General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsConsumer Reports: Consumers Want Mandatory Labeling for GMO Foods
Nearly 90 percent of Americans want mandatory labeling on genetically modified foods, according to a new poll of 800 registered voters commissioned by a coalition of consumer and environmental groups, including Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. These results confirm previous polls by Consumer Reports and other groups, which also show overwhelming support for GMO labeling.
In July 2016, Vermont will become the first state to require that GMO foods be labeled as such. But that law is being challenged.
In October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard arguments to overturn a lower courts decision to allow the Vermont law to go forward while a lawsuit brought by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other food industry organizations to block the law was being argued. This past summer, the House of Representatives passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599)otherwise known as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Actwhich would nullify existing state labeling laws, ban any future laws to require labeling, and only allow voluntary labeling on the part of the manufacturer. And currently, some lawmakers want to add a provision to the omnibus spending bill that would block states from requiring GMO foods to be labeled.
http://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/consumers-want-mandatory-labeling-for-gmo-foods
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)"In corporations I trust" is not my personal motto.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)if you wish to place your trust in them, feel free to do so.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So long as it isn't misleading, manufacturers should be able to slap on whatever label they like. The problem is when one group of "corporations" are driving the forced use of government regulation which has zero to do with the public's interest and everything to do with increasing market share.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Unlabeled items leave citizens uninformed.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Neither do you know if that "organic" piece of produce was created by bombarding seeds with gamma radiation in order to produce completely random genetic mutations, yet the anti-GMO crowd seems to sleep OK at night content in that ignorance. Very telling that.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Notifying me that corporate scientists have genetically modified what I am about to eat IS useful information.
I can then research the details on how that specific food is altered and what the implications are.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)of the modifications to every conceivable GMO that could exist in the future.
I just want to know. Blind fath isn't my thing.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)that all current and future GMO's are completely safe.
then I would back off on labeling.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Because varietals produced by non-GMO methods will never be able to meet that standard. In fact, no food ever produced by man or naturally occurring could ever meet that standard.
The question isn't whether GMOs can ever offer "irrefutable proof" of complete safety. The only rational question is whether they are as safe or safer than any alternative, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I'm in favor of accurate labeling of ALL food.
Think of a GMO label as a feature, not a bug.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Unlike GMO, that method actually manages to sicken and kill people with predictable regularity. At least in that instance there's something of a rational basis.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)...this is your last response to actual content. Not that you have offered any content to actual content.
Yes, you should be very embarrassed, and only because you haven't been honest.
When I'm wrong, I admit it. And I say so.
Why is it that anti-GMOers refuse to do the same?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I support accurate labeling of GMO's.
I don't trust the giant corporations who produce them, and I dislike other things that these same corporations do that have nothing to do with GMO's, and
those things add to my suspicions of them. So forgive me if I don't want to add to their bottom line.
If I am buying food, I have the right to that information. I have the right to decide what I consume and who I buy it from.
Who do you think you are anyway, questioning my honesty?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You do not care about care about any of what you claim to care about. That has been made very clear.
You want something but you don't know even know why.
FFS. How f'd up is that?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)FFS. How f'd up is that?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)How ffd is it that you have yet to respond to the content of those who have shown your anti-GMO nonsense to be destructive to all humans?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)You oppose labeling. You don't want me to have that information.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You don't know why you want labels. You don't care about honest labeling. You really don't care period. You just want a baseless label.
That's pretty f-d up.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I don't need to make a case for accurate labeling of food.
I hold that truth to be self evident.
you throw links and an abundance of ridicule at me, but not much more.
Some scientists do believe that GMO's are potentially dangerous.
Are you smarter than they are?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)If nearly 90 percent of Americans want mandatory labeling on products fertilized with cow shit, then we should have that right.
But, that's not what they are asking.
Nearly 90 percent of Americans... Who's country is this?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)It would ban the labeling of GMOs in our food supply.
That name is as Orwellian as any bill I've ever seen.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)What are they?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)your religious faith tells you that all current and future GMO's are safe.....and that there is no need for me to bother my pretty little head about this issue.....I must be crazy to even want that knowledge.
