GMO Labeling


SpiritDragon
 Share

Recommended Posts

To be honest - I am not sure I would rather have "organic" food over more understood and controlled production of food.  Bio chemical reactions are very defined and if science can balance the nutrients we need better in our food supplies; I have difficulty thinking we will be less healthy eating the better foods.

 

You know, whenever I hear someone going on about "organic" food, I always want to ask if there's any inorganic food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that some are concerned about eating foods that are produced in a controlled genetic environment where any genetic changes are carefully monitored in opposition to a completely uncontrolled and "wild" wide open genetic environment -- thinking that they will know more about what they are eating from the uncontrolled environment.

 

Just as a note - historically the most common genetic changes are caused by virus infections.  This is a very popular method of modern science as well.  The difference being that science attempts to control what the infecting virus is doing genetically in order to insure the most benefit.

 

To be honest - I am not sure I would rather have "organic" food over more understood and controlled production of food.  Bio chemical reactions are very defined and if science can balance the nutrients we need better in our food supplies; I have difficulty thinking we will be less healthy eating the better foods.

 

I'm of the opposite camp.  I do not pretend to know God/nature so well that I know better how food is supposed to be made out of and how it is supposed to be so as to be efficiently processed by my physiology instead of letting nature take its course.  I try to be as holistic as possible and as organic as possible - and no, I'm not using the word organic like the produce section at grocery stores claim organic... that's more of a marketing gimmick these days.  I use organic as in - it grew out of my neighbor's garden or frolicked in my neighbor's pasture... and such.  But, of course, I'm not an extreme person so there are lots of grocery store items in my pantry including a stack of the latest Hostess goody that caught my eye (you know what they say... in a nuclear holocaust, cockroaches and twinkies will be the only things left in the planet).

 

My dogs don't eat kibbles in that dog food bag.  I don't trust that it is biologically appropriate for my dogs.  How much more for the humans in my family...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, whenever I hear someone going on about "organic" food, I always want to ask if there's any inorganic food.

 

You mean kinda like, why they cook bacon and bake cookies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I think ORGANIC, I want food that has not been sprayed with chemicals: insecticides, pesticides, fungicides, and shot up with growth hormones.

 

My neighbor uses so much Roundup that I have asked her to please not spray it, I don't want the over-spray on my plants.  I won't eat the vegetables and fruits from her garden. They are far from being organic. 

 

When she goes to spray the chemical goop on her house, I hire the guy to come and use a sponge mop to apply it, so there is no over-spray to me. 

 

I kill the spiders that take up residence under my eaves by washing them with ammonia. I kill the dandelions and broad leave weeds in my other neighbors and my yard with high acidic vinegar. 

 

RipFoster why do you say that about Rodale? Are you employed by Monsanto, Dow, or their subsidiaries???  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite, since organic/inorganic has to do with the presence or absence of carbon. Everything else is marketing to people who don't know any better.

 

Chemically speaking this is true. Although it has always seemed a somewhat stupid title, organic in the marketplace does refer to specific standards that said product must meet to be labeled as such. Sadly it is also true that the organic label does get abused, but to state that those supporting organics lack intelligence (don't know any better) is simply uncalled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been modifying food since the dawn of time.

Plant genes are so easy to modify we don't event need laboratory equipment to do it. Kids helping out on the farm are able to do so (and win awards at the 4H for their creations).

I'm actually pretty excited about all the Ag programs who are working at getting the nutrients back into food that we've bred out completely over the past 50 years (apples are the common example... Those pretty pretty pretty ones are not only mushy and awful tasting, they've lost most of their nutrients... But less ooh-la-la food are also victims of 365 available fruit & veg.).

Similarly, we've had some pretty epidemic-level food infections & infestations both recently (past 100 years) as well as historically.

So foods which used to have ABC % and XYZ nutrients were killed off by this plague, that blight, etc... While the hardy versions are seriously lacking.

Can we breed them back?

Given a few thousand generations (decades at the least).... Yes.

It's what farmers have always done. Even though they're not always successful.

Anyhow... If they want to LABEL genetically modified food?

They're going to have to label ALL of it.

