California Wants Genetically Modified Foods To Be Labelled 559
bbianca127 writes "In November, California will be voting on Proposition 37. The proposition would mandate putting labels on foods that have been genetically modified. While supporters of the proposition think that consumers deserve to know what they're eating, opponents call it 'anti-science' and have donated $25 million to defeating the measure. From the article: 'Unsurprisingly, the battle has gotten very expensive, very quickly. Agribusinesses and food manufacturers have donated a total of $13 million toward defeating the measure, bringing the total up to $25 million in the coffers of those proposing the proposition. In comparison, the organic farmers and environmentalists who support the proposition have managed to raise less than a tenth of that total amount.'"
What's to fear (Score:5, Insightful)
The GMO makers tout their products as being so safe and great, such benefit to humanity. They should proudly label their products: Contains GMOs! What's to fear!?! This isn't anti-science but pro-science.
Re:What's to fear (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news, superbugs are growing resistant to bug-resistant gmo crops:
http://www.rodale.com/gmo-corn [rodale.com]
Re:What's to fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's to fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's to fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I would certainly support that label. I have nothing against GMOs per -se-, but I do have a lot against the particular practices of particular companies that support their use.
Re:What's to fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the lack of testing, I'm not sure that NOT being biased against GMO foods is particularly sane. You are beta-testing something that might kill you, though it probably won't even injure you. How much bias one should have is a reasonable matter for debate, however. I doubt that I'd pay $10/pound extra for potatoes that were non-GMO. My wife might. And it's been suggested that some "food allergies" are actually allergies to GMO ingredients. Not sure if I believe it, but I see no reason to doubt it, so I tend to give that belief the benefit of the doubt.
Think of GMO foods as beta testing on a large population of test subjects, that you don't monitor for adverse effects. If things work our right, there won't be any adverse effects. If there are, they can't prove it's because of your beta-testing. But if people CAN avoid GMO foods, all of a sudden you've divided the population into experimental subjects and a control group.
Re:What's to fear (Score:4, Informative)
Given the lack of testing
What about these hundreds of studies? [blogspot.com]
And it's been suggested that some "food allergies" are actually allergies to GMO ingredients.
Highly unlikely. That has no evidence and was basically pulled out someone's hindquarters. There are only a few proteins inserted into the GE crops you eat (the cry proteins long used in organic agriculture safely, an altered from of the epsps enzyme that all plants have, the PAT enzyme, two viral coat proteins that are going to be present in much higher concentration in the virus infected non-GE versions).. There is no evidence that they increase allergies. Ironically, there may be an increase in allergies due to new varieties though, but due to breeding, not GE. Pathogenesis-related proteins are good for increasing a plants resistance to disease. They are also a very allergenic class of compounds. Guess what good old fashioned 'safe and proven' breeding has been increasing for the last couple of decades in an effort to produce hardier crops? One of the disadvantages to breeding is that, unlike genetic engineering, you don't always know all the genes you're working with, nor does it require the massive amount of testing and regulatory hurdles that GE does. So I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between newer varieties of GE crops and allergies, but it I would be surprised if there was a causation.
But if people CAN avoid GMO foods
You can do that already. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, papaya. Avoid them, or buy non-GMO/organic items, and you avoid genetic engineering. It isn't hard to learn if those who wish to avoid GE crops take the time to educate themselves. A little knowledge completely negates the need for mandatory labels (which should raise the question of why this movement is not spreading education but is instead trying to make a new law...I'm guessing it has something to do with the funding from organic companies).
Re: (Score:3)
The lawsuits you linked to are predominantly breach of contract cases.
Re:What's to fear (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, and if hybrid seed is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via tissue culture is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via induced polyploidy is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via somaclonal variation or mutagenesis is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via doubled haploid hybridization is so great, why not label it? And if Haram food won't send you to hell, why not label it? I could go on, but do you see how easy it is to use that argument? Loaded questions are not good ways to make a point.
