Why do people oppose the labeling of genetically engineered foods?

I’m at a loss. I honestly just don’t get it.

Here’s a very thorough, though slanted, website: http://www.voteyeson27.com/learn.htm.

What are the downsides of passing Measure 27? Is there any reason to oppose Measure 27 other than economic pressure from agribusiness and biotec companies?

This is a bit like saying “Isn’t there any good reason for holding your breath forever, except that you might die?”

Rephrase: Are there any practical (non-political) reasons that an individual would choose not to know whether their food had been genetically modified?

Simply put: by requiring labeling, the government would be tacitly acknowledging the specious claims of anti-GM protesters. Companies are not going to roll over and die for them. On top of which.

I suspect companies want to avoid the implication that this is some kind of warning, and that foods modifed in some ways are different or more dangerous than foods modified in other ways.

Some alarmists no doubt would like a big red skull and crossbones on them. The idea there is to kill the market.

Regards,
Shodan

Labelling advocates want to kill the market, even if the result is to kill people. Although people in Zimbabwe are starving, their President Robert Mugabe recently turned down an offer of 10,000 metric tonnes of relief maize from the United States, because it was genetically engineered. In this case, a wrong-headed belief that genetically engineered food is risky to eat has helped lead to a policy under which people will starve to death.

If you want to get angry at the labeling advocates, take a look at this site, where they celebrate Mugabe’s inhuman decision.

cite? I mean really.

If I’m undecided, am I advocating bulimia? If I favour voluntary labelling backed by an accreditation process am I playing Russian roulette? How about an accreditation process for non-GM foods (where the costs would fall on those who seek a competitive advantage from those who worry about long term effects)?

The cite was provided in my post. But, here it is again http://www.thecampaign.org/News/june02u.htm

I’ve voiced this opinion before, and I’ll do it again:
I would rather have the genetically modified stuff than I had something that’s been bred in the traditional sense.
With the GM stuff, someone understands the mechanism that causes the produce to be better.
Let’s say you’ve got potatoes that are immune to a certain type of pest. If these potatoes have been bred in the traditional way, all you know is that the particular pest in question leaves your new potatoes alone. Whether it just doesn’t taste good to the pest, or whether the potatoes produce some kind of poison you just don’t know. Since you don’t know the mechanism, how can you tell if the new potatoes are save.
If, on the other hand, your potatoes are genetically modified, you know before the first one is ever grown by exactly what mechanism you expect this potato to be immune to the pest. You know beforehand whether it is a poison or a bad taste (or whatever else) that will cause the pest to leave your potatoes alone. Since you know the mechanism, you are also in a position to tell if it will have an effect on people.
Take the scenario in which the potatoes produce a poison. If the potatoes were bred in the traditional manner, you don’t even know if a poison is being produced - let alone whether or not it is safe for human consumption. In the case of the GM potatoes, you know exactly what poison is being produced, and can either predict that it will not be a problem for humans - or you can do testing if it is a new poison.
Before you begin protesting, poisons are one the mechanisms by which plants protect themselves from pests. Don’t bother with the “but it is natural so it can’t be harmful” argument. The simplest counter to that is “how about a nice plate of salad with some deadly nightshade?”
Truth to tell, I’d be more inclined to require labelling of non-GM foods:
“Caution:This product contains untested produce of uncertain safety.”
I don’t see any need to label foods containing GM produce.

December, please point to the words and phrases in your linked article that in your opinion “celebrate” Mugabe’s decision. I didn’t see any “celebration”, just the recounting of facts.

We’ve all had plenty of experience with the “We Thought This Was Great But Now We Know–Oops! Followed By Lawsuits” syndrome, starting with DDT, then thalidomide, then Bendectin, then I can’t even remember how many other substances, where we were told “this is perfectly safe, even marvelous” and then we found out, “Oops, guess we were wrong, we thought it was safe But Now We Know that it causes cancer/birth defects/death”, and then there are lawsuits.

