Monsanto already succeeded in passing Rep. Mike Pompeo’s H.R. 1599 bill, otherwise known as the DARK Act, in the House this summer by a vote of 275 to 150. Now we need to make sure we stop their dangerous plan from going through the Senate.
The Senate Agricultural Committee, which is heavily influenced by companies like Monsanto, has scheduled a hearing on October 21st, just three weeks away, to try to take state’s rights to label GMO away from them. This means that big wins in Vermont and Maui County would become null and void. It also means you would never know if you were eating a GM product or not when you pick up food in grocery store aisles.
It would also allow GMOs to be labeled ‘natural’ so lawsuits which hold large companies liable for lying to consumers about what is in their food (ie., Kellogg’s recent Kashi fiasco) would become a thing of the past. Big Food is basically saying this: ‘we’ll tell you what’s safe, and we’ll call something natural even if it’s made in a lab, and you’ll shut up and eat it.’
If this is not something you want to see happen, then I suggest you contact your senator and tell them exactly what you think of H.R. 1599.
Some say a quarter of our US senators have been bought out by Monsanto, so it is imperative that we get to the ones that haven’t been tainted with biotech money.
As Natural Society previously reported:
“Looking at these figures, over $260,000 was openly pumped into the House, and $122,000 was pumped into the Senate. And again, this is openly. I’m speculating, but I would imagine the real number to easily be in the millions. Can you imagine how much they must pay these politicians to shoot down GMO labeling bills that 90 plus percent of the entire country wants?
Or how about the nice chunk of cash that Monsanto paid Senator Roy Blunt to ‘help write’ the Monsanto Protection Act that grants Monsanto immunity from federal courts? Roy’s cash payment is not included in this list, however RT reports he received $64,250 towards his campaign from the company. Surely they expected nothing in return.”
To find out how your Congressman voted on House Vote 462 to pass H.R.1599 275 to 150, click here.
HELP STOP THE DARK ACT!
Wow Chrissy, you need to start coping from a better source. The Maui law was already declared void by a judge. Don’t worry the same will happen with the Vermont law if this bill fails.
Yes Christina, you should deal with the true root of the problem.
First report how the Major corporations are heavily involved and have the ability to influence the TPTB at the highest levels through,
Lobbying
Manipulation
Coercion
Intimidation
Job promises
Financial benefits
And then report about the revolving door these corporations within the many agencies and their benefactors and their revolving positions within the regulatory agencies.
It would lead to a better understanding of why there have so many losses to the Well funded Corporations.
I really don’t see how corruption within the system can be Christina’s fault.
That is the problem, some people around here can’t see anything.
All labeling really does is protect the consumer, I’m not really sure why anybody would not agree with labeling.
forcing more unnecessary red tape on people isn’t protecting them, it is hampering them with silly costs.
Everything has labels, and the FDA already has guidelines for “voluntary” labeling.
Trying to claim labeling costs more, since it is already being done, is a misnomer since they change labels fairly regularly for marketing purposes.
Oh so now you know so much more than the good folks at Cornell University? If what you say is true then what is wrong with slapping a non-gmo label on things? That way everybody can be happy. Then if there is any cost it will only go to the people that wanted the label in the first place, just like organic.
Please tell me what Cornell has to do with labeling?
Oh yes that would have required you to do some research wouldn’t it, and we all know you are incapable of that.
consumersunion Dot org/research/cu-response-to-cornell-study-on-cost-of-ge-labeling/
geneticliteracyproject dot org/2014/06/18/massachusetts-legislator-accuses-cornell-gmo-labeling-study-of-being-biased-using-scare-tactics/
cspinet dot org/integrity/nonprofits/council_for_biotechnology_information.html
Troll much Gmo ?? LOL !!!
Don’t have anything actual to provide?
Sure, just adding my opinion you are a troll !!! Is that a problem or illegal or the truth ?
A lie or a wrong comment, and adds nothing real to the conversation so thanks for proving my point.
Oh so you admit you are a troll, geee !! LOL
I agree it has nothing to do with the DARK ACT
Can’t comprehend? You say troll, I say a lie or a wrong comment tiring to give you an out, but you only confirmed you lied. Sorry about your credibility, but you did it to yourself.
Why do you feel you need to respond, unless I am speaking the truth ??
LOL @ GMO !!
Because you rattling off the head is a desperate cry for attention so I thought I would help before you hurt yourself.
LOL @ GMO, thank you again for the entertainment !! You are successful at keeping my laughing !! Good job Roberts !
Why do you feel you need to respond, unless I am speaking the truth ?
LOL @ Gmo Roberts, I do appreciate the entertainment you provide, thanks
You wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you.
LOL @ GMO obviously you are hurt by the truth !!!