They should proudly label their products:
The people who sell the seed do. t is the farmers and food processors who don't? I wonder why? I'll be if I went around telling people that tissue culture causes cancer, people who sell tissue cultured crops like potatoes or bananas wouldn't want to label that either, even if I pulled the cancer thing out of my posterior.
This isn't anti-science but pro-science.
No, it is singling out something because of political reasons. Hey, evolution is only a theory...are creationists pro-science for asking that fact (and it is a fact) be labeled in textbooks? Or are they anti-science by singling out a single thing in a misleading way meant to deceive people due to their ignorance of what the word theory means? Pro-science would be educating people on the genetic history of crops, including the benefits and risks of the methods. Anti-science is singling out one thing because it doesn't fit your beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and include parts of Europe in that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that there are several European countries that have blanket bans on GMO crops, you might want to include them in your "Brainwashed people (especially Americans, due to their culture) can't be healed very easily." statement.
Re:What's to fear (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying the free market can't work in America, because consumers can't be trusted to make their own decisions?
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair... we already *KNOW* that consumers can't be trusted to make sensible decisions.
That doesn't mean that the free market can't work, however... it just means it's wisest to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
In this case, that would mean putting labels on things, and know that the consumer has the capability to make an informed choice (if they do not exercise that, that's their own problem).
Genetically modified how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Genes from animals? Genes from other plants? Genes inserted directly?
Where does 200+ years of cross breeding come in? Is that considered 'intelligent design' or genetic modification?
Re:Genetically modified how? (Score:5, Informative)
Bacteria like E. coli actually.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what genes from E. Coli would be beneficial to crops... Bascillus Thurigiensis? Certainly. It contains proteins that are poisonous to soft bodied insects, but harmless to humans and other mammals.
E. Coli? It makes compounds toxic to PEOPLE. I won discount that there night be useful gene sequences in e. Coli, but they would have to be for celular metabolism, or environmental resistances or something.
Re:Genetically modified how? (Score:4, Insightful)
200+ years? Try 3000+ years. Mankind has been selectively breeding plants and animals for at least that long, even though we've only recently started learning why it works.
Re:Genetically modified how? (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of modern GMO practices resemble "cross breeding" about as much as Chicken Vienna Sausage resembles an actual chicken. Less even.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. The "bananas" you see in supermarkets are a genetic monstrosity; basically all clones of the same individual, thanks to human meddling over the last 7000 years [discovery.com]. It doesn't get more GM than that. So, where do you draw the line?
Re: (Score:3)
Lobbyists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But
Re:Lobbyists (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a single one of your examples are in the same arena as GMO. Not one. Apples contained cyanide before humans existed. Same with every one of your other examples. I see NO reason not to label GMO. I have a right to know what is being claimed as food.
As far as raising your own, in many locales veggie gardens are being frowned on. After all, it's an eyesore, right? It's un-American not to consume, right?
The fact that some in society are to stupid to understand what the label means should have no impact at all on whether I have access to information.
Re: (Score:3)
The labeling is not attempting to itemize what or how an item is modified, that'd be impossible given the obscurity of supply chains these days. A label that simple says, "This food has been genetically engineered", or simply "GMO" so I know what it is. No statements regarding the health, safety, or otherwise. I have the right to know.
Re:Lobbyists (Score:5, Insightful)
So this isn't about their rights.
Bullshit.
We can drop all of the arguments about GMO here.
What you want amounts to censorship . Just because people may use information to further their agenda does not make the release of such information unethical.
All of the pro-GMO arguments basically boil down to the fact they don't want the information out there, the arguments about that information to occur, and the ability for anyone to make a purchasing decision based on that information.
Ummm, that's not to anyone's benefit. Restricting the information because you may feel you "know what is best for the rest of us" is abhorrent logic.
Let them label it, and let people make their own decisions.
Unless we have lost all pretense about living in a country where we have freedom and it is really isn't just about corporations and 1%'s fucking us over like slaves.
Re: (Score:3)
The people asking for the information not to be provided are the ones encouraging the act of censorship. Censorship is not just the government preventing speech, it is any entity preventing undesirable speech.