My position is that I would prefer to know if it is a GMO.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And you also make a baseless assertion that my decision to follow the science is based in "religion."
Your response explains a lot, as I think you know that there is nothing more dangerous about a GE bred plant than any other kind of plant, although GE plants are more predictable and tested far more, interestingly enough. You have no justification for a mandatory label. It is a preference for you, and that is not something that should be addressed via legal means.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)The resistance to GMO labeling is about money, not science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Organic companies have made hay by unethically demonizing GMOs. Now they bankroll the "labeling movement," which is just a brilliant way of conning a bunch of people into becoming free marketers for organic and non-GMO food. The lack of ethics is astounding.
If you start advocating for all types of seed development technology to be labeled, then at least you would be consistent. Asking for one to be labeled when there is no viable justification for it, is just simply anti-science, anti-logic, and ludicrous.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)but I am not a corporation.....so I want it labeled. I am not a food activist, so I don't need to broadly advocate anything.
You could not possibly prove that all future GMO's are safe.
If corporations selling GMO products can't make their case to the public, then that is their problem. It is the equivalent to Bernie Sanders making a case for electing a Socialist.
Resisting GMO labeling makes their case look weak, BTW
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That doesn't justify labeling them. In fact, that is just a distraction from the discussion, because...
You can't prove that all future plants developed using other methods are safe. No one can. Check out the Lenape potato, for example.
That's why they are studied, and GMOs are studied more than plants developed using other methods, which is, actually odd, when it comes down to it, because, as noted, they are also more predictable, as far fewer genes are changed, and we actually know which genes are changed, unlike the reality with all other seed development technologies.
At the end of the day, you have a preference. Well, then you can buy non-GMO labeled products. It's the same as someone who wants Halal or Kosher food. It's a preference. And, as you can see, it's actually much closer to a religious preference than anything for which I have ever advocated.
PS: http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/
Oh, and you might want to realize that non-GMO may not be better for you or the environment. It might just be corporate BS.
See: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/
And that's not even getting to the reality of the lack of research, oversight and regulation when it comes to pesticide and herbicide use in organic production. Now, advocating that government change the reality in that area might actually be positive for the human race and the planet.
You need to realize that DUers who argue against the anti-GMO stuff are people who generally bought into the anti-GMO stuff originally, but then questioned themselves, and dug into the reality. It did not come easily for any of us, so making grand assertions about religious beliefs when talking to us or about us is truly inaccurate and disrespectful.
Nailzberg
(4,610 posts)To require the labeling of one one breeding method and not others makes no sense.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thanks.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thanks for clarifying that your assertion was just the usual propaganda, and not actually true.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)My "propaganda" is that I want labeling. End of story.
You are the only one with an agenda here.
Archae
(46,335 posts)Using science instead of hysterics and stuff pushed by those charging much more for the same food.
You still want to be suckered by the organic con artists, fine.
Just leave me out.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)it is just a label.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And why are you so inconsistent with what you want to be labeled? And why can't you give us a science-based justification for your desired label?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)That's why not one post goes unanswered. I've noticed that they will come back days, or even weeks, later to post some more.
I think pay-for-post members should be labeled.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)and your response is consistent with that observation.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You want the "warning label" for a perfectly safe food that Big Organic wants you to want.
You've been conned by bad propaganda. (I know it sucks, but you have to admit it, and move forward.)
You want a label that is meaningless, but you only want it for one particular seed development technology.
You have shown us your agenda. How do you fail to see that?
Actually, the fact that you failed to respond to me above shows us all we need to know.
You can do better.
Nailzberg
(4,610 posts)Methods which are far less precise and also involve changing the genome in a lab.
They can scramble thousands of genes with radiation in hopes of a creating the desired trait, and that's the okay, but precisely map the genome and stitch in one favorable gene and everyone loses their shit.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I'm in favor of labeling mutation breeding that involves chemicals or radiation as well.
