teeth in the effort to overturn ballot initiatives in Washington and California that our shareholders stepped forward and said "Enough is enough! Stop doing that sh*t, it's eating into our profits and purchases of solid gold yachts!" Chuck Connor, president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, another group in the coalition, said during the teleconference."

I really don't give a rat's ass if the genetically modified ingredients will either give you cancer or increase your dick size by 10% with every serving, if it's in the bag and it's going in my body it should be on the label. Period.
 
2014-02-07 02:38:27 PM
Translation:
1) We'll slap whatever label on our stuff you want us to, just as long as we're sure it won't reduce sales.
2) If we can slap some meaningless nonsense (e.g. "All Natural!") on our product and charge twice as much for the same crap that doesn't have that label on it, you can be damn sure we'll do it.
3) If we see someone else labeling their stuff with something that makes it sell better and/or lets us charge more for it, we'll slap that right on the packaging whether or not we conform to whatever standard it is we're ignoring when we do it.
4) Addendum to #3: And then we'll form a standards group and get our big-company buddies to join it, trademark the label, set definitions for it that make it effectively meaningless, and then set a fee for its use that's so high that none of the small "competitors" we laugh at can afford to slap it on THEIR products.
 
2014-02-07 03:05:33 PM

ltr77: There is also an argument to be made that what GMO's have delivered (a reduction in the cost of labor associated with farming) is not necessarily a good thing in times of high unemployment.


Aren't agricultural jobs the ones that nobody (white and American) is willing to do to begin with?
 
2014-02-07 03:10:03 PM

Ruiizu: Not a fan of GMOs because of the twisted agenda behind many of them. And I'm referring to what is known as "round-up ready" GMOs, which basically have led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides (although the initial claim was that they would decrease overall pesticide use), thus an increase in the poisoning of humans and the environment.


Round-up is a herbicide. Not a pesticide. Round-up ready crops are not killed by the mechanism that Round-up uses to kill weeds. They do nothing for pests.
 
2014-02-07 03:22:23 PM
I'm in favor of total consumer disclosure. For any product on the market, but especially for substances that go into our bodies, we have a right to know exactly what it is that we would be purchasing.

That being said, not every detail of a product is important enough that it needs to be displays front and center on the packaging.  Why clutter up every sugarless gum wrapper with a warning that it contains phenylalanine, when only 0.01% of the public is phenylketonuric?  Put a little QR code on there instead so concerned consumers can look up the information they want.

The debate should not be over whether GMO produce should be disclosed, but rather how it must be disclosed.
 
2014-02-07 03:28:05 PM

AlanSmithee: This is a post from Farker cptJeff from another thread:
"You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers.


Then let's make it easy. Farmer Joe grows GMO corn. Every ton he grows is inventoried, weighed, counted and tagged with harvest date, location, etc. The paperwork that travels with this corn can come on a different color paper for GMO products, or a stamp the farmer can put on the paperwork. That paperwork stays with the corn all the way to the end user, who then labels their product "May Contain GMO Ingredients", the same as breakfast cereal is now labeled "May Contain Wheat" or "Processed on machines that also handle Wheat" for those with allergies. "Tracking" is as simple as handing a copy of the piece of paper to the next person in the chain.


The computer you're typing on has paperwork tracking back from your receipt all the way to the store's inventory list through the trucking company to the ship it was brought over on to the factory it was assembled in and to every single supplier of every single part that is in it. Not that difficult.
For every one of those 200 farmers there is a receipt, an inventory and a count. Farm, distribution center, raiilcar, factory, done. The person you quoted has quoted another person's bullsh*t who has tried to make the whole process seem more difficult than it actually would be, and you fell for it.
 
2014-02-07 03:29:23 PM

hardinparamedic: Ruiizu: Not a fan of GMOs because of the twisted agenda behind many of them. And I'm referring to what is known as "round-up ready" GMOs, which basically have led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides (although the initial claim was that they would decrease overall pesticide use), thus an increase in the poisoning of humans and the environment.

Round-up is a herbicide. Not a pesticide. Round-up ready crops are not killed by the mechanism that Round-up uses to kill weeds. They do nothing for pests.


It's a common conflation, and in my experience, one of the hardest things to overcome for people.  They really think round up has been engineered into the plants.

It's not BT, which has been engineered into corn and cotton,

As an aside, I actually saw an ad for a seminar "Today's gluten isn't your grandmother's gluten".  I was unaware the molecules making up gluten had been found to have changed.

Even the placesI know selling "ancient" wheat strains tell people with celiac to not eat it, or at least eat at their own risk, since is still has gluten!
 
