GMO Foods: No one can seriously dispute what?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@qazwart

Yeah, Louis Pasture never fooled around with nature!

My point was that Louis Pasteur never tried to hide his process. First, he named it after himself. Second, products seem downright proud to label themselves as Pasteurized, even to this day. The only thing ol’ Pasteur didn’t do is shout about it from the rooftops, and I’m not 100% sure he didn’t.

No one has ever stated what makes GMO products so dangerous except to say that GMO itself is evil.

Jesus, I wish people would quit pretending this is my argument.

Organic farmers may spray their crops with organic nicotine sulfate and still call them organic. Yet, the use of neonicotinoids are now suspended for use in the European Union for further study on its affect on honey bees while organic farmers can continue spraying their crops with nicotine sulfite.

Both products are actually very similar. The main difference is that the artificially made neonicotinoids are less toxic to the overall environment than nicotine sulfate since neonicotinoids were designed to solely attack insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptor while not affecting the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in mammals and birds. Nicotine sulfite affects the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor of all animals.

Although nicotine sulfide is a toxic chemical for humans, no one is insisting on labeling produce that was sprayed with this toxin, and no one is insisting that all food that is made from plants sprayed with this toxin is properly labeled. Instead, people are insisting upon labeling our food for something where no proof exists that it is causing one whit of harm.

Are you suggesting that the use of these herbicides ought to require better labeling, or even regulation? It kind of sounds like you are, and if you don’t mind my 2 cents, you may be on to something.

But anyway, harm isn’t why GM products ought to be labeled. Can you understand that that is my position, regardless of whether you ‘get’ it?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Irishman

Wait, it’s not Congress’ business, but you want Congress to write and pass a law to force Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and everybody else to label whether or not any GMO products are used anywhere in their final product?

If it’s not Congress’ business, then keep Congress out of it. Start a NO GMO organization that certifies foodstreams to be GMO free and provides their NO GMO seal of approval, then contact food producers (farmers, grocery stores, agribusiness companies, etc) and market to them the advantage of certifying themselves GMO, and using your company to do so.

Congress has inserted themselves into this by allowing GM products to avoid labeling, such that it is quite difficult for anyone to reliably avoid eating them.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@CurtC

If it’s accurate labeling that you’re after, then what do you decide is worth a label?

For example, I don’t care if the produce I buy is GMO, but I do care what pesticides were used in growing it. Do we label that?

I dunno. Do those pesticides ultimately amount to an ingredient? If so, yes. If not, well then what do you think?

Others here may care more about whether the workers who harvested that produce were paid a proper wage and had decent working conditions. Do we label that?

I dunno. Seems like people can be aware of the corporate practices of companies from whom they buy things. Is this information that just can’t be known without labeling?

Both of those things seem more important that consumers should know than whether it is a GMO.

I demand that every piece of produce I buy have a three-page label! Not giving me this three-page label is deception.

Meh, strawman. Your examples amount to single phrases in any case.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Because your justification for GM applies to everything else and becomes ludicrous very quickly when seen outside of the purview of GM. I see no reason to label GM, because GM has no effect on the final product. It’s like complaining that your beer was stored in cooling tanks cooled by glycol and demanding labeling for that.
You want GM labeling. Why? Give me one good reason that isn’t either completely arbitrary and doesn’t apply to whatever other random bullshit that nobody should reasonably give a shit about. That should not be difficult.

Since when does the claim that a product is safe mandate that people must buy it without their knowledge? The Chevy Cruze is considered safe AFAIK, yet nobody is required to buy it. Broccoli is considered actively good for you, yet during the Obamacare debates the pubbies mocked the (to them) implied slippery slope that laws mandating the purchase of broccoli would be passed.

