Bill would require labeling of GMO foods

[RockofStrength]

A question for those who may know more than I: is there a potential for unintended consequences resulting exclusively from using biotech crops? That is to say, although the standard selective breeding methods are slower and less efficient, do they maintain a safeguard against unintended long-term side effects that bioengineering does not?

For example, if I add a gene to a tomato strain that improves vitamin content, does this have the potential to cause a negative reaction in the overall DNA makeup which could lower the mineral content in the fruits produced by that strain? Or could the makeup of the tomato change in such a way as to create potential allergic reactions not seen in selectively bred strains?

 

[VERT]

A question for those who may know more than I: is there a potential for unintended consequences resulting exclusively from using biotech crops? That is to say, although the standard selective breeding methods are slower and less efficient, do they maintain a safeguard against unintended long-term side effects that bioengineering does not?

For example, if I add a gene to a tomato strain that improves vitamin content, does this have the potential to cause a negative reaction in the overall DNA makeup which could lower the mineral content in the fruits produced by that strain? Or could the makeup of the tomato change in such a way as to create potential allergic reactions not seen in selectively bred strains?

I suppose anything is possible. Strings of DNA (genes) code for the production of proteins. People can be allergic to all sorts of things. This is true for anything we consume. For examples peanuts or wheat. From a purely technical perspective there should really not be any difference in the incidence of this whether more traditional breeding or newer technologies are utilized. Interestingly enough the line between traditional plant breeding and biotechnology are becoming blurred.

What is scary is the idea that we are taking genes (remember all DNA is made of the same stuff) from one organism and moving it to another. Leads to all sorts of ethical discussions.

I will admit that my expertise on many of these topics is limited. It has been almost 15 years since I was a a graduate student taking a course in molecular techniques. Not something I deal with on a day to day basis anymore so I don't keep up with the finer details. I will make this very broad comment. Biotechnology is main stream agriculture and a topic of conversation at professional conferences. I personally have no problem with consuming these products. I will say that there are other agronomic concerns that arise from the use biotech traits in crops, but often times the benefits outweigh the negatives. I will also share that there have been biotech crops that were developed but not released due to agronomic concerns that could not be addressed by the technology development people. I can think of one example of this being done voluntarily by the evil Monsanto themselves. Really can't elaborate much more then that. I would venture to say that the whole process of developing pesticides and biotech crops is much more involved then most people think. There is a reason that companies such as Monsanto are spending literally millions of dollars a day on research.

 

[IndyDave1776]

OK I will help you out then. You are already buying and consuming these products and have been for nearly 20 years. Corn, soybean, cotton, rapeseed, sugarbeet are all crops that are now widely produced that benefited from biotechnology. Long story short the technology is widely used and everywhere. Probably the most significant advancement in agriculture since the tractor. People tend to pick on pest and herbicide resistance and it is true that these were the first products introduced. Simple reason is because these were traits that were marketable.

Relative Merit? How about plants that use less water or fertilizer or grain that produces Omega 3? This is technology that can greatly benefit people and the environment. The question is whether those benefits out way any potential negatives.

I get down on agriculture and what I do for a living. I see it, touch it, have to manage it every day. I am bored with the whole topic to be quite honest. Then I read a thread like this and I am think to myself that what I do is pretty cool. Often misunderstood but pretty cool none the less. Thank you guys!

Once again, you have done a beautiful job of avoiding the point at issue. I don't give a damn if GMOs are the best thing since the discovery of the wheel. We have a right to know what we are eating and make our own choices. I don't give a damn if someone rejects GMOs because they believe that the things are picked out of the noses and ears of homosexual communist gnomes, it is their right to do so, and their right to be correctly informed of what is being presented to them for consumption.

 

[steveh_131]

Once again, you have done a beautiful job of avoiding the point at issue. I don't give a damn if GMOs are the best thing since the discovery of the wheel. We have a right to know what we are eating and make our own choices. I don't give a damn if someone rejects GMOs because they believe that the things are picked out of the noses and ears of homosexual communist gnomes, it is their right to do so, and their right to be correctly informed of what is being presented to them for consumption.

Nailed it.

These companies don't want to be required to tell consumers that their products contain GMO's.

At the same time, they use the FDA to make it difficult for competitors to advertise their products as non-GMO. They even use the FDA to make it illegal for competitors to even sell natural products.

This is crony-capitalism at its worst. I can't believe that anyone would defend this.

 

[grogie]

Part of the anti-GMO movement by the environmentalists is that they don't want less expensive food production. They all think the world is overpopulated, and one way to control population is through the food supply. As said by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Green Peace (and who is no longer with them) in 2006, "There's no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials", and need genetically engineered crops to this end." Moore is a big supporter of Biotechnology. (Google him and read about him as he talks often about environmental and sustainability issues.)

Also, it's not just environmentalists that have been anti-GMO, as I recall reading about ten years ago when GMOs came into India, that it was chemical companies that tried to get the government to ban them, but the local farmers protested as it was increasing their food production with less use of herbicides/pesticides.

Personally, I will not buy any products that state "Non-GMO" on the label.

 

[BigMatt]

I will add one more thing and get out of the conversation.

Almost anything in high enough concentrations is carcinogenic. The worst case that I have seen in a study on Roundup Ready corn is 13 PPM of Glyphosate. That is a lot different from drinking nothing but a solution of over 2000 ppm of Glyphosate for your entire life.

I don't have a problem with organic farmers labeling their stuff as GMO free, but if you are going to have every company label all food with everything that is used in the production of that food, you will be very surprised. 2,4,D has been used since the 50's on corn and has never been labeled. Each seed has innoculants to protect against mold and rot while in the ground - have you ever read a package of inoculated seed? That is scary stuff if you take it too seriously. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of herbicides besides Roundup that are used - why no outrage?