This Orwellian "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act"
nullifies laws which require accurate labeling of GMO's.
I don't want any laws with misleading titles.....especially when they try to deny me information.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I don't see any other explanation. There really is no downside to consumers .
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and depressing if they succeed
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)But they're trying REALLY hard, aren't they!
Smh..
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)American Association for the Advancement of Science: The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)
American Medical Association: There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)
World Health Organization: No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)
National Academy of Sciences: To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified. (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)
The Royal Society of Medicine: Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA. (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)
The European Commission: The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies. (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)
American Council on Science and Health: [W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology. (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)
American Dietetic Association: It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management. (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)
American Phytopathological Society: The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity. (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)
American Society for Cell Biology: Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants. (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)
American Society for Microbiology: The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life. (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)
American Society of Plant Biologists: The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding
The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people. (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)
International Seed Federation: The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment
Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment. (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed. (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)
Crop Science Society of America: The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology. (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)
International Society of African Scientists: Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution. (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)
Federation of Animal Science Societies: Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption. (http://bit.ly/133F79K)
Society for In Vitro Biology: The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling. (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)
Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption. (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)
Society of Toxicology: Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods. (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)
Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations. (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)
French Academy of Science: All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria. (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health. (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)
International Council for Science: Currently available genetically modified crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate. (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)which isn't done.
So their position is self-contradictory.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/the-amas-strange-position-on-gm-foods-test-but-dont-label/258968/
If such doubts exist, shouldn't GM foods be labeled so the public has a choice?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... noted a post that shows that almost every legit scientific community says GMOs are safe.
And that's your response? To go off on a single odd issue, regarding, one organization?
This is why anti-GMOers do not get respect.
You are not honest in your responses.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Why don't you care about that?
In 1992, a Rethug administration decided that henceforth all GMO's would be considered safe by default. I don't agree with that position and I don't think a Democratic administration would have made that decision.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Hello?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And then prove that we get pre-market testing for all other seed development technology products.
Oh, whoops!!!
Those don't exist.
Yikes!
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I'm willing to have organic foods labeled as the product of mutated organisms.
Why aren't you willing to have genetically-engineered foods labeled as such?
Let people make up their own minds which they'd rather eat.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You get me a list of organic companies ready to label their foods by the seed development technology, and get back to me.
We both know the reality.
At this point in time, I have to wonder about you. Why are you so apt to promote such unethical means?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Since the GMO producers were able to restrict the access of independent researchers to the seeds for so long, I don't feel confident that much of their research proves what they say it does.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Now you are simply changing the subject, as if that's going to fool anyone.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7421782
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)From that radical group, the American Bar Association:
(P.S. Thanks for helping remind me how easy this was to find. Maybe I'll make an OP out of it soon.)
https://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html
FDA Oversight
The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the coordinated framework of federal agencies that also includes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).16 This framework, which has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign,17 is available online18 and contains a searchable database that covers genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews.19 The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary consultation procedures, but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23
The FDA approach can be understood as the result of having a dual mission. In addition to its mission to protect food safety, the FDA was charged with promotion of the biotech industry.24
