Well actually, in the local supermarket here, they did just that, advertising the fact that such ground meat could be kept longer and I think even without refrigeration for a while. [By the way, an environmental group protested the sale of such meat, but my tendency was to disagree with them…even while sympathizing with the argument that irradiation should not be a substitute for better practices to reduce contamination in the first place.]
Be careful here…Your source on that, the American Council on Science and Health is, despite its innocuous name, a group that has a very definite agenda (and heavy industry funding). You can read all about it in “Trust Us, We’re Experts” by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.
Well, for organic, it depends what criterion you are talking about. There have been some recent studies and I believe (although I admit that I am only marginally informed on this) that the evidence so far points to the fact that:
(1) Organic foods do not seem to be any more nutrient-rich than non-organic foods.
(2) Organic foods do tend to have lower residues of pesticides and the like.
(3) The production of organic food is likely to be less harmful to the environment in various ways than the production of non-organic food.
Well, how about a mandatory labelling then that does not have such a value-laden symbol on it and has very value-neutral language or even allows the company to add a positive spin if they want, touting the benefit that the genetic modification provides?
I have a question. Are companies required to report genetic alteration in some publicly accessable means, or do they have a legal ‘right’ / ‘loophole’ to simply not report it except to an inspector who might be filling out internal documents for some organization?
Is there any place that makes this exchange public, to the degree that some aspect of society is registering this stuff in a census?
like: The FDA (maybe that’s not who does it) investigates or ‘asks’ a company to submit their use of genetic engineering, and whatever they recieve doesn’t become published…
Or does it? Is there something or some established list or route of investigation which assures which is which on any level?
Can companies buy their way out of investigation along these lines because the entire listing process is arbitrary?
As long as a reliable list can be produced, I don’t see how forcing label requirements is actually necessary, and might actually divert attention away from this process as some may fall through the cracks; and people eventually just relying upon the labels to discern these things.
My prediction is that labelling genetically enigeered foods as such will necessarily elicit more corruption. Companies will want to profit from these effects and profit from the ‘purity’ of not having to be labelled genetically engineered. If Oreo’s are genetically engineered and labelled as such and Nutter Butter’s aren’t (or vice versa); which one do you think consumers will choose?
Genetic engineering will increase profits by making the crops more stable and prospective pricing more assured than a competitor. So now it becomes paramount for a company to figure out how to integrate genetically engineered crops into their products without being required to label it as such. The best of both worlds.
It forces greater secrecy and deception, resulting in creater panic and paranoia and reactiveness; as getting caught means you’re screwed because you’ve clearly violated a very controversial subject. However, without the law there in the first place, you also don’t have this window of opportunity to exploit the market.
It seems to me that a company would want genetically engineered labels to increase market share, understanding that they need to adopt a strategy of bribery and corruption to maintain a feeding frenzy through this loophole.
Now you have bought and paid intelligence agents, inspectors, politicians, media conglomerates and the works. Those who investigate are placed at more risk of death or imprisonment, ostrizization and beatings.
I find the labelling process counter-productive to consumer interests. I would be supporting such a measure if I were a company, and incidentally, I would spend billions on a campaign to create the propoganda to get this legislation through; knowing full well that the money will come back ten-fold once it is.
So you can’t be right if you are connected to the “industry”?
Not to quibble about sources but P.R. Watch doesn’t exactly exude non-bias either.
Obviously this message board isn’t the most representative sample of America, but I wonder how many here would not buy GM foods if they were labelled?
I would, but then I have better things to worry about than how those “industry types” are going to bring civilization to its knees by making a better strain of rice.
I see enough advertising on TV. I want my food labels to say two things: the brand name, and information which can be put to a demonstrated use. Is this an unreasonable requirement?
If companies want to put something more on their label, they should be able to. But we should not be able to artibtrarily request label formats unless we have some kind of reason.
I’m saying that adding such a law desensitizes people from the source and necessarily creates a loophole of corruption just waiting to be filled. It doesn’t suggest anything about those who comply with the law.
Another huge issue with this is the nutritional value of the food in question. We already have a massive divide between the wealthy and the rich/middle class/poor with regards to reasonably healthy food (balanced meals of whole/unprocessed foods) and clean water. One is eating Cheerio’s and the other is eating a banquet every morning. This has become highly noticable since processed foods came about.
Now you’re going to have processed and genetically engineered foods. Since the gap is increasing between these classes; it is reasonable to assume that if genetically altered foods have a nutritional defect to the same degree as processed foods do, that the problem of the types of mental illnesses and suffering we’re seeing will only become worse through more and more of the buffer classes.