Have a good one and thanks for the entertainment !!
It cost next to nothing to change the list of ingredients, to accurately describe what type of corn was used i.e. GMO Corn. If your a pro GMO food lover eat it , but for others who are concerned about their health they can opt out by not purchasing any product that has a GMO in its ingredients
Protect the consumer from what specifically?
Protect the consumers right to choice.
Your shifting the goalposts and that weakens your argument. Especially when there are already viable means for you to make those choices, i.e. Certified Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified labelling.
So the organic and NON GMO’s are labeling, good enough?
Isn’t that discrimination?
What’s good enough for one is good enough for all.
Again what’s really wrong with labeling, everybody has labeled nutritional information.
As you say, there is a shift in technology and information and people shouldn’t refuse it.
Refusing labeling as an industry standard is the same as refusing the GMO technology as a viable food source.
You claim advancements and information in one statement and deny it in another?
Do you think it would be acceptable for Jewish or Muslim people to demand non-kosher or non-halal labels on food products?
If it happened, what could I do about it?
What could you do about it?
The part of your argument would be after the fact, in which we would all have to accept it.
You could not support the idea, similar to my lack of support for mandatory GMO labeling.
Placing costs and expenses on the organic and non GMO folks and giving the GMO folks less expense is out right discrimination and favoritism.
Pandering and creating excuses is manipulating the consensus of the general public.
They have a right to fairness and information.
So another group should bear the burden of increased regulation based on other people’s personal beliefs? That is, because a group of people believe that GMOs present some sort of health risk (despite a dearth of supporting evidence and in spite of contrary evidence) that there should be mandatory labels identifying all foods that may contain GMO-derived ingredients, and in some cases even labels for meat products of animals fed GM fed? Yet you claim it’s unfair to say that if people want products that subscribe to their ideology (because let’s be honest, that is what this is) they should be willing to pay for it. Did I get that right?
Doesn’t matter what you or I think, even the ideologies or evidence argument.
Right to know and fairness in labeling regulations.
I don’t really care about GMO labeling to be honest. Label it, don’t label it. It doesn’t matter to me because it doesn’t have any actual relevance to the safety or quality of the food. I’d prefer labels that indicate pesticide residues or the amount of added sugar. That would actually be useful.
Yes that would be useful too. Some actually do voluntarily state the amount of added sugar, But since you don’t think products should be labeled with this information you would never get to know.
Can you please clarify? I don’t think products should be labelled with what information? Thanks.
You said labels are not useful – it should be left up to consumer to decide that.
People are free to make irrational decisions based on useless labels, but I don’t believe that it’s logical to demand others follow the same irrationality.
People are or at least are supposed to be free to do what they want so long it doesn’t infringe on other’s rights so let them make irrational decisions, if they want; let them be happy choosing what they want.
Are you telling me that you’re not free to buy Non-GMO Project verified or Certified Organic products? Are you telling me that there aren’t options available to you already? How exactly would your purchasing choices change if there were mandatory “GMO” labels?
Well if the meat producers labelled their products the next user/producer down the chain would have no problem labelling their food.
But what is the rationale for such labeling? Why should it even be done?
Because everyone should do it not just the end-product producer.
But you haven’t addressed the reason for the labels. The meat is not genetically modified.
Only IF it is or is fed GMOs.
An animal fed GM feed is not a GMO. That is absolute nonsense.
GMO producing industries and using industries should label their stuff just like the organic industry does to differentiate there’s.
You’re comparing voluntary labelling to mandatory labelling.
No one is forcing the organic and nongmo folks to certify, they choose to do so. That is the key difference. Those producers want to differentiate their product using an established marketing system and that entails costs that they themselves must bear. It isn’t favoritism or discrimination.
This is for all people not a specific religious or ethnic group.
I was only using those as examples of food that is “different” based primarily on personal beliefs as opposed to substantial physical differences that would require a label, i.e. food products that may contain nuts.
No, “GMO” label won’t be useful for anyone unless it specifically identifies what the genetic modification is. This is something that those with anti-GMO views seem to either not understand or willingly ignore. Not all GMOs are the same and any attempt to treat them as such is fallacious.
That doesn’t make sense as under current labeling those who want to consume or promote GE crops can do so by simply buying conventional and those who want to avoid it can buy USDA organic or nongmo project certified.
What you’re suggesting can already be done without inane labeling.
Are you thereby implying all conventional products, i.e., not organic, are made with GMOs? That would be huge proportion of all foodstuffs. I don’t think they all are made with GMOs so that would mean we can’t know which one’s are made without GMOs but aren’t organic if they aren’t labeled.
Nope, I’m suggesting that those people who so desire to avoid crops produced via certain plant breeding methods can already do so by purchasing goods certified to not include crops derived from said breeding methods.