As far as compulsory speech goes, that's pretty silly. We already mandate a fuck-ton of compulsory speech all over the place. Emergency exit signs, nutritional labels, warning labels, etc. The list goes on and on and on.
Companies have to be forced to give the information or they don't. They also n
Cheerleading for Kraft (Score:5, Insightful)
So, this is what a totally free libertarian market looks like, huh? Big companies throwing temper tantrums at the very notion of consumer empowerment and scientists and government agents falling in line to soothe their wailing.
How about this? SIt down with the top food scientists in the United States, come up with every possible ingredient and fact about the contents of the food consumers should know, and then hire the top graphic designers to present this information in an organized and clear way.
Oh, what's that? You don't want to rustle Kraft and Dean Food's feathers? OK, forget it. Let's stick to our 1980s food labeling standards and continue eating anal glands with our vanilla wafer cookies in total blind ignorance.
Re:Cheerleading for Kraft (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it interesting that one of the cornerstone requirements for a working free market - perfect access to full information - is being opposed by entities praising the free market at every turn. It couldn't be that those are just interested in preserving their own position in the market, and are using "free market" as an easy mantra with which to mislead the voting public?
All sarcasm aside, my biggest problem with this situation really isn't that GMO food might be inherently more dangerous than non-GMO food. It's that when I buy a banana, I want to know that this isn't a regular Chiquita banana, but the glow-in-the-dark version that is designed to keep nocturnal monkeys from eating it. In other words, I want to know what the product is that I'm buying. This bill would help me with that.
In other words, the parent AC hits it on the head: this bill should be a no-brainer, because I should be able to know what I am buying.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I find it interesting that one of the cornerstone requirements for a working free market - perfect access to full information - is being opposed by entities praising the free market at every turn.
You don't know what you're talking about. Perfect access to information is a condition of a perfect market [wikipedia.org], not a free market. The only condition for a free market is a lack of government regulations. Free markets do not require perfect access to anything, either as a condition to exist or in order to function properly. Your entire argument is a strawman.
It's that when I buy a banana, I want to know that this isn't a regular Chiquita banana, but the glow-in-the-dark version that is designed to keep nocturnal monkeys from eating it. In other words, I want to know what the product is that I'm buying. This bill would help me with that.
You're under the mistaken impression that there's some identifiable difference between GMO and non-GMO foods, that couldn't be achieved through natural
Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Why proponents of GE are trying to stop (via outspending) those who promote informed consumer choice is beyond me. If GE really is beneficial then consumers will see the reduced prices of the food, notice the improvement in quality and associate those with GE. If GE turns out to be hazardous in some cases then an informed consumer is made responsible for their own decision (although, in the US this hardly seems to be a factor these days in lawsuits). What could possibly go wrong with labeling food?
Re:Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Cross-breeding by inserting genes from completely different plant species? Is that normal? Or, for example, inserting essentially a pesticide protein into the food? I don't think that can be done using the "natural" cross-breeding techniques.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this up. The "it's just like the naturally produced thing" argument is complete BS -- there are quite a few "naturally produced" plants which are poisonous. You also have absolutely no way to know which mods were made to the organisms.
In either case, if it's such a great thing, just label it and I might still buy the GMO product -- but leave me the choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it can. First you just have to wait around a few thousand generations for the same gene to surface in the host plant. There's no reason why it couldn't or wouldn't, if you believe in the theory of evolution. Then you isolate that gene in the host plant by selective cross-breeding. It's a very slow, labor intensive process that can take many years to be successful, but there's no reason why it couldn't work. It's precisely what we've been doing for millennia. Genetic modification simply allows to
Re: (Score:3)
Because once they do this genetic modification they patent the organism and then when it pollinates other similar species through natural processes and they create a new plant, those are now protected by the patent as well.
In a sane world this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately we live in America land of Monsanto and they go onto farmer's fields to test plants adjacent to Monsanto-owned "IP" and then sue the fucking shit out of farmers because their plants infringe their patents.