And every time–every time–a major force in the “But Now We Know” portion of the syndrome is the lack Of testing, or “Further Test Results Have Now Revealed”… Time and again, over the last 50 years or so, companies have rushed something into production, disseminated it widely, and then five or ten or twenty years later, the American public is informed, “Well, actually, those rubber baby pacifiers and nipples weren’t such a good idea, as they release carcinogens…” Or that, “Oh, gee, there are new studies out that show that IUDs can cause Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, so maybe all you women should have them removed, they’re not the Next Big Thing after all…”

So why should GM corn be any different? They’re in it to make money, period. They have millions of dollars invested in developing this, they wanna make back their investment, and if it turns out that GM corn causes birth defects 20 years down the road, well, hey, it’s not their problem, is it? Maybe they’ll have to pay some Big Tobacco-style settlements, that’s all.

Mugabe’s decision wasn’t about “food”, it was about agriculture.

There are farmers here in Illinois just recently, dang I can’t think of where it was exactly, but their whole shipment of soybeans (corn?) was turned down by the local grain elevator because it was “contaminated” (the elevator’s word, not mine) by an actually very small amount of GM corn, proportionately. I mean, this whole entire shipment was automatically rendered unfit for human consumption. I think they might be able to feed it to livestock, channel it into the animal feed industry, but the farmers aren’t going to get much money for it.

But so that’s how careful the American food industry is being on behalf not only of American consumers, but also of the hyrbrid seed corn giants, like Pfizer. But Mugabe is probably perfectly aware that there are no such rules for Africa. It looks to me, and to probably to him, too, like the Americans are dumping untested and suspect products on the Third World. “Americans don’t want this GM corn, so let’s send it to Africa.” I know, let’s get Mikey…

I can see where Mugabe’s agricultural advisors would think it was a really bad idea to allow GM corn into the country period, especially given American industry’s historically poor track record with letting consumers know exactly what they’re getting, and also with American industry’s historically immaculate track record for dumping products that are unmarketable in the First World onto the Third World. Pesticides and herbicides that are no longer legal in America are still being manufactured and sold in Africa, and other places. I can see where he wouldn’t care to allow American companies to dump their unmarketable GM corn in his country.

So from that perspective, I have to disagree that it was an “inhuman” decision. It was a merely “logical” decision.

Um, no, this is wrong. Mugabe’s decision to turn down the GM corn isn’t the policy that’s leading to his people starving to death. That policy was in place long before the offer of GM corn was made. If Mugabe really wants to feed his people, he knows perfectly well how to do it.

And there is other food aid that is available that doesn’t involve GM corn.

No december, that’s not good enough. If you had said “some labelling advocates” or “these labelling advocates” then your link would have been at least arguable (even though the link does NOT advocate what you say it does). But you said

This clearly means labelling advocates in general. This appears to me to be an outrageous smear and I’d like to see evidence for it. If you want to back down and say that some people don’t seem to understand that GM food is a good idea and that their actions may have bad consequences, kindly do so in plain language.

It wasn’t just an offer. There was actually corn in Zimbabwe that had to be transported back from distributution points under armed guard (by the Zimbabweans) to make sure that none of the starving people got any of it.
My understanding of the Zimbabwean government’s point of view isn’t that they really believe that it is dangerous. What they are afraid of is not being able to ship grain to Europe as a cash crop if GM corn (taken from the aid supplies and planted instead of being eaten) should get mixed in with their crops. Europe has extreme regulations on GM foods, and the slightest hint of “contamination” could very easily result in the loss of that market for Zimbabwe.
Right now, that doesn’t seem like all that big a deal - Zimbabwe needs help right now just to feed its own people. Mugabe is not acting from some “higher” motives here. He is working from a strictly economic standpoint “If we accept this stuff, we may lose a market at some time in the future.”
The people of Zimbabwe are suffering under Europe’s unreasoning fear of GM foods. Well, that and Mugabe not really giving a damn about his people.

So, what. Are you saying that the US seperates the harvested crops into “US Market,” “Animal feed,” and “Third World swill?” The food being delivered to Zimbabwe comes from the same stocks that Americans are fed from.

**

Just how much testing do we need before you’d accept GM foods as safe? 20 years or more?