Yet the purchase and consumption of GM foods is effectively mandatory. Effectively because of the influence of the companies that produce them. That isn’t right- people ought to be able to choose what they buy and what they eat. They don’t have to justify their decisions to you, or to Monsanto, or you-name-it, regardless of all the dressing of it as a religious issue or what-have-you. People’s money belongs to them, not Monsanto &etc. Except, under our current system, a percentage of it apparently does belong to Monsanto. And this strikes me as corruption on the grandest scale.

If Monsanto and its allies firmly believe that this position is the result of ignorance and stupidity, maybe they ought to reconsider their support of the GOP and its anti-education policies instead of fighting labeling.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Since when does the claim that a product is safe mandate that people must buy it without their knowledge? The Chevy Cruze is considered safe AFAIK, yet nobody is required to buy it. Broccoli is considered actively good for you, yet during the Obamacare debates the pubbies mocked the (to them) implied slippery slope that laws mandating the purchase of broccoli would be passed.

Yet the purchase and consumption of GM foods is effectively mandatory.

It is as mandatory as the purchase and consumption of non-Halal foods. Also, read that article on hatepseudoscience.com.

The only purpose for labeling is to mark the products for those already inclined to avoid them. Since this aversion is not based on any demonstrable safety, environmental or health concern, it’s a result of personal ideology. If we start labeling foods which violate personal ideology, then we’re going to have to label them non-kosher as well. My personal ideology says to avoid crops harvested under a full moon. I have no data to demonstrate that these crops should be avoided, but I’m going to need a label anyway.

So, labeling is not really about knowing anything of interest to anyone who isn’t anti-GMO. It does nothing to help the average consumer make an informed choice, and is likely to confuse instead. To argue the right to know is to argue for transparency, and what should be transparent is the research. The research says GE crops on the market are of no more concern than conventional crops. To ignore the research and focus only on a single data point is to disregard the very transparency you are asking for.

There is no justification to mandate labeling based on ideology. Full stop.

[Jackmannii]

[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive]
Yet the purchase and consumption of GM foods is effectively mandatory.ir support of the GOP and its anti-education policies instead of fighting labeling.
[/QUOTE]
Someone should tell the Non-GMO Project that their certification of all these foods was useless, since purchase and consumption of GM foods is “mandatory”. :dubious:

[Irishman]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

But anyway, harm isn’t why GM products ought to be labeled. Can you understand that that is my position, regardless of whether you ‘get’ it?

Then why should GM products be labeled? What makes them worth labeling?

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Congress has inserted themselves into this by allowing GM products to avoid labeling, such that it is quite difficult for anyone to reliably avoid eating them.

By not requiring labeling, Congress is inserting themselves into the process?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

But anyway, harm isn’t why GM products ought to be labeled. Can you understand that that is my position, regardless of whether you ‘get’ it?

Yes, I most of us understand your point. However, there is objective harm in labeling for no reason.

1. It implies there is something wrong or categorically different with the product, which can reduce sales

2. It plays into unfounded fear of GMOs, which can reduce sales and sway popular opinion against development of really useful GM products (delivery of vaccines, drought resistant crops etc).

3. It requires changing manufacturing software, labels etc that may cause companies money

4. Companies routinely source ingredients for different suppliers, some may be GM, some not. You’d have to switch between different labels.

5. To NOT have to label under these rules you’d have to demonstrate you’re truly GM free, making extra work and cost to prove you’re not a GM product. Right now it’s optional, so if a company wants that GM label, they choose to undergo
   oversight. Now all companies would have prove they’re GM free to be exempt from labeling. That’s an undo burden on all companies and especially small companies.

So, there is no benefit demonstrated to “warning” people a food contains GM derived products and real harm by requiring they do so.

[DingoelGringo]

@Claverhouse

I love the idea that people have no right to be told what crap they are eating. Shut up and Eat.
American food makers get away with very limited and confusing reporting on the packaging as it is — and when the EU mandates full reporting, so we know what we’re getting into, not infrequently they ban ingredients the Americans allow, and that they can’t even know are included.
I’m grateful.