You can say all you like ab
Re:Land of the Free (Score:4, Informative)
> they go onto farmer's fields to test plants adjacent to Monsanto-owned "IP" and then sue the fucking shit out of farmers because their plants infringe their patents.
Complete myth. Never happened. It's also a matter of law that patents don't apply in cases of accidental contamination.
Cases where Monsanto has sued farmers have to do with farmers reselling seed, saving seed, or intentionally selecting accidentally pollinated seed (as in the famous Percy Schmieiser).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but squids and cows don't cross-breed. Neither does E. Coli and corn. It just doesn't happen, man.
There is a very big difference. If all they were doing was cross-breeding or even a sped-up equivalent, nobody would care. But that's NOT what they're doing.
Re: (Score:3)
NO
What about seedless varieties of fruit?
NO
What about grafting a branch of one species of fruit-bearing tree onto the roots/trunk of another species?
NO
What if I take a naturally occurring gene for hardiness from a plant found in
Ingredients and nutrition facts... (Score:4, Insightful)
...are required, so why not GMO labeling? It strikes me as the same thing. Why *wouldn't* you want to know exactly what is in the food you are eating?
What's more is that labeling GMO foods as such actually increases consumer access to information, which is one of the fundamental tenets of competition in the free market economy. The pseudo-conservative horde is always up in arms about labeling as being anti-free market when in fact the opposite is true.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the items labeled it's unlikely that the vast majority of Americans are going to give a shit either way. Hell, they already eat processed foods with tons of sodium and have diets heavy in meat and low in vegetable matter, so why would they even pay the smallest bit of attention to GMOs?
This is also the same American public who believe "evaporated cane juice" is somehow different than "sugar".
Label Patented GMO, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather think businesses would want to label whether or not the produce had any 'patented' genetic modifications applied to them. People ought to be able to know whether or not it might not be legal for them to plant any of the seeds in the produce, after all, if they have not bought a license for the intellectual property in question.
(For the irony impaired, the above comment is intended to contain at 20% of the RDA of iron.)
Re: (Score:2)
This. You see patent numbers or at least patent pending on just about any other protected products and even many that are not. Why not produce?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not being sarcastic.
Monsanto = monopolist (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of your stance on the health effects of GMOs, if would behoove us to look more closely at the business practices (specifically w.r.t. intellectual property) of the seed giants, i.e. Monsanto: patenting life, monopolizing the seed market, shaking down small farmers with patent infringement suits, and all so they can sell more Roundup, creating a monoculture of herbicides. It's the same corporate playbook we've seen countless times in the tech world.
We had herbicides before Roundup-ready GMOs. It ain't no huge innovation, aside from being a revenue win for Monsanto.
http://cenblog.org/cleantech-chemistry/2010/03/what-did-farmers-do-before-roundup/ [cenblog.org]
Re: (Score:3)
These labels won't tell you whose seed was used. There are several companies that develop GMOs for use in agriculture.
This irks me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Act 1: FDA-or-somebody: "Umm, ADM, your 'xeno-bites' brand genetically engineered cowroach burgers have absolutely no track record of safety testing..."
ADM: "Shut up, four-eyes, and go kill jobs somewhere else. We'll let the consumer decide what they feel comfortable eating."
FDA-or-somebody: "Um, ok."
Act 2: California: "Hey, the consumers want to know what ingredients are in food, so that they can exercise free choice and let the market decide between "Ammoniabeef, Piney-Fresh" and "Soylent X"!"
ADM-or-somebody "Shut up, bureaucratic busybody, all our products are safe and legal and the consumers would just worry their little heads about it if we were to tell them. In fact, tell that dirty hippie down the street that he isn't allowed to use the phrases 'GMO free', 'less than .01% zergling by weight', or 'minimally teratogenic' in advertisements!"
This basic back-and-forth is what annoys me so much about this brand of spat: When the regulators show up, health and safety regulations based on research are treated as a bunch of ivory-tower paternalism. When the customers show up demanding the data that they actually need to make their own choices(since they are justifiably somewhat doubtful that benevolent regulators have their backs on this one), they get a paternalistic rebuff and assurance that the previously neutered regulators are totally all over this one...
