Bill would require labeling of GMO foods

[IndyDave1776]

Labeling has to serve a purpose or it becomes worthless. There is no health risk in consuming genetically engineered food. It is the current crusade of organic/enviro crowd that anti-vax/conspiracy crowd has latched on to. Fear and disinformation are driving the bus usually with some Monsanto hate sprinkled in. Those groups have convinced people that GMO=Bad. That is all this boils down to. Putting a GMO label on an ear of corn doesn't do anything to educate the consumer, but does wonders for reinforcing his current beliefs which likely lack empirical evidence. This isn't how decisions are made. If there is a demand for non-GMO food allow the producer of that food to label his product accordingly. The labeling is just a dishonest attack from a fringe group.

Wait a minute. The general expectation is that a product is what it is represented to be, and what it has been since the dawn of life on earth. I will stand by the notion that regardless of whether or not it makes any difference in your opinion or anyone else's, truthful disclosure is a reasonable expectation. There is nothing dishonest are representative of an attack to have the expectation of a straight answer about WTF I'm eating.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm sure government involvement will fix all this right up. Because government involvement is okay when it supports my pet issues.

The government is already involved. The FDA is counted on to be sure that food labels are accurate and honest. I would prefer that there was no FDA, and that civil suits were the best option for dishonest advertising. I do believe that prosecution of fraud is one of the few legitimate purposes of the government.

The FDA exists. I wish it didn't. But its existence negates the probability of any privately owned systems of certification for food safety, which I think would be preferable. So we're stuck with a corrupt system that allows GMO's and pesticides and all sorts of crap with no disclosure, but that requires raw food sellers to not only label their items as raw, but to label their items "Not for human consumption".

 

[level.eleven]

The FDA exists. I wish it didn't. But its existence negates the probability of any privately owned systems of certification for food safety, which I think would be preferable. So we're stuck with a corrupt system that allows GMO's and pesticides and all sorts of crap with no disclosure, but that requires raw food sellers to not only label their items as raw, but to label their items "Not for human consumption".

What?

Non-GMO Project

You aren't under the impression that non-GMO = no pesticide/herbicide, are you?

 

[level.eleven]

Wait a minute. The general expectation is that a product is what it is represented to be, and what it has been since the dawn of life on earth. I will stand by the notion that regardless of whether or not it makes any difference in your opinion or anyone else's, truthful disclosure is a reasonable expectation. There is nothing dishonest are representative of an attack to have the expectation of a straight answer about WTF I'm eating.

Where is this misrepresentation? I don't know what to tell you about the "dawn of life" comment. Humans have been sorting seeds and breeding cultivars for thousands of years. Maybe stick to rain water?

What would be on your label and why is it needed? Why choose genetic mods and not, say, acceptable levels of contaminates? One of those can actually make you sick, the other can't.

 

[drillsgt]

If she's proposing legislation there has to be some sort of hidden 'government gets to control something' hook buried in there somewhere. It's probably useless for the most part, unless you're part of the trader joes/whole foods set. The usual walmart sheep are just going to pick something up that looks good and throw it in their cart.

 

[BogWalker]

Wait a minute. The general expectation is that a product is what it is represented to be, and what it has been since the dawn of life on earth. I will stand by the notion that regardless of whether or not it makes any difference in your opinion or anyone else's, truthful disclosure is a reasonable expectation. There is nothing dishonest are representative of an attack to have the expectation of a straight answer about WTF I'm eating.

You know the sweet corn you get at the market or road side stands is very different from the maize it originally came from. Changed through selective breeding. GMO is pretty much just switching around the genes, like in selective breeding, but much more precise in what the end result is. Oversimplification, yes, bit there is little to fear from GMO foods.

You know, let the market take care of it. People will start labeling things "non-GMO' to take advantage of consumers' fears. Much the same as buying organic bananas.

 

[level.eleven]

Much the same as buying organic bananas.

WARNING: This banana is a genetically modified infertile clone.

 

[ModernGunner]

 

[steveh_131]

What?

Non-GMO Project

You aren't under the impression that non-GMO = no pesticide/herbicide, are you?

No. Did I say that?

 

[level.eleven]

No. Did I say that?

You sort of lumped GMO, pesticide, and "crap" together.

Should we have pesticide and herbicide labels as well?

 

[steveh_131]

You sort of lumped GMO, pesticide, and "crap" together.

Should we have pesticide and herbicide labels as well?

I wouldn't have listed them individually if I thought they were the same thing.

I'm not certain, though. Dross has a very good point, and I think I could be convinced to side with him. More government intervention is almost never the solution. It does bother me that the playing field is so uneven. I would prefer that the government got out of it entirely and let me sell or purchase whatever I want.

On the other hand, I'm sick of these corporate cronies hiring the FDA to stifle the competition while giving them free reign. So it's a tough call for me.

 

[BogWalker]

WARNING: This banana is a genetically modified infertile clone.

And contains no more pesticides than any other banana if you take the damned peel off of it. Organic is such a buzzword.

 

[level.eleven]

I wouldn't have listed them individually if I thought they were the same thing.

I'm not certain, though. Dross has a very good point, and I think I could be convinced to side with him. More government intervention is almost never the solution. It does bother me that the playing field is so uneven. I would prefer that the government got out of it entirely and let me sell or purchase whatever I want.

On the other hand, I'm sick of these corporate cronies hiring the FDA to stifle the competition while giving them free reign. So it's a tough call for me.

What is this even the playing field line I have heard twice now? What do you mean? Is it just a cry for an entirely unregulated national and internationally traded food supply? If its nothing but links to conspiracy sites about Monsanto, I'm not interested.

 

[level.eleven]

And contains no more pesticides than any other banana if you take the damned peel off of it. Organic is such a buzzword.

Yup.

 

[steveh_131]

What is this even the playing field line I have heard twice now? What do you mean? Is it just a cry for an entirely unregulated national and internationally traded food supply?

Natural food sellers get swat teams through their windows.

Think that will ever happen to Monsanto?

Neither do I.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I will stand by the idea that .gov intervention to demand truth and/or prevent fraud is far different from trying to force us to let others make our choices for us, as is often done by regulation.

 

[Boonl1776]

I don't know why this is a partisan issue. If you're selling something, tell the prospective purchaser what it is.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't know why this is a partisan issue. If you're selling something, tell the prospective purchaser what it is.

It becomes a partisan issue when some can make obscene profits selling us a product we presume to be the standard product in circulation throughout history when it is in fact a product manufactured by splicing and dicing genes.

 

[RockofStrength]

I look at it this way regarding regulation: if the large agri-industrial companies (such as Monsanto) don't use the government to stifle competition, squeeze competitors etc then I think they should be able to sell me anything, and let "buyer beware" be the understood slogan of the day.

However, since I'm well aware that they very much do use the government as a large attack dog, they can go through an exhaustive, probably expensive labeling process for all I care. You don't eliminate crony capitalism by opposing regulation, then watch as huge companies buy government agencies to dance on their strings.

The potentially dangerous nature (or lack thereof) of GMO foods is irrelevant: if I want to know what's been done to my food I ought to be able to be informed regardless, or else put everyone on the same "buyer beware" field.

 

[BigMatt]

The fact remains that people have been eating GMO foods for decades now and are living longer than ever.

If it wasn't for GMO foods and modern farming practices, we wouldn't be able to grow enough food to feed the world.

I, for one, will have GMO sweet corn in my field this year. My yield will be better than ever and there won't be any ear worms to surprise the wife as she shucks an ear.

I will report back if anyone dies from GMO poisoning.