- Every orange carrot (started out white, eventually bred to purple, then -purple carrots are bitter- toned down to orange)

- Every sweet apple (ever had a crab apple? That's what apples were pre farmers... About the size of a big marble, sour as blazes and rock hard)

- Every ear of corn with more than 3 kernals on it (maize started out with THREE seeds! Farmers in mezoamerical got it to 9, then the NE United States got them to 33, meso pushed the count again to 120 something... Really the regions volleyed back and forth for millenia).

The list goes on. Because ALL the fruit & veg we eat has been modified. By people.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chemically speaking this is true. Although it has always seemed a somewhat stupid title, organic in the marketplace does refer to specific standards that said product must meet to be labeled as such. Sadly it is also true that the organic label does get abused, but to state that those supporting organics lack intelligence (don't know any better) is simply uncalled for.

Sorry, that's the only way I can wrap my mind around the kind of person that demandsthat EVERYONE have food at a quarter the flavor, a tenth the actual quality and five times the cost simply because they're afraid of "BAD" chemicals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spirit Dragon, thank you for the link - I listened to the two - Andrew Kimbrell and Michael Hansen. Amazing - informative.

 

http://foodrevolutio...org/broadcasts/   If you scroll down the page there should be replay options for this mornings broadcasts. 

 

Andrew Kibrell is 49 minutes long, and Michael Hansen is 36 minutes long. 

 

kapikui, go there, listen and learn. You too, Traveler. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite, since organic/inorganic has to do with the presence or absence of carbon. Everything else is marketing to people who don't know any better.

 

And Liberal has to do with the presence or absence of individual liberty.  Everything else is marketing to people who don't know any better.

 

I think it's time for you to read up on the context of the word "organic" as used in this here thread.  So you'll know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how do you propose we feed the world without GMO?

 

Lots of ways.

 

I'm into aquaponics in addition to urban farming with rabbits and quail.  Lots of videos on youtube about successful application of this concept in a community.  You can feed an entire 3rd world country with just this.  Grains is not necessary for survival but I do have a 2 hectare rice farm too that feeds my family in the Philippines.

 

You just need to switch your brain onto a whole world of possibilities to see the alternatives to the current supply chain in a non-nomadic community.  There are tons of advantages to it besides a healthier lifestyle - reduction of dependency on fossil fuel is one major advantage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, that's the only way I can wrap my mind around the kind of person that demandsthat EVERYONE have food at a quarter the flavor, a tenth the actual quality and five times the cost simply because they're afraid of "BAD" chemicals. 

 

I don't know who you're talking about.  I have not seen anybody on this thread demand that everyone be forced to avoid "bad" chemicals.  I have not even seen them in society (not that they're not out there, they're really just not that vocal to be heard).  But "organic" enthusiasts don't go about demanding laws be changed to eradicate GMO.  All they want is to make it easier for them to identify produce in stores so they can choose which ones they want to buy through labeling.  It's the same idea for labeling all the ingredients and labeling the nutritional content of food.  Because, people want to know that when they buy Almond Milk, Almond Breeze has carrageenan and Silk Almond does not, etc.

 

And, from my experience, the stuff that grows out of our farm tastes a lot fuller than grocery store ones.  Farm eggs is the most noticeable of all.  And cucumbers.  And as far as quality... depends on your farming technique.  And as far as cost - it is cheaper with just a little bit of work if you know what you're doing.  But, we have to get this "organic" gimmick out of the system.  Real "organic" food is really much better - taste and quality-wise.  As far as cost - when it goes mainstream, the cost will go down.  It's all a matter of supporting your local farmers...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly every "organic" activist I've personally met, or conversed with online has been rather adamant about forcing out anything BUT "organic", and once you shoot down the pseudoscience they say will take care of the problems, has flat out said that the people that die because we can't keep up with the needs is ok because that's just part of "triage".  The earth can't support this many people "naturally", and there needs to be a program to decide who gets to actually live, they argue.  Of course only people with the "right" attitudes about politics, religeon, reproduction, etc get to live.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly every "organic" activist I've personally met, or conversed with online has been rather adamant about forcing out anything BUT "organic", and once you shoot down the pseudoscience they say will take care of the problems, has flat out said that the people that die because we can't keep up with the needs is ok because that's just part of "triage".  The earth can't support this many people "naturally", and there needs to be a program to decide who gets to actually live, they argue.  Of course only people with the "right" attitudes about politics, religeon, reproduction, etc get to live.  