Is there something preventing you or anyone else from purchasing any of the tens of thousands of certified organic or nongmo project items found in the nations supermarkets?
Is there something preventing you from allowing labels? If there is nothing to hide why be shy about stating that GMOs are used?
“If there is nothing to hide why be shy about stating that GMOs are used”
Since there is nothing about genetic engineering as a plant breeding method that impacts health risks or nutritional properties why have mandatory labeling it all? Satisfying consumer curiosity isn’t the purpose of mandatory labeling. lo and behold there are several voluntary labels that have sprung up to satisfy consumers who wish to avoid products derived from genetic engineering.
“It’s just a label”
Stop being naive. It isn’t just a label, there are vested interests in the organic and natural foods and alternative medicine industries who want to use label as a instrument to attack biotechnology and foment scientifically unfounded fear of biotechnology in public as part of a ploy to gain market share.
“We are going to force them to label this food. If we have it labeled, then we can organize people not to buy it.” Andrew Kibrell, director, center for food safety
“The burning question for us all then becomes how—and how quickly—can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.” – Ronnie .Cummins, director Organic Consumers Association
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85% of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.” Joe Mercola, alt health mogul and supplement huckster
“Why so much fuss?”
Indeed, when there are tens of thousands of products that are already on the market to cater towards people who want to avoid foods derived genetic engineered crops, all this fuss you’re side is making over mandatory labeling for a suite of plant breeding methods seems absurd.
“Nobody is telling anybody to lie or do anything wrong.”
Well there is the whole compelled speech thing. There is also the benefit of hindsight that now one can see how politically motivated labeling has stifled research, development and implementation of biotechnology biotechnology in Europe.
That is complete hog wash.
The percentages of people who are really interested in organic will have very little impact of the GMO industry.
Fact, they are already buying organic.
There are many consumer choices,
Some buy name brands
Some buy store brands for the savings
Some are coupon shoppers
Some prefer non GMO
Some like organic
It is just a way to pat the general population on the butt and say, there ya go you have choices and they are labeled so you can apply your choices in a quicker and easier fashion.
Labeling isn’t such a big deal and it isn’t going to ruin anybody.
The true stupidity is the waste of millions of dollars fighting it, which those costs are passed to the consumer, as that is a fact wouldn’t it be cheaper on those who purchase these products just to label.
YES!
LOL, troll much EDH ??
The only companies that don’t want labels are those who want to hide something.
Personally I like to know what I eat.
In that case, do you know which pesticides are applied to the fruit and vegetables you purchase?
What if a person wants to know what is in the product because he/she may be allergic to it (which includes GMOs)
The act of genetic engineering doesn’t pose any inherent risk of allergens beyond that of conventional hybrid breeding, unless of course the genetically engineered trait specifically introduces a known allergen. You can’t lump all GMOs together.
Are you implying that genetically-modified food is not different than Non-GMO food?
Not exactly. The act of genetic engineering is not substantially different from conventional breeding or hybridization. The tools and the processes are different, but the end product is not significantly different in my opinion (an opinion that’s informed by a PhD in biochemistry).
But as you say we can’t lump all GMOs together; so therefore as some may bring in an allergen, we need to know that. And you admit they are different, though in your opinion not substantially.
As for pesticides, I prefer to avoid all of them not just any specific one (as they are all bad for one’s health) and I can get that by buying organic.
Allergen testing should be part of the testing and regulatory approval process. Furthermore, a “GMO” label isn’t going to offer any information as to what potential allergen could be present anyway, making the whole thing completely pointless.
And no, you can’t avoid pesticides by buying organic. Organics use pesticides too.
They are different. In most cases, natural and organic pesticides are developed completely from plant and herb components, and actually promote the health of both plants and soil. But these inputs are not the same as the inputs used on conventional produce, and do not contain any synthetic ingredients
I agree. Organic farming is more sustainable. But there is no reason why genetic engineering can’t be combined with organic farming techniques. It’s a false dichotomy to insist the two are not compatible.
How is Organic farming more sustainable? It needs more land, more inputs and has a lower yield , how is that more sustainable?
Actually, I’m not so sure about the more inputs part. I think the difference is what is being used as inputs. I could very well be wrong, but that’s my current understanding. Sorry, just have breakfast. Don’t have time to source links at the moment. I’ll get back to you if I have more time later today.
I took a few minutes to look through Google Scholar. Here’s what I found:
“Organic farming systems perform better than integrated farming systems and conventional farming systems with respect to nitrogen losses, pesticide risk, herbaceous plant biodiversity and most of the other environmental indicators. However, on hilly soils, erosion was found to be higher in Organic farming systems than in conventional farming systems.”
Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and field-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Volume 95, Issue 1, April 2003, Pages 273–288
Frankly, I think it’s silly to completely shun one system in favour of the the other. The best practices of both should be used.
Organic and local farming reduces costs from field to market, That is one of the best aspects of self sustainment.
Sure some produce will have to be shipped in, but our local economies and communities are screwed at this point in the game.
Stealing the land for a monoculture isn’t very wise.
The future is at stake right now.
Organic and local farming reduces costs from field to market, That is one of the best aspects of self sustainment.
Source? I don’t believe that for a second. Based on my own experience, organic produce consistently costs more, whether I go to the grocery store or my local farmers’ market.
The answers are there, why does it cost more?
This is a common sense issue…
I don’t know for sure why organic products cost more. But they do.
I’m just a leader, as you and your trolls friends pointed out, I have no intelligent input unless I have a degree in biotech. I’m useless…
Figure it out scientist.
Dude. Settle down. I can’t even tell what you’re point is. You just sound argumentative.
Lol.
Economics 101
Political science
Debt based currency
Easy access to credit for individuals who should know better
Increasing costs for basic living needs
Bankrupt local and national govt’s, dependent on privatized bankers.
World wide economic stress
NAFTA
I’ll stop here…
Um.. What? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
No economies of scale as not big corporation usually, more-intensive (hands -on), no government subsidies, expensive certifications, more land intensive as no cramming of livestock in CAFOs – so have to pay for more land, laying land fallow or doing crop rotation. But there are benefits that offset the costs. Here’s a site that has some more info: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-rodale/organic-kale_b_4125015.html
No economies of scale as not big corporation usually, more-intensive (hands -on), no government subsidies, expensive certifications, more land intensive as no cramming of livestock in CAFOs – so have to pay for more land, laying land fallow or doing crop rotation. But there are benefits that offset the costs. Here’s a site that has some more info:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
“Organic and local farming reduces costs from field to market, That is one of the best aspects of self sustainment.”
So why is Organic so expensive?? Are you telling me that Organic farmers are ripping everyone off?
“Stealing the land for a monoculture”
Monoculture frees up land for nature…
This guy’s rant is another thing that makes me shake my head.
How much produce can you pack in the back of an old pickup truck that gets 12 miles per gallon on it’s way to and back from the farmer’s market?
Even an old beater pickup could hold 1,000 lbs. if the rear tires are anywhere near OK.
My modern semi-tractor gets right around 7 miles per gallon on flat ground hauling 56,000 lbs. of corn.
This whole, “eat local” thing is based in fantasy-land.
My point exactly, your perception of the poor struggling independent farmer is accurate. But in truth all your really implying that a independent farmer couldn’t possibly own as nice of toys as you do, BS.
People have eaten local for thousands of years, make your scientific point.
RANT!!
The people’s rights and right to information is a rant?
” I think it’s silly to completely shun one system in favour of the the other. The best practices of both should be used.”
Conventional farming is “best practices”, there is no ideology involved.
This is a horrible study and you should read more than just the abstract. Did they take land use into account, Nope. Yield variability, nope. overall yield, Nope. And of course Organic farms have more “herbaceous plant biodiversity” because their fields are full of weed instead of crops.
It’s not a “horrible” study. No study looks at all possible parameters. One can always point out metrics that could have been included. I did look at more than just the abstract. Of course I could have read more papers. I am not an expert on agricultural economics and sustainability.
Yes, organic farming yields tend to be slightly lower than conventional farming yields (at best they seem to be equal, depending on location and crop). But importantly, this paper shows that environmental issues like nitrogen run off are less of a problem with organic farming methods. I was, after all, talking about sustainability not crop yields.
Here’s another study that points out exactly what I’m saying, which is that there are aspects of organic farming that are valuable but there are also aspects of conventional farming (for lack of a better term) that are more efficient. Treating the two as competing opposites is not productive and is not rational either.
Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? – A meta-analysis of European research. Journal of Environmental Management Volume 112, 15 December 2012, Pages 309–320
“Yes, organic farming yields tend to be slightly lower than conventional farming yields (at best they seem to be equal, depending on location and crop).”
It averages 25% less yield with Organic farming methods.
http://www.nature.com/news/organic-farming-is-rarely-enough-1.10519
Organic farms leach more nitrogen per unit produced (but less per acre).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712004264
if there were any advantages to Organic farming, conventional farmers would use these methods. Conventional farmers are also concerned about the environment and it there were better ways they would use them, nothing is stopping them.
Sorry if I seem grumpy and rude, i am so tired this week harvest time and have been fixing miles of fences…
No worries 🙂
Again almost none of that is correct.
Especially that last sentence. Organic == sustainable. Organic is a marketing term for chemophobes and people prone to naturalistic fallacies.