I used to do work at Mission Foods in Dallas and have watched guys walking in corn shoveling it by hand and sweating all in it. Maybe we should label that?

Just think of the poor beef or hog farmer trying to keep track of all of the feed that his herd eats so he can label it.

If you name everything you can think of from the time feed corn is put in the ground to the time you eat it as a steak. The label would be mind-boggling. Rambone talks about how getting rid of illegal immigrants would raise the price of food. Just think of how that recordkeeping and labeling would affect prices.

There comes a time when enough is enough. If you want to know EVERYTHING that is in your food - grow it yourself.

 

[steveh_131]

Personally, I will not buy any products that state "Non-GMO" on the label.

If you want to know EVERYTHING that is in your food - grow it yourself.

I don't want to know everything.

I would like to know if it has been covered with poison or designed to produce poison before I ingest it, though. I wouldn't say that's unreasonable.

Or if it is labeled 'Corn' then I would like to know that it's not actual corn, but that it is whatever Monsanto thinks corn ought to be.

 

[BogWalker]

I will add one more thing and get out of the conversation.

Almost anything in high enough concentrations is carcinogenic. The worst case that I have seen in a study on Roundup Ready corn is 13 PPM of Glyphosate. That is a lot different from drinking nothing but a solution of over 2000 ppm of Glyphosate for your entire life.

I don't have a problem with organic farmers labeling their stuff as GMO free, but if you are going to have every company label all food with everything that is used in the production of that food, you will be very surprised. 2,4,D has been used since the 50's on corn and has never been labeled. Each seed has innoculants to protect against mold and rot while in the ground - have you ever read a package of inoculated seed? That is scary stuff if you take it too seriously. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of herbicides besides Roundup that are used - why no outrage?

I used to do work at Mission Foods in Dallas and have watched guys walking in corn shoveling it by hand and sweating all in it. Maybe we should label that?

Just think of the poor beef or hog farmer trying to keep track of all of the feed that his herd eats so he can label it.

If you name everything you can think of from the time feed corn is put in the ground to the time you eat it as a steak. The label would be mind-boggling. Rambone talks about how getting rid of illegal immigrants would raise the price of food. Just think of how that recordkeeping and labeling would affect prices.

There comes a time when enough is enough. If you want to know EVERYTHING that is in your food - grow it yourself.

It's not about labeling like they say. It's all part of the Monsanto hate bandwagon.

 

[steveh_131]

It's not about labeling like they say. It's all part of the Monsanto hate bandwagon.

False.

It is about labeling. It is about a free market.

Monsanto has the right to sell poisonous products, and I would support their right to do so as long as they were honest about the product and weren't using the FDA to strong-arm their competition and THEN using other government agencies to try to gain a complete monopoly on the seed market.

I just want a free market. Healthy food and unhealthy food, all available at the prices dictated by the market, not those dictated by crony capitalism.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I will add one more thing and get out of the conversation.

Almost anything in high enough concentrations is carcinogenic. The worst case that I have seen in a study on Roundup Ready corn is 13 PPM of Glyphosate. That is a lot different from drinking nothing but a solution of over 2000 ppm of Glyphosate for your entire life.

I don't have a problem with organic farmers labeling their stuff as GMO free, but if you are going to have every company label all food with everything that is used in the production of that food, you will be very surprised. 2,4,D has been used since the 50's on corn and has never been labeled. Each seed has innoculants to protect against mold and rot while in the ground - have you ever read a package of inoculated seed? That is scary stuff if you take it too seriously. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of herbicides besides Roundup that are used - why no outrage?

I used to do work at Mission Foods in Dallas and have watched guys walking in corn shoveling it by hand and sweating all in it. Maybe we should label that?

Just think of the poor beef or hog farmer trying to keep track of all of the feed that his herd eats so he can label it.

If you name everything you can think of from the time feed corn is put in the ground to the time you eat it as a steak. The label would be mind-boggling. Rambone talks about how getting rid of illegal immigrants would raise the price of food. Just think of how that recordkeeping and labeling would affect prices.

There comes a time when enough is enough. If you want to know EVERYTHING that is in your food - grow it yourself.

You have created a false dilemma. Perhaps it could work that way as a result of disingenuous government intervention, but in the end, I could have inexpensive food grown locally including meat fed with grain grown on the same farm. Oh, wait, that's illegal. We need to have food run through the government hoops so that a small few can make the majority of the profit while letting farmers take the majority of the risks for a very small share of the profit in a system enforced by illegalizing the sale of food from the farm to my table. The bureaucratic nightmare does not need to happen. As usual, government is the problem, not the solution.

 

[Lex Concord]

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

dross FTW.

I avoid GMO's, but I don't need the government to save me from them.

There are plenty of manufacturers on the market right now who clearly label their products as to whether they contain corn, soy, gluten, GMOs, wheat, dairy, nuts, etc.

They continue to maintain market share.

While I don't disagree with the notion that many may have the FDA in their back pocket, I don't know that further application of force "fixes" anything.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I will stand by the idea that one of the few legitimate functions of government is to prevent fraud, which presenting anything as something other than it is constitutes fraud by definition.

 

[steveh_131]

I will stand by the idea that one of the few legitimate functions of government is to prevent fraud, which presenting anything as something other than it is constitutes fraud by definition.

Or leveraging the FDA to prevent others from properly labeling their superior products.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Or leveraging the FDA to prevent others from properly labeling their superior products.

That, or even allowing the superior products to be sold.