 

Sorry you've had such a bad exprience with this.  Like most anything, there are extremists.  They are the minority.  I have not met one nor talked to one online.  The people I talk to are Paleo enthusiasts, Holistic practicioners (we go to a holistic doctor), small-time commercial farmers, and urban personal-consumption farmers.  I also talk to pet owners following holistic principles to pet care (the people who go to the farm for their dog food instead of the pet store).

 

The ones that drive me insane are the dog owners - especially the vets - that tell me - Don't feed your dog raw meat!  It's going to kill them!  You have to feed them kibbles or canned dog food because it is nutritionally balanced!  And then the vet tries to get me to feed my dog Science Diet.  Ugh!

 

The earth can support many people.  Anyone can grow a personal consumption farm even in their New-York-City-sized apartment.  And even people living in the desert can grow crops with minimal amount of water.  But, it does give way to a completely different outlook to food...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with that, It's nice to meet someone who isn't insane, completely stupid or using "natural" etc to pursue a totalitarian agenda.  My expierence indicates such are few and far between.

 

Interesting thing... there are people like Al Gore who is considered "extreme" in their agenda who is in it for a completely different reason than the agenda...  And then there are people like Daryl Hannah who is extreme in her agenda who is in it because she really does believe there is a better way.  They are 2 extremists but it's not Daryl who you need to be fighting against... it's Al.  Daryl is actually pretty sane and she is more into convincing people by showing them instead of legislating them.  Al will distort the truth so you'll be sympathetic to legislation.  I have no problem calling Al Gore an extremist.  I'm not as quick to assign the label to Daryl Hannah.  It will be like a Catholic calling an LDS "extremist" because they use water instead of wine in Sacrament.  If that's extremist, then it is good to be an extremist.

 

I dismiss anything Al Gore says.  Even when I can agree to it, it's just too much to wade through the junk to get at the little bit that is good and it gets blurred where the truth ends and where the fabrication begins.  I don't talk to people like him.  It's a waste of breath.

 

I actually enjoy listening to Daryl Hannah even when I don't agree with her.  I do see where she is coming from and why she believes that way.  And I can go back and forth in discussion with people like her.  A lot of the people I talk to are passionate in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with that, It's nice to meet someone who isn't insane, completely stupid or using "natural" etc to pursue a totalitarian agenda.  My expierence indicates such are few and far between.

 

I am also sorry that you've had poor experiences with extremists. I've yet to meet an organic extremist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every day I get an email from RodaleNews.com - http://www.rodalenews.com/states-gmo-labeling?cm_mmc=TheDailyFixNL-_-1684938-_-05012014-_-A_Huge_Win_for_GMO_Labeling_text this was in this mornings email: (Note, Michael Hansen was the key speaker from the link that I posted in a previous post, so Rodale is providing "facts") 

 

 

What the Historic Vermont GMO Labeling Law Means for the Rest of Us

Experts and players in the GMO labeling game tell us how Vermont's GMO labeling law could impact other states' GMO labeling efforts.

BY LEAH ZERBE

tags: genetically modified organisms (gmo), gmos, pesticides

 

 

States' GMO labeling efforts will likely gain a positive push thanks to Vermont's historic move that—once the governor has signed the state's bill into law as expected—will require labels on all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.

 

Mandatory GMO labeling requirements in Vermont are set to go into effect in July 2016, but experts say the state legislature's historic move to label GMOs will reverberate all over the country.

To see how this might all play out, we turned to GMO experts and the Vermont Attorney General's office to answer some of our questions. Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, the policy and action division of Consumer Reports; Scott Faber, executive director of JustLabelIt.org, a campaign aimed at GMO labeling on a national level; and Bridget Asay, Vermont's assistant attorney general, spoke to Rodale News to help us understand the significance of what's happening in Vermont.

 

How does the GMO labeling bill passed by the Vermont legislature differ from other ones passed in other states?

Michael Hansen: This is the first one that will actually go into effect. The other bills, passed in both Maine and Connecticut, were largely symbolic. For instance, in Connecticut, GMO labeling will only go into effect after at least four other states enact similar laws. The bill also requires that a combination of Northeast states enacting similar laws must be home to at least 20 million residents.