GMO’s are different, there for labeling makes sense. Genetically Engineered through laboratory processes.
The organic corporations are trying to relax the regulatory processes and allow more pesticide residue for the produce they bring in from foreign countries, which allows more shareholders profits.
The real organic communities are essentially good honest farmers.
Your trying to compare corporate shareholder profit institutions with good honest community farming.
No, I’m talking about industry.
Anybody could become allergic to any part of the product, even, though it’s far-fetched, the box. Common allergens doesn’t necessarily imply those are the only allergens a person could become allergic to. So a listing of everything should be done. GMOs either are or are not; a GMO doesn’t change from day to day. Pesticides use is variable, depending on wind, improper spraying, etc so listing the amount of pesticide used is not as accurate; listing only the pesticide used is better. By the way , school districts list the pesticides they use and it isn’t inconvenient for them. Corporations already know what they use so it isn’t actually inconvenient for them to include on a label.
If anybody can become allergic to basically anything as you’re suggesting then this entire argument is moot and we should all live in sterile bubbles.
So you are saying that I should do more to protect myself? i have been putting empty Kleenex boxes on my feet and wrapping myself in saran wrap for years now, now I will don a bunny suit with a full respirator and Clingwrap the entire house, you can’t be too safe… Oh and it goes without saying that I will install the Chainmail to protect myself for the government mind control rays.
Don’t forget to autoclave all of your food beforw eating. Can’t be too careful! Probiotic yogurt? Not anymore! 😛
You need some serious mu metal for your hat. The gubmint is messing with the earth’s magnetic field, it’s geoengineering.
/woo
Whatever rocks your boat and makes you happy.
Just write the 3 -letters GMO in front of the ingredients that are GMO. If as you say, there’s nothing unsafe about GMOs then why shy away from writing it on the label?
That’s meaningless. The term “GMO” means very little. It’s like labelling corn “hybrid”. Actually, it’s even less meaningful than that.
Companies are resistant to labelling because of the irrational fear that anti-science groups have stoked among the public with regards to GMOs. We can debate whether this fear mongering would affect consumer choices, but regardless, that’s the answer to your question.
Just wanted to jump in and say allergenicity teating is a critical part of premarket assessment of GE crops. It’s not a “should be testing ” its they already are testing
That’s what I thought. But is this testing part of a best practices approach or explicitly part of regulatory approval? That’s what I am not sure about.
I’m almost certain Its regulatory approval, but the specific statutes vary by jurisdiction.
But can I ask why it would matter whether it was part of best practices or regulatory approval? It’s being done regardless so whether or not it’s mandated seems inconsequential to me.
I think it should be part of the regulatory protocol for the sake of public confidence.
From what I can gather in the U.S. , the FDA has established guidelines for plant developers regarding what kind of safety assessments should be conducted in order to make any potential crop compliant with federal laws.
A good resource dealing with this is found here perhaps it can be more informative.
It is testimony from the department of health and human services concerning the role of the FDA.
hhs . gov/asl/testify/2014/12/t20141210 . html
I would like to see the guidelines turned into requirements. I understand that some may see this as unnecessary, but the fact is that there is a very high degree of public distrust of genetic engineering and the regulations governing them. Therefore, I think it’s pragmatic to institute strict requirements instead of relying only on guidelines.
I’m almost certain hr 1599 will do just that. It won’t really affect the situation on the ground, because no company has ever tried to market a GE variety without following the guidelines and submitting relevant data to regulators. As it stands they’re requirements in all but name.
But I have to disagree that changing the wording from guidelines to strict requirements will do much to allay public concerns about genetic engineering. I think the actual percentage of the public opposed to it is over blown, and that it’s a very vociferous minority that truly distrust genetic engineering. Those types of people are not the kind swayed by evidence because their current position is one not resulting careful examination evidence but of emotive reasoning and ideology or of vested interest in competing industries, like organic farming. Changing the wording of regulations won’t appease them, because they don’t want it regulated, they want use of the technology extinguished.
Yep. The anti-GMO bunch tries to play on the “voluntary” portion of the FDA rules where substantial equivalency applies. But I don’t know of one case where anyone has attempted to commercialize a GM trait without going through the voluntary consultation with FDA so the trait can be deregulated.
Basically, they’re just spinning words around to make GM technology sound like companies are just randomly throwing stuff out into the marketplace.
I researched the FDA regulatory processes, please give us some quotes from it, the readers here would like to know.
How’s about a list of the FDA’s advisory panel’s members?
Yes, I would like to know what and how many pesticides I eat if it’s not organic, but it’s not on the label.
Organics get sprayed with pesticides too. Should we demand pesticide labels on organics as well? Where does this all end?