REal food doesn’t have labels. Have you ever pulled a carrot out of the ground and looked for the label? Or a potato or even a beef steak carries no label until and unless someone sticks it on. The labeling of food is really just the labeling of nonfood. A list of the nonfood that is put into a can in hopes that people will eat it.
Bananas and papayas and melons have no labels, they are real food monosodium glutimate and nondemagnetized over oxidized negative silicones are not. But people are likely to stir them all together and stick them in a can and try to sell them to folks who do not know what real food is.
Eat beans and corn, don’t concern yourself with whether someone is forced to list everything put into a can for you.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Yes, I most of us understand your point. However, there is objective harm in labeling for no reason.
5. To NOT have to label under these rules you’d have to demonstrate you’re truly GM free, making extra work and cost to prove you’re not a GM product. Right now it’s optional, so if a company wants that GM label, they choose to undergo
oversight. Now all companies would have prove they’re GM free to be exempt from labeling. That’s an undo burden on all companies and especially small companies.

So, there is no benefit demonstrated to “warning” people a food contains GM derived products and real harm by requiring they do so.

"wants that GM*-free** label", of course. :smack:

[CurtC]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Congress has inserted themselves into this by allowing GM products to avoid labeling, such that it is quite difficult for anyone to reliably avoid eating them.

Congress inserted themselves in it by not addressing it? Yes, and Beyonce has inserted herself into it by not saying anything about labeling GMOs.

@Try2B_Comprehensive

[re: labeling for fair labor practices]I dunno. Seems like people can be aware of the corporate practices of companies from whom they buy things. Is this information that just can’t be known without labeling?

Wouldn’t this apply to GMO?

[tracer]

@DingoelGringo

REal food doesn’t have labels. Have you ever pulled a carrot out of the ground and looked for the label? Or a potato or even a beef steak carries no label until and unless someone sticks it on. The labeling of food is really just the labeling of nonfood. A list of the nonfood that is put into a can in hopes that people will eat it.

Kraft Macaroni and Cheese is every bit as real as a carrot pulled straight out of the ground. But with less dirt.

[Fear_Itself]

@tracer

Kraft Macaroni and Cheese is every bit as real as a carrot pulled straight out of the ground. But with less dirt.

As far as you know…

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@DingoelGringo

REal food doesn’t have labels. Have you ever pulled a carrot out of the ground and looked for the label? Or a potato or even a beef steak carries no label until and unless someone sticks it on. The labeling of food is really just the labeling of nonfood. A list of the nonfood that is put into a can in hopes that people will eat it.

What a bizarre and misled opinion. Especially given that any food that is in any way processed has a label. Indeed, the only reason why the things you listed have no label is because they are single-ingredient foods. There’s no need for a label of what’s in it. However, a bag of fruit salad containing nothing but bananas, papayas, and melons will still contain a label of ingredients.

Bananas and papayas and melons have no labels, they are real food monosodium glutimate and nondemagnetized over oxidized negative silicones are not.

Well duh. Nobody ever called them food (well, MSG anyways - no idea what that other thing is you’re talking about). They’re food additives like salt or pepper, which are designed to spice up the food, or make it cook better, or the like. Not entirely sure what you mean by “food” really. They aren’t food on their own but the dishes they’re included in are definitely food.

But people are likely to stir them all together and stick them in a can and try to sell them to folks who do not know what real food is.

You forgot the scare quotes - “real” food. There’s nothing fake or threatening about food which isn’t straight from the earth. There’s nothing wrong with adding spices like MSG or pepper. I’m not sure how that disqualifies “real” food; it certainly isn’t necessarily worse for you or better-tasting.

Eat beans and corn, don’t concern yourself with whether someone is forced to list everything put into a can for you.

Not to encourage misinformation, but given that this thread is about GMOs, you miiiiiight be missing the point just a little bit. This isn’t about food in a can, this is about food plucked straight out of the ground.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

There is no justification to mandate labeling based on ideology. Full stop.