In Maine's case, the legislation won't go into effect until five nearby states, including New Hampshire, pass similar labeling laws. So those bills, even though they passed, aren't in effect.

What's new about Vermont is that it's the first state that will require labeling. Not,We'll do this when a number of other people do it as well. That's very courageous of them. When the Senate judiciary committee talked about this, they said if we're going to do something, we want it to be meaningful.

 

The bill includes another important element other than GMO labeling, does it?

Yes. Not only will there be labeling of genetically engineered ingredients, but things that contain GE materials will not be able to labeled as "natural," either.

 

Is this new labeling requirement going to cost industry lots of money because they have to change all of their packaging?

MH: No. This law will go into effect on July 1, 2016. That's when labels would be mandatory. That gives long enough lead time so companies don't have to immediately change labels. Lots of labels, they usually get changed every six months or so anyway.

 

Scott Faber: We commissioned a study and showed that companies change their packages all of the time to highlight new attributes. There's no cost associated with adding a few words during a routine label change. It's the classic tale of the food industry opposing any change designed to benefit consumers, whether to make things more transparent, safer, or healthier.

 

Is there a good chance that the food industry and GMO supporters could sue the state of Vermont?

Bridget Asay: Our office provides advice to the legislature, and we think there's significant risk of litigation.

 

What provision did the Vermont legislature make for possible litigation?

BA: The bill as passed includes a provision for a fund that the state attorney general's office can draw on for defense costs if there is litigation.

The fund that's in the statute says the state can accept private donations for the fund. Certain settlements or revenues received by the attorney general's office can also go into the fund, and legislature can appropriate money, too.

 

How might the food industry or biotech companies sue over the upcoming GMO labeling requirement in Vermont?

BA: The legislature heard input from several attorneys, including the attorney general's office. Some of the issues identified include preemption and the Commerce Clause.

Preemption is a doctrine that applies if someone is arguing that a federal law already covers an issue. The Commerce Clause is a constitutional provision that places some limits on the ability of states to regulate interstate commerce; it could be used to say a state is overstepping what it can regulate in terms of its impact on interstate commerce.

 

MH: Vermont will probably be sued. But many organizations said they would help defend the case and the state's actions, including the Center for Food Safety and Consumers Union. We believe it's constitutional.

 

If industry is forced to say something it doesn't want to say, it could fall under compelled speech. But there are criteria legally for when compelled speech is OK. Is the speech truthful and factual, and does it not take a viewpoint? Is there a compelling state interest to require the information?

 

Do you think other states will follow Vermont's lead and pass GMO labeling laws?

SF: Vermont is the first state to pass mandatory labeling, but it certainly won't be the last state. Twenty-six other states are considering legislative or ballot initiatives, too, and we expect many of those legislatures to follow Vermont's lead.

 

Ultimately, the best solution is a national mandatory-labeling scheme, but until FDA and the food industry show more leadership, we'll have to continue to give people this right on a state-by-state basis.

 

MH: There's movement now in other states. There will be a ballot initiative on labeling this fall in Oregon. And in May, Jackson County, OR, passed anordinance that would ban the planting of GMOs because they can contaminate farmers growing non-GE varieties. Monsanto has already pumped $150,000 into that campaign.

 

In New York, state Democratic Assemblyman David Buchwald—someone who had voted against a mandatory GE-mandatory labeling bill in the past—now says he's voting for it. So now it looks like they have enough votes to move the bill out of the Consumer Affairs Committee and into New York's assembly.

 

There's movement in California, as well, with Senate Bill 1381 heading to the Appropriations Committee. Things are moving in various states. Vermont doing this will only spur more action.

 

How much money are corporate interests dumping into defeating GMO labeling?

MH: In the past two years—in California and Washington State alone—the biotech and big-food companies collectively spent $70 million to defeat GMO labeling ballot initiatives. Yes, they won, but only 51 percent to 49 percent. 

 

Something like Vermont is only going to energize people. Even though they were defeated in Washington state, when you look at all of the funding from the other side, it was unprecedented.

 

Why are food corporations so anti-labeling?