There are arguments enough against having it merely one way or the other; but handing the customer the shit end of both worlds is just plain crass.
I believe Rachel Maddow pointed this out (Score:4, Insightful)
On Bill Maher's show: if GMO food truly is safe and beneficial (and it generally is if you remove Monsanto et al. from the equation), then the obvious solution is not to keep consumers from knowing what it is they're eating, but just the opposite--educate them on exactly what it is they're eating in a neutral, fact-based manner.
Rob
Re: (Score:3)
The GMO debate is completely absent the characteristics:
1. Neutral.
2. Fact Based.
GMOs are probably the least of our concerns (Score:2)
Bad headline. How is this "California wants?" (Score:2)
The headline is ridiculous. Perhaps a majority of Californians want this. We will find that out in November (at least we will find out if a majority of the Californians who bother to vote want it).
However, the initiative process means anyone who gets enough signatures can get an initiative on the ballot. Anyone. That's why saying "California wants ... " is ludicrous. Both right-leaning and left-leaning initiatives, some loony and some thoughtful get on the ballot in California. Getting on the ballot i
Labeling is anti-science? (Score:3)
How can it be anti-science to put a truthful blurb on something which says what it is?
FDA Ltd, Subsidiary of Monsanto? (Score:2)
Why so many things can already be mis-labeled, i.e. MSG (Autolyzed Yeast Extract) and myriad other ingredients, but people are presumed without the right to know whether their dinner is bio-modified or not, makes no sense. If something is to be sold as food, all practically available information should be ma
Be careful what you ask for: (Score:5, Interesting)
The "organic" growers will want testing of foods from the big companies to keep them honest. But, it could well be mandated for all producers.
If you say it's non-gmo, prove it. Regardless of the size of your operation.
With modern laboratory methods, we can detect tiny amounts of specific genetic material.
example: detecting Asian Carp DNA in the water of Lake Michigan. We haven't seen the carp, but we know that at least a few are there from the shed genetic material.
Imagine the consternation when much of the final product "organic" food also tests positive for detectable amounts of transfered BT genes or other GM material. Additions that could have blown in with pollen or from volunteer plants. You grind, mix and process many foods, so anything in it gets distributed. If your suppliers don't do a good job of vetting their sources, you're screwed.
Too bad if it was contamination. Go to court for remedy if you want. But, in the meantime it's not GMO free so pull off the labels or pull it from the shelves.
It's all in how the levels are set in the regulations and what part of the production cycle the testing is done at.
If you want GMO free, it doesn't matter how it gets in, so end product testing rather than the incoming materials is quite reasonable.
If it passes, big food should lobby for stringent levels and testing. Besides, for large companies, the expense can be spread of huge amounts of product shipped. For small organic producers, not so much. If it passes, this "big win" may be a devil in disguise for those that wanted it.
Re:Our economic evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear
What..... that big business, agri or otherwise, has no problem withholding salient information from the public (even when they have the right to know) in the name of profit?
Anti Science? (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowing less means knowing MORE!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, the biblical knowledge paradigm.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't tell if that is Zen Aphorism or Orwellian DoubleThink? Picking your pocket is just the first thing the invisible hand has in mind. It'll finish by picking you clean.
Re:Our economic evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Consumer: Why don't you label your food as non-Kosher?
Producer: Because I'm not trying to market my food to you.
Is the same as:
Customer: Why don't you label your food as GM?
Consumer: Because if I did that, you wouldn't eat it!
Not commenting on whether or not consumer's fears about GM food is justified, only saying that the producers know people would shun the food simply for being GM.
Re: (Score:3)
The information is freely available to anyone willing to research it.
How? If the manufacturer doesn't put it on the label, then how is a purchaser supposed to find out that the ingredients have been genetically modified?