Health Concerns Continue
However, some studies have called to question the safety of these foods. The chemical herbicides applied are poisons engineered specifically for the purpose of killing plant life, and their use is increasing.25 Crops which result from genetic modifications, resistant to the chemicals, are classified as safe with no long term studies available to provide an evidence base.26 The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) released a position paper calling for a moratorium on GM foods pending independent long term studies to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.27 The authors asserted that there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.28 The paper also cited numerous animal studies showing adverse effects and posited that the biological plausibility, as defined by Hills criteria, in light of this data is that adverse health effects are also caused in humans.29 A 2011 study found maternal/fetal exposure associated with GM crops in Quebec.30 A well publicized study,31 sharply criticized by industry32 found that rats fed GM corn developed tumors and organ damage.33 Moreover, new questions continue to emerge.34 The nature of these concerns have manifested in repeated calls for new food labeling regulations containing GM ingredients.35 However, the FDA has expressed no interest in revisiting its policy. Moreover, a 2002 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office and referred to as GAO)) asserted that it is not feasible to assess long term effects of GMOs because it is so difficult to assemble a control group without labels on GM food.36
Labeling Controversy
The FDA position on labeling is consistent with its original 1992 policy that these foods are not materially different.37 The FDA did not believe that the method of development of a new plant variety (including the use of new techniques including recombinant DNA techniques) is normally material information within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 321(n) and would not usually be required to be disclosed in labeling for the food.38 Hence, FDAs 2001 guidance to industry logically rejects any implication of inferior quality in GM foods: Therefore, a label statement that expresses or implies that a food is superior (e.g., safer or of higher quality) because it is not bioengineered would be misleading.39 The FDA made it clear the policy is unchanged: FDA is therefore reaffirming its decision to not require special labeling of all bioengineered foods.40 The FDA did recognize public concern by stating that While the use of bioengineering is not a material fact, many consumers are interested in the information, and some manufacturers may want to respond to this consumer desire.41 To that end, the FDA described a comprehensive set of examples as to what would constitute unfair or misleading labeling.42 However, if the overarching FDA concern is truth in labeling, it is difficult to reconcile the statement that GM foods are not materially different when there is so much scientific disagreement.43 The FDA stated further that the certified organic label assures consumers that the food product is not produced via bioengineering:
The national organic standards would provide for adequate segregation of the food throughout distribution to assure that non-organic foods do not become mixed with organic foods. The agency believes that the practices and record keeping that substantiate the "certified organic" statement would be sufficient to substantiate a claim that a food was not produced using bioengineering.44
However, this sidesteps the issue of direct labeling sought by consumers and restricts marketplace choice. It is possible that a product be GM free and not be certified organic, for example. Moreover, despite the FDA statement on adequate segregation, there exists a real issue of organic crop contamination by GM crops.45 Well publicized cases of conventionally grown crops that were contaminated by GM corn, not approved for human consumption, highlight the difficulty of containing a GM plant strain due to the ease of contamination.46 These cases were discussed in a 2008 GAO study which specifically addressed the problem of unauthorized releases.47
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Your claim was, and I quote:
"We don't have the required premarket safety testing that the AMA calls for."
You were asked for proof that GMOs are not being tested. You have yet to provide this proof and it's obvious you can't because they most certainly are being tested.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I don't trust this "voluntary" testing, with "consultation." You do.
It is logically impossible for me to prove that these companies are not doing the testing that they are never required to submit. They are allowed, legally, to keep it all under wraps. You know this, so you keep asking me to do the impossible.
What I can do is prove that they are not REQUIRED to do any safety testing, or to submit it. It's all up to them.
And the major GMO producers haven't given me enough of a reason to trust them.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that they are doing safety testing -- since they are not required to submit it.
You just trust them. I don't.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which I can only guess you pulled from a place that rarely sees the sun.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's mandated by the USDA, but not the FDA. The AMA is simply saying the FDA should make it mandatory rather than voluntary, but no manufacturer is going to bring a GMO product to market without extensive testing regardless.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and they know that without labeling, no one will ever know if their product, among the thousands of others in the marketplace, is causing damage in the general population?
Surely you realize that epidemiological research is impossible without labeling?
Which is probably why the producers oppose it.
For two decades Monsanto purposely contaminated West Virginia with Agent Orange. Sorry, but I don't trust them to test the safety of their own GMO's.
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146144078/monsanto-accused-in-suit-tied-to-agent-orange
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Public confidence and potential product liability litigation is a powerful motivating factor.
No, because it's complete nonsense.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)if no one knows who has eaten it?
If someone gets sick from food poisoning, the CDC can figure out what they ate and trace it back to its food source.
How could long term or even short term damage from GMO's be traced if no one even knows when they're consuming it?
The comparison to appliances - which no one uses without knowing they're using them -- is ludicrous.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)...without a sticker that says "contains GMO" on the outside?