2014-02-07 03:32:04 PM

rewind2846: AlanSmithee: This is a post from Farker cptJeff from another thread:
"You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers.

Then let's make it easy. Farmer Joe grows GMO corn. Every ton he grows is inventoried, weighed, counted and tagged with harvest date, location, etc. The paperwork that travels with this corn can come on a different color paper for GMO products, or a stamp the farmer can put on the paperwork. That paperwork stays with the corn all the way to the end user, who then labels their product "May Contain GMO Ingredients", the same as breakfast cereal is now labeled "May Contain Wheat" or "Processed on machines that also handle Wheat" for those with allergies. "Tracking" is as simple as handing a copy of the piece of paper to the next person in the chain.


The computer you're typing on has paperwork tracking back from your receipt all the way to the store's inventory list through the trucking company to the ship it was brought over on to the factory it was assembled in and to every single supplier of every single part that is in it. Not that difficult.
For every one of those 200 farmers there is a receipt, an inventory and a count. Farm, distribution center, raiilcar, factory, done. The person you quoted has quoted another person's bullsh*t who has tried to make the whole process seem more difficult than it actually would be, and you fell for it.


Except genes travel, so add in a testing step for every load of corn, GMO or otherwise.  Organic farmers aren't exactly jumping to get their crops tested, and in some cases are discouraged and avoid it because if they find GMO, they'll lose their organic certification.
 
2014-02-07 03:56:19 PM

rewind2846: FTA: "The results of the enormous misinformation put out there, particularly in California and Washington, really compelled us and 28 other groups to step forward and say, 'Enough is enough. We need some help,' " , president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, another group in the coalition, said during the teleconference."

Translated: "We had to spend so much money bulsh*tting the public by lying through our f*cking teeth in the effort to overturn ballot initiatives in Washington and California that our shareholders stepped forward and said "Enough is enough! Stop doing that sh*t, it's eating into our profits and purchases of solid gold yachts!" Chuck Connor, president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, another group in the coalition, said during the teleconference."

I really don't give a rat's ass if the genetically modified ingredients will either give you cancer or increase your dick size by 10% with every serving, if it's in the bag and it's going in my body it should be on the label. Period.


Yeah all those farmer co-ops are really raking in the money.  You can't even swing a dead cat in Dubai without hitting some nouveau riche American farmer.
 
2014-02-07 04:22:52 PM
If you are a luddite and only want to eat non GMO food because you are stupid and afraid of the boogeyman, then convince someone it is worth there while to label it so.
 
2014-02-07 04:55:19 PM

meat0918: Except genes travel, so add in a testing step for every load of corn, GMO or otherwise. Organic farmers aren't exactly jumping to get their crops tested, and in some cases are discouraged and avoid it because if they find GMO, they'll lose their organic certification.


All the more reason for labeling. If the legal meaning of "organic" is "no genetic modification other than (insert types here)", then if I'm not actually getting "organic" food should I not know about it? Paying for something I'm not getting, especially if I'm paying extra for it, is not a good thing.
Maybe the pressure from these other food manufacturers will push the agricorps to get their sh*t together and not let their products taint the entire food supply in a way consumers haven't been able to

.

Egoy3k:
Yeah all those farmer co-ops are really raking in the money. You can't even swing a dead cat in Dubai without hitting some nouveau riche American farmer.


Yeah... I live here, I had to put up with all the bullsh*t in the commercials the paid-for-by-agricorps put onto the airwaves in the last two months before the vote. Worse than the spots the mormons put out before the vote on Proposition 8 (TEH GHEYS WILL EAT YOUR CHILDRENNNZZZZ!!!), and easily refutable... but unfortunately those facts would take longer than 30 seconds to explain, so the general populace never heard them. There are fewer real "family farms" and co-ops that don't ultimately work for Monsanto or Bayer or Archer-Daniels left than you think.
 
2014-02-07 05:17:00 PM

rewind2846: All the more reason for labeling. If the legal meaning of "organic" is "no genetic modification other than (insert types here)", then if I'm not actually getting "organic" food should I not know about it? Paying for something I'm not getting, especially if I'm paying extra for it, is not a good thing.
Maybe the pressure from these other food manufacturers will push the agricorps to get their sh*t together and not let their products taint the entire food supply in a way consumers haven't been able to


I'd be more for it if all food ingredients are tested.  ALL OF THEM.  I doubt you'll find the organic community willing to test their corn, soybeans, or beets though, or be able to afford it.