Look. Ingredients go on the label. It isn’t a matter of ideology, it is simply SOP. Does your can of soup contain carrots? If so, ‘carrots’ appears on the label. People are free to do with that information whatever they wish. I think framing GM labeling as strictly ideological is a straw man.

There are carrots, and then there are GM carrots. If they were the same, the manufacturers would not go to the trouble to genetically modify them in the first place. So label them.

@Jackmannii

Someone should tell the Non-GMO Project that their certification of all these foods was useless, since purchase and consumption of GM foods is “mandatory”. :dubious:

That is a nice effort, but it leaves unanswered questions, such as, “What are the ingredients of this bag of Doritos? Is it GM corn, or not?”

I think the hassle of labeling GM products is overblown. Companies know where they get their stuff from. They are the manufacturers after all. This isn’t so mysterious.

@Irishman

Then why should GM products be labeled? What makes them worth labeling?

Because they are distinct ingredients. Food gets labeled in this country. Contrary to what DionelGringo says, even things like raw potatoes and carrots are labeled. I made a stew with 3 varieties of potatoes the other day. I knew I was using Red and Russet, and not using, say, yams.

By not requiring labeling, Congress is inserting themselves into the process?

Because corporate interests such as Monsanto have suppressed what would otherwise be a commonsense, SOP decision: label the ingredients. They’ve carved out a special exception for just their products alone, specifically because they know people don’t want to buy them, and possibly because they aren’t proud to put “GM” on the label.

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Yes, I most of us understand your point. However, there is objective harm in labeling for no reason.

1. It implies there is something wrong or categorically different with the product, which can reduce sales

No, it just says what the ingredients are. “Ingredients: water”. Does that imply there is something “wrong or categorically different with the product”? No, it says it contains water. I suppose H20 is categorically different from every other ingredient, but then again so are GM products. Just label the ingredients.

2. It plays into unfounded fear of GMOs, which can reduce sales and sway popular opinion against development of really useful GM products (delivery of vaccines, drought resistant crops etc).

That would make a great commercial, but it makes for lousy public policy. I’m not sure how great a commercial product is if people won’t buy it- kind of the opposite of a great commercial product if you ask me. Carving out a special exception to labeling GM products at the behest of the interests producing them such that people have little choice but to buy and eat them against their will- that’s creepy. Just label the ingredients already.

3. It requires changing manufacturing software, labels etc that may cause companies money

So does labeling monosodium glutamate. Nobody is throwing a tantrum over that. Manufacturers know if they are including that ingredient or not. Just label the ingredients, sheesh!

4. Companies routinely source ingredients for different suppliers, some may be GM, some not. You’d have to switch between different labels.

That’s too bad.

5. To NOT have to label under these rules you’d have to demonstrate you’re truly GM free, making extra work and cost to prove you’re not a GM product. Right now it’s optional, so if a company wants that GM label, they choose to undergo
   oversight. Now all companies would have prove they’re GM free to be exempt from labeling. That’s an undo burden on all companies and especially small companies.

It is the cost of doing business. I really don’t believe it is a backbreaker for giant corporations to know the details of their sources of ingredients. After all, their product quality already depends on it. Boo hoo, just label the ingredients, capice?

So, there is no benefit demonstrated to “warning” people a food contains GM derived products and real harm by requiring they do so.

Sure there is a benefit: people know what they are buying and eating, consistent with basic freedom, as is intended in America. And two letters on a label is hardly a ‘harm’- what farce! Your plan reduces Americans to some kind of corporate prole status. I don’t like that, and one could make the case that being unwillingly reduced to the status of a corporate prole is a harm. Just.label.the.ingredients.