Do you even realize how ridiculous this sounds?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)with all the foods they've eaten, which GMO was in which food they ate over whatever period of time.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The CDC and state investigators do their own investigation.
You do realize there hasn't been a single health issue attributable to GMO, right?
Food poisoning? GMO? Really?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)of GMO's in the population and have no labeling?
The producers have the perfect set up.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's good to know what corporation has put what patented crapola into my chow.
Like cows bred and led to slaughter, it's not natural.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I prefer requiring the term "transgenic" in the ingredients portion of the labels. Far more descriptive and accurate and gets to the heart of what the anti-GMO crowd really wants.
Archae
(46,335 posts)There are all these organic producers, cranking out hysterics and innuendos.
"Frankenfoods!"
"Poison!"
"Cancer!"
Actual science, that is, CREDIBLE science, not "Natural News" or Mercola, says GMO's are safe.
But the big 3 have their propaganda out...
1. The genuinely crazy like this guy:
http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2015/12/1536-billy-demoss.html
2. The agenda at all costs people.
"Destroy Monsanto! They only deserve to be jailed!"
Etc...
3. The biggest group.
Those making big profits off the suckers in the anti-GMO crowd.
The ones that make "premium organic milk" that is no different at all from store brand, except it's 2, 3, even 4 times as expensive.
The GOP-supporting CEO of Whole Paycheck...I mean Whole Foods.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Of course, after years of fomenting baseless fear about GMOs. But never acknowledging the reality of the scientific consensus.
Fear mongering works. Fox News knows this. Trump knows this. The anti-GMO movement knows this.
The constant anti-GMO rants is starting to be very embarrassing for DU. It's amazing that none of these folks realize that there is no worry about GMOs that is not a bigger worry about all other types of seed development. The disconnect with reality is astounding.
And this is no better. Consumer Reports has jumped the shark, but this OP seems to think it gives his POV credibility, when it does no such thing, at least if we were in science class.
Consumer Reports Misleads on GMO Safety
http://www.realclearscience.com/2014/10/07/consumer_reports_misleads_on_gmo_safety_261334.html
CALLING OUT CONSUMER REPORTS
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/10/calling-out-consumer-reports.html
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)for the Monsanto Discredit Bureau here on DU.
Same fools with the same pro-corporate/anti-consumer arguments.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Either show us that your position is justified with a consensus of science, or admit that it's not.
This is how true progressives make progress.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)BTW, stopped you from stalking me on DU mail...lol
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's what matters.
If you can't, then DU needs to consider the fact that your personal attacks should be taken down.
Why is it that you can't discuss this in the real world?
Why is it that you can't support your claims about GMOs with a consensus of science?
Why is it that you don't see that reality?
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)third grade.
Guess you refuse to give us your credentials...make Mongo sad.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Can you support any anti-GMO claim?
Can you?
We're waiting!!!!
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 04:30 AM - Edit history (1)
First you send creepy and insulting DU emails to me, then you parrot my words & think you're clever? It's starting to look like you're running out of gas here, but I'm sure you feel obligated to get some kind of lame-assed last word. So for the remainder of this exchange you are going to get replied by a series of Batman-like sound effects because you've become tedious.
See how I tied that back into the Bat-Signal thing?
BAM!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)We're bored with your childishness.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)THUNK!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)We're waiting.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)ZOTT!!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)BAP!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)BLURP!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)BIFF!!!
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's quite embarrassing, for you.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)ZLOPP!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You can't discuss your religion.
No one really cares, however.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)ZZZWAP!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)SPLONK!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Oh, I remember you!