I'm still in the camp that corn is corn, regardless of it being GMO or Organic or Conventionally grown.  And all the food related stuff we derive from corn is still corn derived.  Dextrose is still dextrose. Alcohol is still alcohol.  Maltodextrin, corn syrup, etc.  if it came from corn it's corn based.

And that is a different issue altogether.

I think if we got rid of the sugar tariffs, you'd have more effect on GMO crops than labeling.
 
2014-02-07 05:24:12 PM

incrdbil: If you are a luddite and only want to eat non GMO food because you are stupid and afraid of the boogeyman, then convince someone it is worth there while to label it so.


Well for one it helps the people maintain control of their food supply or are you one of those folks that believe that corporations put people before profits. Second why would you want to ingest something that is not one hundred percent proven to be beneficial or harmful, but of course the results of the seeds are promising to show higher production and resistance to environmental factors. That does not mean it is safe to ingest over long term use. Do you enjoy being a lab rat and having you be the subject of food testing without your consent or due compensation?
 
2014-02-07 05:30:23 PM

pmdgrwr: incrdbil: If you are a luddite and only want to eat non GMO food because you are stupid and afraid of the boogeyman, then convince someone it is worth there while to label it so.

Well for one it helps the people maintain control of their food supply or are you one of those folks that believe that corporations put people before profits. Second why would you want to ingest something that is not one hundred percent proven to be beneficial or harmful, but of course the results of the seeds are promising to show higher production and resistance to environmental factors. That does not mean it is safe to ingest over long term use. Do you enjoy being a lab rat and having you be the subject of food testing without your consent or due compensation?


You do realize GMO food has been tested more thoroughly for safety than the old varieties, right?

And they consistently find no health risks.  Is nearly 20 years of use long enough time for evaluation on long term health effects?

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gm o_ research.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

//I hate fear based policy making.
 
2014-02-07 06:26:21 PM

notto: PunGent:
I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

Who is suggesting making it illegal to label stuff properly?


Couldn't be bothered to read the article?  Read the part about the industry's proposed bill again.

Don't be a shill like Smithee.
 
2014-02-07 06:26:59 PM

AlanSmithee: notto: PunGent:
I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

Who is suggesting making it illegal to label stuff properly?

The reptalien overlords.


Couldn't read the article?  Too hard for poor widdle you?
 
2014-02-07 06:27:38 PM

AlanSmithee: PunGent: AlanSmithee: ltr77: Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.

That's an argument against growing organics, not GMOs.

Do some more reading.

You'll look less ignorant.

Of course, with that handle, you're probably not taking ownership of the crap you spew anyway.

Are you telling me I should 'study it out'?


Nope.  Got you color-coded piss yellow for a good reason.
 
2014-02-07 06:29:45 PM

Egoy3k: PunGent: Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

So you have no problem whatsoever with, and I quote:  "before new GMO products go on the market, companies be required to submit safety data to be reviewed and approved by the FDA. Currently, that practice is optional."

I've got a car I'd like to sell you.  The brakes work fine.  Trust me.

You'll have to:  I've paid Congress to make it illegal to ask a mechanic for a second opinion.

You're not anti-science are you?  Good.

Buy the car.

And put your kids in it.

I've got some child seats to go with the car.

They've been tested by my same in-house lab.

They work fine too.

A more apt analogy would be;

I've got a car to sell you, these three mechanics have all verified that it is safe.  I replaced the wheel lug nuts with some non OEM ones.  They were more expensive but because these ones were easier to install it was more than worth it.  A lot of parts on this car are aftermarket parts that I have installed over the years that I have owned it and BTW these particular aftermarket parts are vastly superior to the OEM parts. What? you don't like the Lugs?  Because I used an air wrench to install them instead of a hand tool?  Are you stupid?


Try again.  The mechanic you wanted to have look at the car?  I've had him followed, had his phone bugged, and am busy trying to discredit him amongst his peers, because when I hired him, he told me those lugs nuts were defective, and it was cheaper to ruin him, than replace the lug nuts.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?cur re ntPage=all
 
2014-02-07 06:37:17 PM
PunGent:
Couldn't be bothered to read the article?  Read the part about the industry's proposed bill again.

You need to re-read it.  There is nothing being proposed that would make it illegal for any company to label anything.  You are misrepresenting this to try to make a point.  If you have to lie to make your point, maybe your point isn't very strong to begin with.
 
2014-02-07 08:29:25 PM
I can understand anti-GMO sentiment if you're doing it in protest of corporate bullying from the likes of Monsanto.

But to be anti-GMO because it's "unnatural" or somesuch?  It's as inane as being vegan because "meat is murder".