There is no way that whole foods are going to be able to compete with the combination of processed and genetic engineering with regards to price. Worse case scenario, we’ll see rich people being able to buy the the non-genetically engineered can of ravioli while the others will need to resort to the genetically engineered ones; with the wealthy not even needing to buy either.
What I’m saying in short, is what makes you think that when this law passes, there is going to be such a thing as the freedom to purchase non-genetically engineered food? What if all the companies simply agree to use it, and all of them put that label on their food? This will drive the price of whole foods even higher and make them less accessable to anyone but those who can drop $5 on an apple or what-have-you.
It’s not enough that people are being paid less for jobs they started 20 years ago they they were when they started, and that price of living has doubled or tripled with property value alone and has quintupled with regards to even processed food; this only seeks to widen the gap IMO - again, it’s a failure to address the knowledge that poverty itself has been engineered, by implimenting the same type of logic for yet another generation.
It necessarily creates a more pessimistic attitude.
I’m not sure when this got linked to a debate on class conflict, can someone help me out?
“Whole foods?” “Massive divide in nutrition?”
and this one…
It is not “reasonable to assume” nutritional defects just because a food has been genetically modified, in fact many varities of GM food already developed actually add nutrients to the crop.
Take the example of Vitamin A enhanced rice for instance.
Crops engineered to be higher yielding and more resistant to pests and pesticides actually turn out to be less expensive to produce. Why else do you think there is such a push for the technology?
If “whole foods” suddenly become the preserve of the wealthy that is because they would be less efficient (therefore more expensive) to produce, not because they are more nutritious.
If you are going to try to make a political argument here at least try to understand the science that you are hijacking to do it.
Is this your first encounter with Justhink, Azael?
He’s always like this. To be honest, he’s more coherent and logical in this thread than I have ever seen him.
Another direct answer to the OP:
Labeling foods that contain GM produce will be more expensive than you think. It isn’t just the cost of the ink on the label. It is the added cost of planting, harvesting, transporting, and processing GM produce in a seperate supply chain that you have to consider.
If you want, say, corn tortillas available in a GM and non-GM versions then you have to have a supply system that keeps GM corn and non-GM corn completely seperated. You have to have a paper trail to prove that your non-GM corn doesn’t have some GM stuff in it. You are talking about having seperate grain silos to store the corn in before processing. You are talking about having a seperate processing line at the factory to make the tortillas. Can you see how expensive this would be?
Now, tell me what advantage this could bring. No one has ever proved that a GM crop was in any way harmful to humans. You are suggesting that we (all consumers) should bear the added cost of keeping two supply systems running just because of your unreasoning fears.
If labeling has to be done, then I suggest it be along the lines of “This product may contain GM produce.” If someone wants guaranteed GM free food, then let them bear the costs of keeping the seperate supply system. Goes off to enjoy some crispy tortillas, not giving a damn whether GM or not.
Test upon test upon test has gone into showing that GM foods are not dangerous (and have been successful at weeding out the ones that are). Yet for groups like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth no amount of testing is going to convince them about something they made their minds up about before-hand. Millions of dollars in PR spending from these groups go to making sure everyone else’s mind is made up too.
Until some hard evidence comes along as to why GM crops are any more or less dangerous than non-GM there should be no basis for labelling. As it has been pointed out, if you really want to make a point of it, then label your product non-GM and hope that makes up for the higher price.
Speaking as someone with an advanced degree in a pertinent field, and more than a modicum of understanding as to how genetically modified foods come to be, I am not the least bit worried that any GM food on the market is any more potentially dangerous than non-GM food. In fact, since GM food and food products are often cheaper, certainly cheaper than “organically” grown food, I would prefer the GM food.
In fact, it seems to me that those that espouse organically grown and pesticide free food products are usually quite anti-environment…after all, it’s only due to modern farming techniques that yield per acre is as high as it is. Without modern techniques, in order to feed everyone (and especially considering a flawed food-distribution system that due to political reasons is unlikely to change), the acreage devoted to food production would have to go way up to provide equivalent amounts of food. More impetus to do harmful things like cut down more forests, divert more water otherwise destined for wetlands for irrigation, etc.
Quite right. Irradiating food would save many lives every year, especially in countries without strict food-inspection standards (you know, developing countries). Ignorant opponents of this practice have demonized it to the degree that food producers are afraid to use it, despite its many benefits and no major detriments (the biggest one being whether irradiating may destroy certain vitamins and minerals).
There is difference in nutrition information and GM labels. The latter are intended solely to make people buy non-GM foods. In any event, GM foods are really no different from any other kind.
I point out tat GM foods are arguably healthier for you and the environment. They can be made to grow more easily in different climates, be grown with less pesticide use (if any), and be more efficient in using energy to grow.