**

I need a cite providing evidence that GM soy or corn is not fit for human consumption. A grain elevator that wanted non-GM soy is going to consider any GM soy to be a contaminent. That doesn’t mean it isn’t fit for human consumption though. It just means that they wouldn’t be able to sell it as non-GM if even a little GM soy got into the batch.

**

I can assure you that if it isn’t fit (healthy) for humans to eat nobody is going to feed it to their livestock. At any rate the odds are good that if you’ve consumed soy or corn products in the past couple of years you’ve probably consumed some GM products.

**

Because those countries happen to like those products and have no laws against them.

Look, I’m not hysterical about this. I don’t go around sniffing suspiciously at packages, patrolling for GM foods. But if the label says it contains GM foods, then I’m going to give it a pass, because based on past experience, it just sounds like a good idea.

Yes, actually. Twenty years would make me happy. It usually takes about 10 years for the “new test results” factor to kick in. (Sometimes it’s even faster–remember Fen-Phen?)

And that would be 20 years for each new variety, for each new genetic hoop they found for it to jump through.

What, you’re really not paying attention? Starlink corn, tacos, ring any bells? It’s “unfit for human consumption” in the sense that it’s not permitted to be put into human food.

http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/22/starlink_corn.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2000/nov/5/biotech_corn.htm

Bolding and underlining mine.

So, you’re wrong. Livestock is fed all kinds of amazing things that aren’t fit for human consumption–feather meal, bone meal, chicken manure.

Yes. That line of reasoning stopped the agrifarmers from feeding (injecting?) mass amounts of hormones and antibiotics to their animals. And that’s also why Mad Cow Disease didn’t really exist.

**

It isn’t unfit in the sense that humans can’t eat it, is it? I think 20 years for each new variety is a bit long to wait. Is there any evidence that GM foods are dangerous to eat?

Actually, human beings could probably consume anything in the above list without any harm. Not that I’d be keen to eat a big chicken manure pie. Didn’t people used to use bone meal to make bread?

Marc

What’s an agrifarmer? I know what a farmer is but I’ve never heard someone refer to them as an agrifarmer. What does mass amounts of hormones and antibiotics have to do with mad cow disease? What does this have to do with GM crops?

Marc

I don’t like debates over interpretation, because they tend to get boring. However, DDG I will make a pass at answering your request.

“Facing acute food shortage” is quite an understatement. Many Zimbabweans are starving right now. Many more will be starving in the coming months.

And, what is the meaning of “is said to be”? This phrase seems to suggest some doubt as to whether there is a famine at all. It’s unusual to discuss a terrible famine in a poor third world country without expressing sympathy for the victims

In the name of land reform, Mugabe is actually stealing the land and giving it to his cronies. Humanitarian organizations do complain about election results and “land reform,” but their biggest complaint is that he has created a huge famine. The famine will expand even beyond Zimbabwe, because this country traditionally has grown enough food to export a considerable amount.

The tone of this phrase denigrates the Mugabe critics.

The the word “recolonise” is inflammatory. It’s also ridiculous, since giving free food isn’t forming a colony. Also this same food si being sold to American people. As a capper, this bit of outlandish propaganda is called “the truth.”

The implication is that something unfit for our consumption is being foisted off on Africans. However, this food has never been found unfit by American health authorities and it is being sold to Americans. I suppose one could quibble about the amount of sales.

Perhaps the biggest reason I used the word “celebrate” is the structure of the article. It devotes several paragraphs to how Mugabe’s action will help the battle against GM food, but can spare hardly a word in sympathy with the starving Zimbabweans.

hawthorne, you are right; I ought to have said “some” or “these.”

DDG I recall that StarLink episode. I believe that the issue was that the GM corn wasn’t approved for human consumption, not that it was determined to be dangerous. StarLink is apparently a feed corn variety, not a “person” corn variety, and thus is not approved for human consumption. To my mind, this speaks of extraordinary caution on the part of the growers.

If a GM product is approved by the gov’t for human consumption, then I feel it should be considered the equal to any other type of product. Labeling will only feed the fears of consumers “See? It’s dangerous, otherwise why would they have to label it?” There is no evidence that these foods are unsafe, people have been tinkering with crops since the beginning of time, genetic engineering is just a different way of doing it.