If you decry eating meat because the way livestock handling is done, then fine, more power to you.  But if you have some notion that humans aren't meant to eat meat, then you are, quite simply, wrong.  Humans have evolved many traits that say otherwise: binocular vision (for judging distance to prey), pointed teeth (not just our canines, but our molars as well, they're not flat like horses' but pointy, all meant for shredding meat in the mouth), and most notably a digestive tract that can process flesh of other animals.

Likewise, we have been eating GM foods ever since we started farming and animal husbandry in antiquity, altering them to better provide food, loooooooong before Gregor Mendel discovered the apparatus for this.  It's called "selective breeding".  We have been altering the food sources we cultivate.  The banana, the favorite fallacious argument used by creationists, is prime proof of this: Do a GIS for "wild banana" and tell me if it's more conducive to eating than what is considered a "banana" today.  That we can now directly manipulate the mechanics of heredity streamlines the process and gets results far more quickly, and is a great boon granted by science.

If you're protesting the business of it, go for it.  If you're arguing against the science of it... you're lumped in with the likes of Creationists as far as I'm concerned.
 
2014-02-07 08:39:58 PM

ZeroPly: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Stopwhining about GMO,dumbasses. There are plenty of real problems with the same farking industry.

Yeah, well, I'm tired of Big Food buying all the politicians that are supposed to be representing me, so I'll continue my guerrilla campaign, thank you very much. The more fronts they have to defend on, the more pain they feel.



Anti-GMO complaints just give Big Food an opening to paint their detractors FAIRLY as disingenuous anti-science loons, who say nonsense like "frankenfood" and don't really care whether there's any substance to their fearmongering. Not Helping, imo.

/you have a "guerrilla campaign" the way I have an intergalactic empire

PunGent: notto: PunGent:
I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

Who is suggesting making it illegal to label stuff properly?

Couldn't be bothered to read the article?  Read the part about the industry's proposed bill again.



There's nothing in that proposal that prohibits accurate labelling. Products that actually include GMO are free to say so, and those that demonstrably do not include GMO are free to say so. They just don't have to. (Except in the unlikely event that there is any substantial difference between the GMO and non-GMO versions of the product, in which case the FDA can require disclosure on the label.)
 
2014-02-07 09:38:58 PM

AlanSmithee: Tyrone Slothrop: If GMOs are so great, why are its creators so deathly afraid of labeling their food as such?

ambercat: Buying off government to prevent people from knowing what's in their food so they can make choices about it

You guys should read the thread a bit more. The labels are costly and provide no real value.


How are the labels costly? Because they say so? Food is already labeled, and farmers should know what they are growing. How much more is it going to cost to add one more word to the outside of any GMO label? Foods already get labeled as kosher, halal, etc and you have to pay rabbis to label your food as kosher. Yet no one complains about the price of doing that.

Just because it has no real value to you doesn't mean it has no value to other people. I like garlic. Some people don't. Even if I don't care if my hummus has garlic in it, some people will, and they will want hummus to be labeled so they know which one they want to buy and which one they don't. Like how vegetarians or vegans want to know if animal products are in crackers or chips, even if they can't taste them there, whereas other people don't care. If some people would change their buying habits based on whether something was in a product or not THEN A LABEL HAS VALUE, because it allows choice. Why do you want to force everyone to buy the food you want them to? What's wrong with people choosing what they want to eat? If it's going to be so expensive, then surely people will wind up buying the cheap GMO food anyway. So why ban people from being allowed to choose?
 
2014-02-07 09:45:56 PM
Breeding: the original GMO.
 
2014-02-07 09:58:33 PM

ambercat:  Foods already get labeled as kosher, halal, etc and you have to pay rabbis to label your food as kosher. Yet no one complains about the price of doing that.


Because it is voluntary and as you admit, it costs more.

Don't want to buy GMO, nobody is forcing you to.  You will just have to pay more to buy products that are voluntarily labeled as GMO.  Just like Kosher labeling.

Sounds like that would work for you, after all, nobody should complain about the added cost of buying non-GMO labeled food, right?
 
2014-02-08 01:13:40 AM

notto: ambercat:  Foods already get labeled as kosher, halal, etc and you have to pay rabbis to label your food as kosher. Yet no one complains about the price of doing that.

Because it is voluntary and as you admit, it costs more.

Don't want to buy GMO, nobody is forcing you to.  You will just have to pay more to buy products that are voluntarily labeled as GMO.  Just like Kosher labeling.

Sounds like that would work for you, after all, nobody should complain about the added cost of buying non-GMO labeled food, right?