This is about forcing information beyond a rational minimum of information (like nutritional content, ingredients, and allergies) to be displayed, but not all the information, only the information that fits political agendas.
Nutritional content and ingredients are also "information that fits political agendas", and food manufacturers were opposed to labelling them for the same reasons. How is GM different? There is no real reason why nutritional content should be labelled other than politics (aka "people want to know", which also applies to GM).
Re: (Score:3)
I shouldn't be forced to publish everything -- I paid for the information. If someone else wants it, they can pay for it.
I'll admit this is completely off-topic and I do not have a better alternative, but this statement caught my attention. While completely aligned with current market goals, this demonstrates very succinctly what is ultimately wrong with capitalism and pretty much every market system that has come before it. It takes true vision and innovation which should be symbiotic with human progress and perverts it into a parasitic act whereby we eliminate the best parts (human progress through information sharing) and turn it into a net negative (information consolidation and stonewalling through IP law).
Paraphrasing Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others. The ultimate reality is that a system which requires people to act against their own personal interests is at best going to yield similar results with some layers of added corruption.
However, IP law is not exactly capitalistic. It is a government granted monopoly on a patent, copyright, or trademark. The assumption is that a greater amount of creative effort is applied when they exist vs when they do not exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:money is not the enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is anti-science about demanding that ingredients be listed? If anything, it will make it easier to compare the effects of modified and unmodified plants. If there are no differences or the modified plants prove to be healthier, then there is no downside for the agribusinesses.
Re:money is not the enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:money is not the enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
The agribusinesses are right, it is anti-science, and it is bullshit. In this case, the side with the truth also has the money. Imagine that.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it. Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid, but, hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech - why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs rather than saying "trust me, you don't need to know this". It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
Re: (Score:3)
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it. Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid, but, hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech - why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs rather than saying "trust me, you don't need to know this".
Probably because they don't think it will work. When people are thinking rationally, it is practical to sway their opinions by presenting facts. When a large number of people have made up their minds and turned themselves into a movement that is highly skeptical of any "facts" from outside of the movement and wholly accepting of "facts" from within the movement, reason becomes nearly waste of time.
It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
Shelf space is limited. Products that don't sell well enough are soon not available. Is there really a diff
Re:money is not the enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were the case, it means these companies *know* that the consumer at large does not want their product. Exactly why they have these aversions to the GMO products is inconsequential: the public is innately biased against it, and does not want to consume that product.
So, in order to force the consumers to consume the "cheaper" GMO produce, they have to be deceptive in the packaging and labling.
How is that not a deceptive market practice?
If this were cheap chinese electronics that are functionally identical being sold as genuine items, the FTC and WIPO would be birthing purple cows over it, but because it's just food, and you wouldn't understand the difference anyway, it is perfectly OK to conceal this information to enforce continued profits of a product line?
Re: (Score:3)
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it.
The truth also includes the benefits of genetic engineering. Maybe we should label non-GE having more mycotoxins? Maybe we should label GE soybeans as resulting in reduced carbon emissions? Furthermore, the truth includes many other thing about the crop. Was it blasted with radiation and useful mutation selected, as commonly happens in wheat? Was it treated with a chemical to double its chromosomes, as is used in many hybrid lines? Was it selected from a mutated bud, a common practice in apples? Was
Re: (Score:3)
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it.
You're right. And whether or not brown people have touched my food is also part of that "truth". After all, you can't prove there's no such thing as "nigger cooties". And the customer has the right to know if any minority has been involved in the production of their food. It's just information right?
It's information that the average consumer can't possibly know what to do with. They (and almost everyone who will read this page) has absolutely no understanding of plant biology or nutrition. They wil
Re:Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Most commercial applications of genetically modified food have been developed to benefit the producer, not the consumer - and the consumer has a right to know about it when it's occurred. The US ostensibly practices free market economics, after all.
People should be allowed to know what the modification made was, and then choose whether or not they wish to consume food possessing that modification. If we're talking about increased Beta Carotene levels in Golden Rice, I suspect most consumers won't have a problem with it. If we're talking about soybeans and corn that have been modified to survive repeated direct spraying with Glyphosate - more people will probably opt out of eating that.