In most cases, natural and organic pesticides are developed completely from plant and herb components, and actually promote the health of both plants and soil. But these inputs are not the same as the inputs used on conventional produce, and do not contain any synthetic ingredients
Natural doesn’t automatically mean safer.
I never said all natural things are safe. Some are toxic just as some aren’t. Duh.
Wow you are a complete idiot. The most toxic substances known to man are all natural, do you want a bit of botox it is all natural and Organically raised, how about some Ricin all natural and grown organically by monks in Tibet?
OK so ladybugs that eat aphids and diluted soap sprays are toxic? That is just one example of what can be used to deter insects from crops.
i could equally say you are an idiot because you obviously think that is toxic.
“diluted soap sprays are toxic? “
Yep and more toxic than the active ingredient in Roundup. All soaps are toxic to insects including bees. There are also very toxic to amphibians and microorganisms.
That’s not even remotely true
Yes maybe we should.
GMO is just a breeding technique, that is it. It has nothing to do with pesticides. There are 100s of crops that are naturally resistant to pesticides.
LMAO, breeding technique.
SayI become allergic to a food product, then the more information I have about it the easier it will be to isolate what is the specific allergen in contrast to the complete food product. It may be a coloring or the GMO, a pesticide, or something else. If all the ingredients (and type of ingredient, if applicable) are known it would be easier.
“GMO” is not an ingredient.
False industry pr talking point. “Any intentional use of GM ingredients at any level must be labelled. – See more at: https://www.food.gov.uk/science/novel/gm/gm-labelling#sthash.lMGvZD5L.dpuf“
False industry pr talking point. “Any intentional use of GM ingredients at any level must be labelled.” UK Govt
Your quote refers to ingredients FROM a genetically engineered organism. Genetic engineering itself is not an ingredient. A label could indicate that GM corn, but a general “GMO” label is nonsensical. That is the difference I was referring to.
Right a GMO can be an ingredient, but the process to get a GMO is called genetic engineering. It makes perfect sense, if one was looking to find out if the corn was gmo or not, you know consumer information.
It’s still not that simple. Perhaps it’s my mistake for oversimplifying. Even if a label indicates “GM corn” is an ingredient, the label doesn’t indicate what genetic modification is present. It’s analogous to listing “sweetener” on as an ingredient but not specifying if the sweetener used is sucrose, aspartame, sucralose, dextrose, fructose, etc. Not all genetic modifications are the same, and thus not all GMOs are the same. Labeling them as such is nonsense.
If it says its “gmo corn” then you know its not, non gmo corn, and its not organic corn. Its consumer information. Consumers want to know if its a “GMO” ingredient or not, not what specific type of genetic modification was used to obtain that GMO ingredient.
All GMO’s are GMO’s.
As a standard label, this product contains GMO ingredients.
Trying to complicate a simple issue isn’t very smart and leads the readers to assume your biased.
That statement is devoid of scientific understanding. That is a primary problem with most anti-GMO positions; they lack a basis in science. Trying to oversimplify the issue is your mistake and it leads non-expert readers to become confused whereas expert readers simply dismiss you as being uninformed about this topic.
Please show me the scientific research on rights and consumer information.
Your implying all people are stupid, except the expert grocery scientists.
Here is some analytical and statistical science from experts in the field, 91% of those you refer to as being too stupid to understand a label, want labeling.
Your constant abuse of the scientific field as an excuse to revoke the rights of the consumer isn’t doing the GMO advocates much credit.
Over 300 million people, 91% want labeling and maybe 100,000 people are opposed to labeling, rest don’t give a load of petrified horse dung.
All that is asked is this label, this product contains GMO products.
LMAO non-expert readers, 5 year olds don’t read these forums, we are all adults here. Or at least 91% of us are.
People aren’t stupid. I never said that. Most people lack a sophisticated understanding of genetic engineering because, unsurprisingly, most people don’t have graduate degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry.
Here is some analytical and statistical science from experts in the field
Unless you also include a citation to a peer-reviewed source, all you’re providing are your own words.
LMAO non-expert readers, 5 year olds don’t read these forums, we are all adults here. Or at least 91% of us are.
By “expert readers” I mean people who are experts in molecular biology and genetics. You may be an adult, but you’re certainly no expert in this field.
And your constantly trying to split hairs. How many experts do you think actually come to these types of sites for information, I’ll guess 0. These sites are for the common people, those people whose rights your attempting to deny and destroy. If your going to be here apply the simple logic of laymans terms, because your talking to 0 scientists here and you know this. .
You may be an adult, but you’re certainly no expert in this field, Neither are you!
So a grocery shopper needs to have a PHd in molecular biology and genetics to meet their personal wishes and chart their own nutritional needs?