Except GMOs have nothing to do with being blessed by rabbis, so it would be even cheaper. And labeling ingredients is already mandatory, as is country of origin or preparation. GMO labeling should be part of ingredients labeling, just like anything else you put in. It makes no sense to refuse to label one thing when you have to label everything else, state where it was made and break it down for nutritional content as well. Why is nutritional content and portion size there? Because it's something consumers care about, so it is labeled to give them more information. Basically anything else you want to know is on the label. Why should one special thing be exempted? Cost of labeling hasn't been prohibitive for anything else being labeled, so that is a red herring. What valid reason is there?
 
2014-02-08 02:01:58 AM

ambercat: notto: ambercat:  Foods already get labeled as kosher, halal, etc and you have to pay rabbis to label your food as kosher. Yet no one complains about the price of doing that.

Because it is voluntary and as you admit, it costs more.

Don't want to buy GMO, nobody is forcing you to.  You will just have to pay more to buy products that are voluntarily labeled as GMO.  Just like Kosher labeling.

Sounds like that would work for you, after all, nobody should complain about the added cost of buying non-GMO labeled food, right?

Except GMOs have nothing to do with being blessed by rabbis, so it would be even cheaper. And labeling ingredients is already mandatory, as is country of origin or preparation. GMO labeling should be part of ingredients labeling, just like anything else you put in. It makes no sense to refuse to label one thing when you have to label everything else, state where it was made and break it down for nutritional content as well. Why is nutritional content and portion size there? Because it's something consumers care about, so it is labeled to give them more information. Basically anything else you want to know is on the label. Why should one special thing be exempted? Cost of labeling hasn't been prohibitive for anything else being labeled, so that is a red herring. What valid reason is there?


There isn't "one special thing" being exempted from mandatory labelling. There are a virtually UNLIMITED NUMBER OF THINGS exempted from mandatory labelling.

Was the food handled by a person named Juan? Has the logo on the box gone through multiple revisions? Was the crop harvested on a Tuesday? How many full moons occurred between planting and harvest? Was the land leased? How much water was used to grow the crop? How many genes does this organism have? What is its scientific name? What other common plants are in the same family? Were any animals found in the field during the growing season? What brand tractor was used? Who was the first person to plant this crop? How big was the field? Was the crop brought into contact with stainless steel at any point? What's the astrological sign of the farmer? Etc. Etc. Etc. Oh my God why is this information being withheld from the consumer?!? Is it a conspiracy?!?

If you want to truthfully note on your label that your olives have been grown in the same spot in Tuscany for 500 years and were pressed on the day of a full moon by virginal monks singing Enya songs, then you can. But if you didn't, you don't need to specifically say so. Even if there's a group of people who just really feel strongly that singing Iron Maiden instead would introduce a lot of unknown unknowns into their precious bodily fluids.

Basically, these thingsdon't need to be labeled because, like the question of whether the crop was selectively bred or "genetically modified," there is no good reason to believe that it would make any farking difference to the utility of the product.

But what if it ever does make a difference?

To the extent it DOES make a farking difference in the case of GMOs, the very same proposal that you and TFA are complaining about gives the FDA the authority to require THAT to be labeled.
 
2014-02-08 03:16:03 AM

hardinparamedic: Ruiizu: Not a fan of GMOs because of the twisted agenda behind many of them. And I'm referring to what is known as "round-up ready" GMOs, which basically have led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides (although the initial claim was that they would decrease overall pesticide use), thus an increase in the poisoning of humans and the environment.

Round-up is a herbicide. Not a pesticide. Round-up ready crops are not killed by the mechanism that Round-up uses to kill weeds. They do nothing for pests.


That's actually beside my point though. Round-up ready crops were advertised as a way to decrease pesticide use; they have had the opposite effect. The fact that they resist herbicides is wholly unrelated to how they were sold to countries and farmers (particularly those in Argentina).

If it wasn't already clear, I just think Monsanto (and their similar ilk) are effectively the living example of what could easily be defined as an "evil corporation" if ever there existed one.

/ultimately a case of false advertising
 
2014-02-08 03:38:27 AM
Ruiizu: That's actually beside my point though. Round-up ready crops were advertised as a way to decrease pesticide use; they have had the opposite effect. The fact that they resist herbicides is wholly unrelated to how they were sold to countries and farmers (particularly those in Argentina).

NO THEY WERE NOT.

You are thinking of BT-encoded crops.

THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.


www.quickmeme.com
www.blackframefame.com
cdn.motinetwork.net
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report