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)POW!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Tell me why on earth I should listen to someone who displays a real interest in making sure consumers don't have information available that they want. You DO NOT wear the crown of science in this place, and at this juncture, I'd like to know what your bona fides are that make you believe you can browbeat and schoolmarm everyone.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)After having a short but nice conversation with you earlier about growing, I glanced at your post here, misread it, and thought you were ONE OF THEM. I'm glad to see that I was mistaken. I love science, love, love, love it. But I emphatically do not consider GMO foods to be a matter of settled science. Some or most of it may be fine, but I don't believe we know enough yet to say that with certainty. I'm also a little put off by this constant NRA-type haranguing a few around here engage in with respect to GMO foods. If people want labels, we want the damned labels. We don't want to be talked out of it. We don't want to be told how our opinions are stupid. We damn sure don't want to be condescended to by other board members who have decided that they know what's best for all of us and have further decided to shove it down our throats on a continuing basis. People can think whatever they'd like about GMO foods. But no one can or will ever be able to explain why the foods shouldn't be labelled if we want them to be labelled.
Anyway, I'm off to go get some Roundup for my tent.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)I agree with you on labeling and some of the pompous characters we have here.
Vinca
(50,278 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... should be proud to put it on the label.
But they don't.
Why is that?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)need is an education campaign to inform consumers what it meant.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And the justification for it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)There would be no justification or need for it unless the GMO proponents wanted to scare people.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And now you're pretending that others are trying to scare people.
You don't change. You just keep working to harm the planet and it's people, and that sucks.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And you Monsanto Round-up lovers pretending that you're working to save the planet. What a trip.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And your personal attacks are just disgusting.
Do you have any boundaries at all? WOW!
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Of course I am going to block his emails. Other people should be aware of the kind of email they might get from him.
P.S. I just realized how appreciative I am of the fact that none of the hundreds of thousands of DU members has ever chosen to send me an abusive email before, no matter how tempted.
So thanks to all the rest of you!
You are an asshole. You have attacked me in the most disgusting ways possible.
YOU SUCK AS A HUMAN!!!!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And you actions are horrible.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #93)
Post removed
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If you did, and it appears you're admitting that, you're both creepy and cowardly, and you bear very close watching.
Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #98)
Post removed
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)As I said elsewhere in this thread, you're not the arbiter of science on DU. I'd wager many of us know a great deal more about science than you. And the vast majority of us are more accomplished at being able to control our frustrations and anger than what you've displayed here. You work on your emotional issues and don't write cowardly DU emails to other members telling them to fuck off.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)With actual science.
If you can't, then you can cut the crap.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You, of course, are not compelled to answer it. But not answering is an answer in itself.
So you told another user to fuck off in a private message because you're not able to keep control of yourself when someone disagrees with you. I don't cater to people of this caliber, and I don't give them any leeway. I don't personally believe you know much of anything about science, and I don't trust your word with respect to any GMO issue.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)This is what I get when I copy and paste the whole thing:
Return to My InboxMark as unreadDelete this messageBlock this sender
8:52 PM
HuckleB
Fuck you!
Mail Message
You are an asshole. You have attacked me in the most disgusting ways possible.
YOU SUCK AS A HUMAN!!!!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)His last response to me was in the vein of "I know you are but what am I". He wrote the words to you, but he doesn't have the strength of character to talk about what he's done. I question whether he knows the first thing about science.
If there are any people reading this thread who aren't sure how they feel about GMO labelling, I believe that the bottom portion of the thread should go a long way toward letting people know that they're being given a sermon by a person who isn't able to keep his emotions in check when he hears things that disagree with his world view. This causes him to lash out in unpredictable, immature ways. I'm pretty sure those on-the-fence people will have good reason to seriously question the agenda being pushed by this person. So at least there's that.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:25 AM - Edit history (1)
Jurrors decided 6-1 to hide his attack.
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:19 PM, and voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I bet the alerter has sent similar PMs, but yes calling someone a horrible person is uncivil. I am sure the alerter has also posted similar uncivil things, but alerter is losing various arguments against this poster and so is actually just alert-stalking. I will vote per the juror instructions but alerter isn't fooling me.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's a personal attack
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You should report it to the Admins.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The real question is why you supposedly blocked me but you're everywhere. Hmm.
And why is it that you can't answer any of my questions?
That makes you worse than anything I could say to anyone in a PM. PERIOD!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Woosh!