[Killing_Time]

Fascinating thread. I felt compelled to register because of this comment, which I find illogical:

@Try2B_Comprehensive

There are carrots, and then there are GM carrots. If they were the same, the manufacturers would not go to the trouble to genetically modify them in the first place. So label them.

There are hundreds of varieties of carrot. Some, I presume, are GMO. But many are not. If all of those hundreds of varieties were the same, as you stated, manufacturers would not have gone to the trouble to produce them. A GMO carrot is a carrot. The fact that it is “not the same” as other varieties of carrot does not mean it isn’t a carrot. It is simply another variety of carrot. If you believe otherwise, the onus is on you to prove it isn’t a carrot.

So it is either o.k. to list “carrots” as an ingredient, covering every conceivable variety of carrot, or it is NOT o.k. to do so. If it is NOT o.k., then it is only logical to presume that we must include information on the variety of carrot, out of the hundreds of possible varieties, whether GMO or not. You have no evidence that there is any intrinsic difference between GMO carrots and non-GMO carrots or that either type is any more or less dangerous than the other. Therefore, the line you are drawing in saying “these varieties must be specifically listed, but these OTHER varieties don’t have to be specifically listed”, is completely arbitrary.

[Irishman]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

What a bizarre and misled opinion. Especially given that any food that is in any way processed has a label. Indeed, the only reason why the things you listed have no label is because they are single-ingredient foods. There’s no need for a label of what’s in it. However, a bag of fruit salad containing nothing but bananas, papayas, and melons will still contain a label of ingredients.

My bag of sugar has a label, with ingredients listed. It says “sugar”.

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Look. Ingredients go on the label. It isn’t a matter of ideology, it is simply SOP. Does your can of soup contain carrots? If so, ‘carrots’ appears on the label. People are free to do with that information whatever they wish. I think framing GM labeling as strictly ideological is a straw man.

There are carrots, and then there are GM carrots. If they were the same, the manufacturers would not go to the trouble to genetically modify them in the first place. So label them.

My can of carrots has a label that says “Carrots”. It doesn’t tell me which variety of carrot it is, or which cultivar.

Carrots on wikipedia

Different types of carrots

eHow types of carrots

Then there’s this gem on baby carrots:

Bob Borda, a spokesman for Grimmway Farms, the world’s largest carrot grower (it handles 10 million pounds every day), says that over the years the company has developed a hybrid that combines the best qualities from over 250 known commercial varieties.

That’s 250 known commercial varieties of baby carrot - not including full grown carrots that are separate varieties. Do your supermarkets label them? My bag of baby carrots says “Ingredients: carrots”. They don’t even tell me if they are Thumbelina, Little Finger, or Parmex.

I made a stew with 3 varieties of potatoes the other day. I knew I was using Red and Russet, and not using, say, yams.

You knew which potatoes you used because you selected them for your stew. But if you buy a commercial stew product, it will typically just say “potatoes”.

wikipedia on potatoes

Following centuries of selective breeding, there are now over a thousand different types of potatoes.

Just.label.the.ingredients.

The.ingredients.are.labeled.

[Jackmannii]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

(The Non GMO Project) is a nice effort, but it leaves unanswered questions, such as, “What are the ingredients of this bag of Doritos? Is it GM corn, or not?”

OMG, are you being forced to buy Doritos? The company is compelling you to buy their product, instead of these non-GMO corn chips? It’s like Russia, man. :mad:

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Look. Ingredients go on the label. It isn’t a matter of ideology, it is simply SOP. Does your can of soup contain carrots? If so, ‘carrots’ appears on the label. People are free to do with that information whatever they wish. I think framing GM labeling as strictly ideological is a straw man.

There are carrots, and then there are GM carrots. If they were the same, the manufacturers would not go to the trouble to genetically modify them in the first place. So label them.

Except that GM carrots quite clearly fall under the purview of “carrots”. They’re not substantially different. They have minor modifications that differentiate them from every other breed of carrot - you know, just like every other breed of carrot has.

