Why I am for responsible labeling of food products, not anti-science.

[mmonk]

In 1996, soybeans were crossed with brazil nut genes. Blood samples from people with nut allergies were tested with this product indicating people who ingest it would be affected. In this country, some 8% of children have some sort of allergic reaction to certain foods including 2% to nuts. Labeling would help in determining why someone who is allergic became sick without ingesting nuts in this example.


Why I'm for minor regulations regarding Monsanto Roundup Ready crops. As they say, nature finds a way, and nature found a way in the evolution of round up resistant weeds making some farmers turn to other previously known herbicides which cause some soil and runoff pollution in some of our ground water and streams.


Taking this approach is neither anti-GMO nor quackery. Stop saying people who want some food labeling concerning known food allergens or want some environmental protocols are on the level with anti-vacc'ers or climate science deniers please. Because to say so is false. Yes, I'm sure there are people who are anti-GMO due to exaggerated fears. But quit lumping the two together. It is both condescending and annoying.

Have a great day at DU.

[n2doc]

1. The ironic thing is, in science we have to label all of our chemicals

We have to have complete data sheets (MSDS) on each chemical listing its hazards. And we have to label all mixtures and solutions. But it is 'unscientific' to provide complete labeling info on our foods.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Actually, food items contain extensive labels.

The request is for more.

Are you advocating the equivalent of MSDS sheets be place on every food item? This would become mandatory for all foods, not just GMOs. I can see adding the statment, "Some of the contents may be genetically modified. For more information, visit XXX.com"

There is a world of difference between a lab filled with chemicals and a cupboard full of food.

[n2doc]

5. I am always in favor of more information being provided to users

Obviously something as extensive as an MSDS isn't needed. But I would agree people should be given the information that GMO's (and the type of modification, crossbreeding or gene-insertion) are used in the product. Let the market decide.

[Buzz Clik]

2. There's a cluster of people saying things like you.

We are not anti-GMO in the slightest, recognize the potential problems of haphazard use of glyphosate, and don't have any problem with labeling. My experience is that I am tagged as a corporate shill.

The glyphosate problem results from the incorporating roundup resistance in the crops, but it's a management/regulatory problem, not really a GMO problem. Tell EPA to dial back the latest date of application, and the residue in food problem goes away.

Labeling can be important in terms of allergies, but I'm not sure how labeling covers all bases. Are we going to start seeing reams of documentation with every bag of food, similar to those provided with every prescription drug and potentially hazardous household pesticide?

[uppityperson]

3. thank you for your reply, I am in agreement with your points.

I am not sure how a label saying "GMO" will protect sometime with allergies unless they list everything and then how will they make it understandable to people without reams of documentation? A simple label of "contains GMO" will do nothing as far as knowing what is in it, is too broad without providing relevant info.

[merrily]

7. Prepared foods have been labeled for a long time. A leaflet does not accompany a box of CheezIts.

The real labeling issue: I stopped buying CheezIts.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Your post is confusing.

Did you stop buying CheezIts because they lack a leaflet? Or because it's a box of "oh my god why am I getting fat"?

[merrily]

10. I did not want to pay to put the ingredients contained in CheezIts into my body.

Just the bit of info in a small portion of the box (and google) sufficed to convince me of that.

My decision may or may not have been science based, but I think what I pay for to put into my body should be my decision, regardless. I see you have seen my Reply 6 and replied to it, so I'll take a look.

[Buzz Clik]

13. I get it. And, GMO-containing foods may suffer similarly

[mmonk]

12. No, I'm in general agreement with you. Labeling corn for instance isn't really necessary.

I do think where allergens are involved, it is proper. And no on herbicide labeling beyond how we do it already. In regards to poisons, minor handling protocols in farming and usage is the area I look at.

[merrily]

6. It seems odd to me that (although I don't buy fur), I am entitled to know the type

of fur I am buying and the country of origin, but I am not entitled to know what I am paying for to put inside my body?

I don't care if it would result in labeling 95% of foods (more than is claimed). If I am ok with the 95%, or if I want to stick to buying the other 5%, that should be my choice, EVEN if there is NO scientific reason behind my choice.

Similarly, if I want a cotton shirt versus a silk shirt or a polyester blend shirt, I am entitled to know the fabric and make my own choice, regardless of science.

Let's be real. The reason that this is such a huge issue is not that the labeling is such a big deal, nor is it the science. It's that the people with the money don't want me or you choosing that other 5%.

[Buzz Clik]

9. "don't want me or you choosing that other 5%". Maybe, except...

... this is a huge opportunity for an upstart industry that clearly labels their food as non-GMO. I don't give a damn, but there might be some who would ONLY buy non-GMO foods. Five percent of the food industry is billions of $$, and that could expand if there are enough anti-GMO consumers.

[merrily]

11. Well, now I am confused by your post. First, though, let's be clear that I deliberately lowballed

the 5% figure to emphasize my point. So, there's even more money involved that my post suggests.

And, yes, I might buy only GMO foods. So? (So? is not intended to be flip, but only to show where I ceased understanding the point you wanted to make.)

[Buzz Clik]

14. Because I have no opposition to labeling, ...

... "So" you get to make an informed choice. Seems logical.

[merrily]

18. So, we are on the same page on this. Nice when that happens.

[Zorra]

15. I know lots of people, including myself, who only buy non-GMO foods, or who only by products

labeled non-GMO when they are available.

Many companies already clearly label their food as non-GMO, my fridge and pantry are full of them.

I'm sincerely amazed that you don't know this.

Companies don't want to label their food they sell is made of Genetically Modified Organisms because that will cut into their bottom. Most people don't even know what a GMO is, and companies don't want them to know what a GMO

"What's for dinner?"

"We're having a stir-fried Genetically Modified Organisms with Fukushima style shrimp".

No thanks.

[merrily]

19. Mmmm. Fukushima-style shrimp

From his first reply, I, too, thought he opposed labeling. But, see his Reply 14.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Don't be surprised -- I don't know about GMO labels because I don't care.

I don't ever worry about GMO foods.

Most people don't even know what a GMO is, and companies don't want them to know what a GMO

People who know and understand GMOs are not worried about them.

[Brainstormy]

22. "People who know and understand GMOS are not worried about them"

may be the most patently false statement I've ever read on DU.

[progressoid]

16. However, that soybean is not on the market. Anywhere.

The developer terminated the project.

The purpose of safety testing is to evaluate if a product will be safe for consumers (Lehrer and Bannon 2005; Goodman and others 2008). In this case, when it became clear that the transferred protein with potentially an allergen—remember nobody has ever eaten this soybean or suffered an allergic reaction—the project was stopped. The soybean never made out of early stages in development; it was never submitted to regulators nor was any attempt ever made to market it. This is exactly how the premarket safety assessment is supposed to help developers ensure that only products that are as safe as any other food reach the market. It is a fact that no GM product has ever caused a food allergy (Goodman and others 2008).

[MineralMan]

17. That's a rational position to take, and one which I share.

Labeling is just fine. People can, if they choose, avoid GMO products. Personally, it wont make a bit of difference to me.

[MisterP]

21. these people were the same ones hollering that they're "race realists," that the effects at Love

Canal were media-induced, and that secondhand smoke's like homeopathy and crystals

they're the dirty cops of the scientific community, and their whitecoat drag has managed to fool a lot of people
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health