SF: Unfortunately, some food and biotech companies will continue to fight to deny Americans the right to know any way they can. But it's wrong to say the food industry is speaking with one opposing voice; many food companies and many conventional companies support GMO labeling.

 

What's a major threat to state and federal GMO-labeling efforts?

SF: Unfortunately, Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) has introduced federal legislation that would not only block states from requiring GMO labeling, but also FDA, too. It would also allow companies to continue making "natural" claims. It's an audacious and terrible proposal that we're fighting with all of our resources. (Here's how you can oppose the DARK Act.)

 

Why is it important to label GMOs, anyway?

SF: There's so much confusion about what's in food. Many people believe foods labeled "natural" are GE-free. That's why it's important to have simple disclosure.

 

Need another reason to label GMOs? A recent Norwegian study found GMOs are causing us to eat "extreme" levels of Roundup, a popular herbicide sprayed in high doses on GMO crops. 

Published on: April 29, 2014
Updated on: April 30, 2014

 

To those posters who think we should believe everything that is told to us because it is *science* that is doing the talking and *science* would never lie to us. Well, they do lie, all the time. They especially lie when they are bought off by Monsanto. Remember the movie Soylent Green?  Though it is sci- fi, there is always the possibility that science fiction does come true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is this new labeling requirement going to cost industry lots of money because they have to change all of their packaging?

MH: No. This law will go into effect on July 1, 2016. That's when labels would be mandatory. That gives long enough lead time so companies don't have to immediately change labels. Lots of labels, they usually get changed every six months or so anyway.

 

Scott Faber: We commissioned a study and showed that companies change their packages all of the time to highlight new attributes. There's no cost associated with adding a few words during a routine label change. It's the classic tale of the food industry opposing any change designed to benefit consumers, whether to make things more transparent, safer, or healthier.

 

 

This is a very short-sighted answer.

 

Labeling "straight from the factory"... sure.  But, a lot of these GMO foods are ingredients to other stuff - for example, the corn used by some Tortilla company may come from GMO corn or may come from non-GMO corn.  That Tortilla company will now have to track GMO ingredients to be label-compliant.  This means, a Business Architecture change or at the very least an IT Architecture change.  This costs a lot of money and is not just a 6-month project.

 

Let me put it this way... when a group of lawyers in Hawaii who had same-gender spouses joined the Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance group, BCBS had to spend an insane amount of money and time to change their entire system so that claims rejection routines such as "maternity coverage cannot be provided to a spouse with materinity coverage" will be removed...

 

If it's a piece of information and it now needs to be tracked, lots of IT cost comes with it... Welcome to the digital world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My objection to GMOs is their parent companies business practices, including going on to non-customer's farms and stealing samples of the plants to test for patented genes from cross-pollination and then suing the poor farmers.

 

Absolutely. We've been modifying foods for millenia, that's not the point. I want to know what I'm eating. I want to know about Monsanto's involvement in the food I eat - including its lawsuits against farmers.

 

When I teach information policy, I include a section on consumer food information. I admit, it gives me a place to rant (and inform students about) ag-gag laws as well as GMO issues. Being in a rural state, many of my students have either lived on farms or have family members who still run farms. They are not ignorant when it comes to food issues. You see a lot of info on this  on the veg*n sites, but you don't have to be veg*n to want to know what's in  your food or be against animal cruelty.  Last term, even though everyone in class was an omnivore, they were against ag-gag legislation and for GMO labeling. More and more people want to know what they're putting in their mouths and how it got on their plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned with what happens after the food is harvested.  I have a friend who is a chemist who works in food processing.  They add so many ingredients to foods it is crazy!  They add chemicals to change the texture and taste to make people crave more of it.  If you use any processed foods you are eating some strange stuff,  I am convinced the best diet would be for me to have my friend tell me what the chemicals are and what they are used for in every food I eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned with what happens after the food is harvested.  I have a friend who is a chemist who works in food processing.  They add so many ingredients to foods it is crazy!  They add chemicals to change the texture and taste to make people crave more of it.  If you use any processed foods you are eating some strange stuff,  I am convinced the best diet would be for me to have my friend tell me what the chemicals are and what they are used for in every food I eat.

 

All that is already on the label by FDA regulation.

 

GMO labeling supporters want to add to that label what goes into the food before it is harvested...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share