That is a nice effort, but it leaves unanswered questions, such as, “What are the ingredients of this bag of Doritos? Is it GM corn, or not?”

Indeed! And while we’re at it…

• Is it Bt corn?
• Is it Roundup-Ready corn?
• Is it Earlivee corn?
• Is it Early Sunglow corn?
• Is it Seneca Horizon corn?
• Is it Sundance corn?
• Is it Early Golden Bantam corn?
• Is it even su corn? Could be se, or sh2 corn

See the problem here? Bt corn is not significantly more different from Sundance corn than Sundance corn is from heirloom corn. Hell, Bt corn is almost certainly less different from heirloom corn than heirloom is different to any given sh2 or se variety (depending of course on what the Bt corn’s engineering was based on). Only the method by which the change was induced is different. That should not matter as much as the end result. And keep in mind that all I listed here, save the first two, are popular commercially- and privately-grown strains of sweet corn - all of the su variety, all yellow. Why aren’t you pushing to have them labeled?

Because they are distinct ingredients. Food gets labeled in this country. Contrary to what DionelGringo says, even things like raw potatoes and carrots are labeled. I made a stew with 3 varieties of potatoes the other day. I knew I was using Red and Russet, and not using, say, yams.

THAT’S your comparison?

Sweet potato

“The sweet potato is only distantly related to the potato (Solanum tuberosum) and does not belong to the nightshade family.”

Real African yams are even less closely related to potatoes, and similarly distant to sweet potatoes. This is not an issue of “different types below the species level”, this is an issue of “entirely different genus”. (Oh, and they taste completely different as well!) That’s really one of the silliest comparisons I’ve ever heard. Do you know anything about genetics? What’s more, if the label listed the precise breed of potato (although russet and red are not particularly specific descriptors), that was clearly voluntary - looking at the label for, say, Lays chips, all it says is “potatoes”.

Because corporate interests such as Monsanto have suppressed what would otherwise be a commonsense, SOP decision: label the ingredients. They’ve carved out a special exception for just their products alone, specifically because they know people don’t want to buy them, and possibly because they aren’t proud to put “GM” on the label.

See, this just ain’t true. They’ve used a slightly different technique - one which for the most part has no impact whatsoever on the end consumer - to modify their breed of corn, and expected to be given the same treatment as any other corn breeder who uses various techniques to influence the yield. There’s absolutely nothing special about Monsanto not wanting their corn specially labeled. It’s absolutely standard that we don’t include the technique by which the corn was bred. I mean, would you also like to see labeling for modern hybridization techniques as well?

I suppose H20 is categorically different from every other ingredient, but then again so are GM products.

And this is the root of the problem. When you say GM products are categorically different, you are wrong. They are no more different than products produced any other way. Remember, the main safety test for them is checking if the genes modified lead to differences in consumption! You constantly show how bad your understanding of this issue is when you compare it to things like labeling MSG (a unique food additive that is categorically different from other things added), or labeling the type of potato (not mandated, and YAMS ARE NOT POTATOES). No. GM corn is a type of corn. It is not significantly more different than any other breed of corn. Only the tools we used to breed it are different. We label GM corn. You know how we label it? “Corn”. Because that’s what it is!

[CurtC]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Look. Ingredients go on the label. It isn’t a matter of ideology, it is simply SOP. Does your can of soup contain carrots? If so, ‘carrots’ appears on the label.

Everyone else has already explained this, so I’ll just concur - there are many types of carrots, and there is no reason to single-out GM technology from all the other varieties. Except for your uninformed ideology. We don’t cater to that.

Because corporate interests such as Monsanto have suppressed what would otherwise be a commonsense, SOP decision: label the ingredients. They’ve carved out a special exception for just their products alone…

Wait, what?

What special exemption? I thought you were upset with Congress for not taking the action that you want them to take. But now you’re saying that they’ve taken some action to specifically single-out GMOs? Cite?