I find it odd on a site where so many bristle at the very idea of closed-source software that people are basically endorsing closed-source food production.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you ignore the question of health issues, people should at least know whether or not it is legal for them to plant the seeds from the produce they purchase and grow their own.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Saw this a while back, seems relevant.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge
Pretty much EVERYTHING you eat today is genetically modified on some level. To expect consumers to decide what genetic modifications are acceptable and which ones aren't, is a very tall order for the layman. If only we had some government group to Administrate the Food sold in this country. They could oversee medicine too. We would call them the FDA and they ALREADY EXIST.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Saw this a while back, seems relevant.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge
Pretty much EVERYTHING you eat today is genetically modified on some level. To expect consumers to decide what genetic modifications are acceptable and which ones aren't, is a very tall order for the layman. If only we had some government group to Administrate the Food sold in this country. They could oversee medicine too. We would call them the FDA and they ALREADY EXIST.
.. and they are in the pocket of firms like monsanto. GM soybeans were approved in the us without even going through proper testing. I'm sure you don't find it interesting that outside the US (EU) for example where the testing WAS done, the gm crops were banned... hmm, wonder why that happened?
Re:Reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Saw this a while back, seems relevant.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge
Pretty much EVERYTHING you eat today is genetically modified on some level. To expect consumers to decide what genetic modifications are acceptable and which ones aren't, is a very tall order for the layman. If only we had some government group to Administrate the Food sold in this country. They could oversee medicine too. We would call them the FDA and they ALREADY EXIST.
.. and they are in the pocket of firms like monsanto. GM soybeans were approved in the us without even going through proper testing. I'm sure you don't find it interesting that outside the US (EU) for example where the testing WAS done, the gm crops were banned... hmm, wonder why that happened?
It's worse than you think. The GM soybeans were approved right after the bush administration appointed a (now former) vice president of Monsanto corporation as the head of the FDA. The GM crops were subsequently approved with no testing, and no testing is required or even allowed to be performed on them. You can read more about it here (or hundreds of other sites, use google). http://www.infowars.com/help-stop-former-monsanto-vp-from-attaining-top-position-at-the-fda/ [infowars.com]
This Monsanto scam is quite possibly one of the worst things done to the American people by it's own government... or maybe not, we'll never really know since we're not allowed to perform the necessary testing. If there was nothing to hide, then I think testing would not be banned.
This stuff is BAD news for humans.
Re:Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
True or not, you're not going to convince many sane folks if your only evidence is from a site that makes TimeCube look reasonable by comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most commercial applications of genetically modified food have been developed to benefit the producer, not the consumer
So what? Have you gotten any direct benefits from silos or tractors (besides in terms of cost)? What is wrong with somethng only benefiting farmers and/or the environment (and if you don't think GE crops benefit the environment, thing again: they facilitate no-till agriculture, which prevents fertilizer runoff and reduces carbon emissions).
and the consumer has a right to know about it when it's occurred
But why is it only GE and not everything else? Selective breeding, various types of hybridization, somaclonal variation and mutagenesis, induced polyploidy, sport sele
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Clearfield wheat or any of the other non-GE crops bred for herbicide resistance? Why should that get a free pass? And what if I want to know the conventionally bred genes found in my non-GE food? It is very inconsistent to single out one method of crop improvement and ignore the rest
I'm a physicist by education & training, and I'm anything but anti-science (I'm all in favour of the space programme, never mind the cost, because we need that off-world colony asap) - but the idea of fiddling with the oh-so subtle machinery of a species' DNA, which has taken at least 2 billion years to evolve (I'm not a flat-Earther Creationist) makes the hairs rise on the back of my neck. There is no way we can possibly safely understand the full implications of inserting a fish gene into a tomato to
Re: (Score:3)
But there is no scientific evidence that genetically modified foods have any detrimental health effects. Quite the opposite in fact.