Response to darkangel218 (Reply #109)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #112)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kali
(55,013 posts)you post public OPs worse than that, and you have sent your share of alertable PMs too.
by the way, I was juror #1 and meant to vote hide. it has been a long day and I didn't double check very well. I let admins know when I saw my error.
Response to Kali (Reply #122)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kali
(55,013 posts)my excuse was a long working day, what is yours? I wrote in the post that I made a mistake. do you ever read past the subject lines?
from the way you ignore when people ask you questions and try to give you real information, it would seem rare. or you just grasp at the odd thing that you think is some kind of AHA gotcha, even when it is not.
Response to Kali (Reply #124)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Sorry your friend got two hides.
Good night
Kali
(55,013 posts)and this is an open forum, I can read, post, and reply to anybody I want. if you don't like it you have options at your disposal (of course when you claim to block someone and then reply right away, your credibility is compromised - again)
stating facts about your PMing and posting history isn't an attack, unless you are so ashamed you just can't handle it being brought up.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)What about your history of attacking my private life, my job, my fiance? Oh sure, you're not going to mention that.
Woosh now.
Kali
(55,013 posts)I ask questions, remember some of your posts, and point out various inconsistencies and patterns of behavior. and I have never started an OP calling you a troll, have I? I have never sent you a PM saying "Fuck off, troll!!!" have I?
the fact that you have probably had more time outs just this year than I have had hidden posts ever indicates which of us is more of a troll.
see ya at your next flame-out
Response to Kali (Reply #140)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kali
(55,013 posts)You know its the truth. Like I said take this silliness elsewhere, I won't fall for your immature attacks again.
Buh bye.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Kali
(55,013 posts)I would have felt bad if it had been a deciding vote.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)where I blocked his mail.
Good times.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I would have probably received the same thing
Seems as if I have a lot of posters on this thread hidden.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)These anti-GMO "organic" food con-artists want to jack up the price of food to increase their own profits by misleading the public that GMO's are unsafe.
If they think their stupid organic foods are better then they can label their foods as they wish, but don't force that B/S on everybody.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Still, how dumb am I for doing so?
Now I support the food bank with a lot more cash and food, and, yes, selfishly, I travel more.
Archae
(46,335 posts)Organic producers charge *HUGE* markups on their produce, even if it's exactly like non-organic.
This past Wednesday I was at the grocery store, and saw an "organic premium milk" for sale, for $6 a half-gallon.
The store brand of milk is identical, yet it's only $2.50 a gallon.
I have yet to see just ONE person tell me how this "organic premium milk" is any better than the store brand.
And for good reason.
There is no difference.
The organic milk producers even use the same antibiotics the non-organics do.
This tells me one thing only.
Organic is not a bunch of hippy farmers.
Organic is a big-business scam.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Most people would like to know what they are putting in their bodies. What have you got against that?
What about other things in our food, like putting yoga mat materials in bread? Are you fine with that? Wouldn't you like to know if they bread you eat has that? What's wrong with truth?
When did knowledge and disclosure become a bad thing?
.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)and almost all foods have been genetically modified by man. Wild caught fish is just about the only exception. GMO's are just not random like other methods of genetic modification, so they can be controlled and better studied before coming to the market.
Mandatory labeling is design to scare people based on bad science. Don't fall for the scam to scare people, which will jack up the price of food.
If people are inclined to waste their money, they can find foods that are labeled as they want. It's their money.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)My wording could have been better but my point was people have the right to know what they are putting in their bodies.
Cigarettes weren't labeled in the beginning either. Nor was there a warning about consuming alcohol when pregnant. Now they are labeled. Why should GMOs not be labeled?
(I know GMO aren't cigarettes and alcohol, though tobacco and alcohol's ingredients might be GMO)
And I see no reason why labeling will "jack up the price of food". In fact, GMO contribute to the demise of family farmers all over the world. Watch "The World According to Monsanto" and see how they screw poor farmers out of their livelihood just like mobsters.
.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)How about us folks that want to purchase affordable scare-free food? What about people that want to purchase food that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers safe without warning labels demanded by con-artists and CT'ers?