Where is it implied anywhere that a grocery shopper needs to have a full understanding of GE, otherwise they are stupid and will make stupid shopping decisions according to the scientific community, please enlighten me on this one…
Sometimes issues can be resolved through simple methods, ie labeled “This product contains GE ingredients.”
The labeling consensus and statistics has been in the main stream news time and time again, I’m sorry you cannot find it and it has to be copied and pasted for you to find it. nytimes dot com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=0
The right of choice and consumer information and preferences doesn’t require any degrees, just a consensus of the people. That doesn’t make them ANTI-GMO ACTIVISTS EITHER!
People have the right to make choices and they have the right to make demands as to labeling for the purpose of making informed nutritional decisions based on their beliefs.
Go off about the labeling cost, labels are constantly changing for marketing purposes, cost of the change, almost nil.
I stated GMO’s are GMO’s, just to be scientifically specific and to not confuse the stupid readers without a grocery shopping degree or a degree in personal choices, please tell me which GMO’s aren’t GMO’s.
Labeling is about fairness and information, obviously your against equality and individual rights, since you have no problems with discriminatory practices and favoritism.
Also, why is fairness in labeling and the consumers right to know considered an anti-GMO stance?
Why does your thoughts revoke the rights of individuals?
How many experts do you think actually come to these types of sites for information, I’ll guess 0.
There’s at least one. Me. I have a PhD in this field and work as a research with GM plants in a non-agricultural capacity.
those people whose rights your attempting to deny and destroy
I’m doing no such thing. You are subscribing motives to me.
So a grocery shopper needs to have a PHd in molecular biology and genetics to meet their personal wishes and chart their own nutritional needs?
Of course not. But that’s exactly why a generic “GMO” label is useless because the average person does not have the knowledge base to make an informed decision based on the extremely limited information such a label would provide. Instead, the average person will end up making an emotional based decision. Are you really arguing in favour of such decision making?
I stated GMO’s are GMO’s
Please explain to me what you define as a “GMO”. The term has very little meaning in science. Scientists, myself included, rarely use the term “GMO” precisely because it does not convey enough information to be useful.
1. Your not an expert, your an activist, always will be until proof is provided otherwise. I understand that any who work with any proprietary, patent or intellectual property are required to submit to disclosure agreements. Which would keep someone employed for said industries away from these sites, unless directed.
2. Your looking for arguing points as an activist should, that is your directive. Rights are simple as well as regulations and information. Your argument denies these basic human rights. Science doesn’t trump right’s or right to know.
3. The label is simple, and it’s about choices, not the process of creating GE. Think say whatever, your you’re own best keeper. That is your right as well as every individual, their choices will never be the same as yours. Labeling gives them choices based on their right to know.
4. baiting, looking for arguing points. That’s what activists do, so this conversation will never end.
Bottom line people can make choices based on anything they believe, you won’t change that and neither will I.
This is rights and choices, so Betty doesn’t want to feed her kids GE, get over it and let her be informed so she can make her choices, who cares why.
The GMO’s corporations have wasted millions of dollars on this, don’t you think they could have used their money more wisely, it would have been a done deal by now.
1. You continue to display you’re complete lack of understanding. I can freely comment here. I simply avoid divulging unpublished details of my work.
2. Forcing others to abide by you’re personal beliefs is not a basic human right. I am here because I am interested in trying to help people understand a complex issue, an issue which I happen to understand very well.
3. If the purpose of GMO labels is to give people the ability to boycott a type of technology, then just say so. Stop pretending this is about health risks and safety. Why not just label foods based on the company that sold the seeds for the plant based ingredients in the food? Isn’t that what you’re really after?
4. Sure, I accept that people may want to avoid GM foods based on personal beliefs. I just want people to be honest about their motives and reasons.
Well if we know they contain a GMO we could contact the manufacturer form ore info.
What percentage of consumers do you think would do that?
Why would it matter to you? You don’t have to call; no burden to you. I would call. I have contacted companies and they have, or have not changed the formulations of their product because I and others contacted them.
Well why don’t you just call them now, save everyone the trouble of labeling.
Why are you so defensive about labeling something? It’s only stating what an item is actually made of; nobody is asking to write something that isn’t accurate.
“Why are you so defensive about labeling something?”
Because it will raise the price of food for everyone, for no reason. Like if you wanted a pesticide label I could understand that.
If you wanted a Made by big AG label I could understand that.
If you wanted “Crop bred in a Lab label I could understand that
But a GMO label makes no sense, because it gives you no useful information.
You think that it gives no useful information but some think so. Some labels give a little info some more, but it is still information! And the “GMO” label gives at least as much info as “Made by big AG” or “Crop bred in Lab” label – that is info too. Since you are OKAY with those labels then GMO label should be fine too! And according to your argument why wouldn’t the price not rise for the “Crop made in Lab” as you seem to imply there are no cost restrictions on these labels you give as an example. Aren’t GMOs created in the lab originally??
A pesticide/fungicide label is already on some products like mangos or mandarin oranges but it is on the boxes. Why is that ok and not a GMO label? They could write the type of GMO on the label too as the company already probably knows or should at least know, what it is buying. Then we have more useful information and you don’t have to complain it’s not useful.
“A pesticide/fungicide label is already on some products like mangos or mandarin oranges but it is on the boxes.”
I highly doubt it, and plus they never know what the insect pressure will be year to year or even month to month. High value crops like fruits use many pesticides and fungicides.
I think you are full of crap.
Hey go read the box it says what pesticide is used. It is printed on it. Not all types of produce state pesticide info though.
“Hey go read the box it says what pesticide is used.”
Is it an exhaustive list? There are over 100 pesticides used on oranges.
“They could write the type of GMO on the label too”
Nope, because there are many types of GMO corn and they are all mixed together.
Well each GMO corn end- type can have a “name” to make it easier to identify. Like for instance , Arctic Apples or the FlavrSavr Tomato. What we want to do with the information is up to us.
There are thousands of different GMO corn types, they ran out of cool names for corn back in the 60s…
“Then we have more useful information and you don’t have to complain it’s not useful.”
How would it be usefull if you knew what GMO trait was in the food?
Oh, this is unrealistic, just on my own farm. I use several different combinations of pesticides, it depends on what pest pressures that particular field has–in fact, right within a field I may apply different products.
I then co-mingle each of my major products together.
I think listing the approved pesticides and sampling products is working well. You can see what is used, and what typical residues are.
ams(dot)usda.gov(FS)sites(FS)default(FS)files(FS)media(FS)2013%20PDP%20Anuual%20Summary(dot)pdf
npic(dot)orst(dot)edu/
Oh, this is unrealistic, just on my own farm. I use several different combinations of pesticides, it depends on what pest pressures that particular field has–in fact, right within a field I may apply different products.
I then co-mingle each of my major products together.
I think listing the approved pesticides and sampling products is working well. You can see what is used, and what typical residues are.
ams(dot)usda(DOT)gov(FS)sites(FS)default(FS)files(FS)media(FS)2013%20PDP%20Anuual%20Summary(dot)pdf
npic(dot)orst(dot)edu/
That’s good enough, Sometimes it says on the box specifically which are used; sometimes it is just a list of any which may or may not have been used.
Where is that? (box listing applications)
Nope, GMo is a plant breeding method not an ingredient.
Gmo fanboy on the internet vs the UK. Gmo corporate shills lose every time.
“Any intentional use of GM ingredients at any level must be labled.”
It is still not an ingredient.
Uk> pesticide fanboy. Eat your gmo corn. One day you might gain more credibility than the uk.
Have you tried the new Obsession GMO sweet corn, it is so good.
Ingredient uk say so gmo fanboys say no.
The EU calls them products produced from GMO tech, not ingredients.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:268:0024:0028:EN:PDF
Gmo fanboy on the internet vs the UK. Gmo corporate shills lose every time.
“Any intentional use of GM ingredients at any level must be labled.”
Food.gov.uk
Yes each ingredient should have the word GMO in front of it, if it is made of GMOs. Not a general label on the box that says some GMOs possibly are in the product; that would be vague and not as helpful.
I would be all for labeling if it was based on content not source, what do you think about that? The Australian system seems to work well.
It is an adjective that describes the ingredient, telling that it has been genetically modified. Perhaps you should review your English.
GMO = genetically modified organism. “Organism” is a noun. “Genetically modified” is the adjective in this case. I’m well versed in English thanks 🙂
Well GMO has been used as an adjective to describe something, say GMO corn. Technically I agree that GMO itself is comprised of an adjective and noun but the whole thing is being used as an adjective, even if it it is not correct maybe.
Fair enough. I’m probably too used to the scientific context of the terminology versus the more common use of the terms in colloquial language.
At one point of time it was thought that hydrogenated fats were the were just fine as they were basically polu-unsaturated fats
Gmos are not hidden, or you wouldn’t be here yapping about them.
You do know what you eat, it is clearly written on the label.
No one is allergic to GMos and even if they thought they were they could just buy Organic or Non GMO products.
By” hidden” I mean not showing the word GMO on the label if an ingredient is GMO. Then what is problem with writing GMO on the label? Ok, let us assume, hypothetically there is no cost involved in writing GMO on the label, then would you be okay with having it declared on the label?
For people who like to eat GMO food, food labels stating it contains GMOs would be helpful for them to find those products.