First the con-artists demand that warning labels be put on perfectly safe foods, then if successful, they will claim that the warning labels show that the foods are potentially dangerous, because why else would the government demand warning labels?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Are you trying to say a label will stop you?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Why are they doing this, beats me.
If GMOs are so "great and not harmful", what are they afraid of?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)GMO corn is still corn like any non-GMO corn. Products are labeled by what's in them, not by how they are produced.
The reason GMOs aren't labeled is because you have a right to know what's in your food, not how it's developed, and there's exactly zero increased risk from GMO compared to any alternative.
What's interesting about the "I want labels" crowd is exactly nobody is promoting the idea of labeling food produced by mutation breeding, which involves bombarding seeds with gamma radiation until completely random mutations are created. Some products produced by this method are sold with organic labels. Very telling that.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)that could potentially harm me in the future. There is no way to know that there is zero risk from GMO.
And defending Monsanto is deplorable. Their patented GMOs are ruining the lives of millions around the world. Go watch The World According to Monsanto. Despicable.
For something to be labeled "certified organic" it has to meet regulations. The key is it has to be "certified". Just like people can slap an "all natural" label on their items that mean nothing so can they slap on an "organic" label that could mean nothing. This is EXACTLY why we need strict labeling laws so the people are not duped.
It's absolutely ridiculous to argue against labeling. Completely ludicrous.
.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Anything you put in your body could potentially harm you in the future. Claiming this is any different for GMO with zero basis in fact is ridiculous. Completely ludicrous.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That's my point, that we need strict labeling laws. Anyone against that has to be a shill for Monsanto, because why else would you argue so strongly against knowledge and information?
And what of all the poor farmers whose live Monsanto's patented GMOs COMPLETELY ruin? Go watch that documentary. Defend that. I do not want to support a method that screws over countless people and makes them indentured to a giant corporation. How you fight for Monsanto against the welfare of people is beyond me.
.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Can you link to where that specific right you claim is listed or not?
I'm thinking not.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Are you really against safety laws? You ask me that as if there are none in existence.
Now back to all the lives Monsanto ruins. Go watch that documentary. The World According to Monsanto. If you still argue against a silly little thing like labeling I will know exactly why you keep arguing this thing that would not inconvenience companies one bit if GMOs are no big deal.
.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I just wanted to know where that right was listed so I can read up on it, because I certainly can't find it.
Not none, just the one you're claiming. Is this really so hard to understand?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It's cool, I understand. I treat you paternalistically every time you're foolish enough to make claims about networking technologies.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And they failed miserably!
Cheers!!
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The only posts that are hidden are from an anti-labeling poster, and deservedly so.
This is a discussion site. Not everyone is going to agree with you. Everything isn't a conspiracy. I know that is part of the pro-labeling fantasy.
madokie
(51,076 posts)one is that Selective Breeding is not the same as Genetically Modifying.
now that we have that out of the picture what is the reason they do GMO to begin with. Mostly its so they can spray the crops for weeds and not kill the crop.
The last thing we need to do is be ingesting all kinds of insecticides along with the gmo products.
IMHO
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Not all GMOs are bad, Not all GMOs are good
Just label the suckers
Consumer reports only reported is this is what consumers want.
What's wrong with that?
madokie
(51,076 posts)didn't mean to imply otherwise
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)foods from labeling their products "Non-GMO."
If not, then any food product not labeled as non-GMO can be assumed to contain GMOs.
Problem solved.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There was a cattle rancher who labeled his beef as tested and clean from mad cow disease who got an order to stop labeling his meat like that. I may be remembering it a bit incorrectly, this was years ago, but same type of thing. He labeled it to show that it was "safe" and "healthy" and got shut down by corporate lawsuits/complaints.
Iirc, they tried to disallow the labeling of "organic" as well back in the day. Anyone against labeling is supporting corporate dirty tricks imo.
.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Perhaps they're not actually benefits?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, the poor downtrodden corporations will have to pay for it!!