What the modifications do is drive down the costs of production and increase crop yields. Yes, this increases the profits of the producers as well, but that's how capitalism works.
So,
Re:Undesired Side-Effects (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that most people are science-illiterate, but that does not mean that the information should be withheld, given the choice of GM modified food or no food I am fairly certain that most people will choose food no matter how clearly it is labelled GM, so people will not starve.
Producers are quite willing to place deceptive labels on products in their favour. (fat free lollies that are 99% sugar, 80% fat free, slim chips that contain more fat than regular chips ....) If the information stops people buying your product then tough luck stop doing it (or prove that it is safe the burden of proof should be on the producer since they should have the knowledge), the free market is about meeting consumer demand, not about fooling people into buying your products. If people don't like red cars stop making them even if they are faster, or more fuel efficient.
Your argument is people aren't smart enough to decide so don't give them the information. Well you could argue people aren't smart enough to decide who to vote for too (you would probably be right). Or drink or whatever you think you know better in. If people choose to buy higher priced products because they are GM free then it is there problem, and it is their choice under a free-market system.
I don't necessarily believe that choice is a good thing, but the current system is built on it, I personally don't l like the idea of an industry deciding what is best for me because they have vested interest, also by extension the government since I believe the industries have a disproportionate say in related legislature.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you bothered to inform yourself regarding what the real concerns and controversies regarding GM crops are? Not just the sensational crap, but the hard line scientific considerations about performing huge genetic experiments on our entire civilization, in the open wind, blowing all over the world, where if gawd forbid we discover we've made a terrible mistake, and something profoundly egregious makes it to the field, we will have less than a popcorn fart in a hurricane's chance of preventing the unthink
Re: (Score:3)
Its not the specific trait that is the problem. Its the fact that speciation makes it very hard to get at the genetic material of a species, so the only way to get that trait into a plant is to use bacteria or viruses to push the DNA in and there are a number of other protocols at work that include such things as using antibiotic genes as tagging markers. All of this has serious real world implications from potentially causing antibiotic resistance to spread in the wild, to unintentionally passing any numbe
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, in a happy world of rainbows and unicorns where GMO foods with significant market share had real benefits to customers, we could discuss the finer points of GMO in your food, but the seed giants are their own worst enemy. It's a vendor lock-in device used to corner the market on herbicides. If there was ever a market for "good" GMOs, Monsanto killed it.
Re: (Score:3)
real benefits to customers
Like this? [nih.gov] Besides, why should it be a bad thing if I do not directly benefit? I don't directly benefit from disease resistant hybrids, or tractors, or silos. Why is it bad that GE crops only help the farmer?
used to corner the market on herbicides
You do realize that you can get a generic glyphosate from companies that aren't Monsanto, yes? Also, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. Those herbicide resistant crops are actually a good idea. It used to be to control weeds farmers had to till the soil (which is terrible for your
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing that "The ingredients are a legally priviledged trade secret of Con Agra, Inc." is not an answer that will do much to diffuse even the most epistemologically shoddy senses of paranoia...
Re: (Score:2)
While the motivations for this may be unscientific, not telling people what they're eating doesn't really help either. People need to learn more about the science so there's less unknown for them to be afraid of.
Enforced ignorance is not anti-science.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So we've dropped the pretenses... (Score:4, Insightful)
and just jump straight to discussing which side has more money rather than which side has valid points?
Why not? The outcome of the vote is the only consequence that will make an actual difference, and votes are won through advertising, not facts. Anybody with money understands this already, and is using this to their advantage every chance they can.
Do try to keep up.
Re: (Score:3)
and just jump straight to discussing which side has more money rather than which side has valid points?
There was a pretense?
Re: (Score:3)
and just jump straight to discussing which side has more money rather than which side has valid points?
That's how politics work in America. There are hardly any politicians in existence today that give a shit about anything other than their bank account. I can't think of any offhand that aren't scumbags, but I'm sure there must be at least one out there somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the caterer is really hot I'd watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
No more so than the label "May contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds. It's not because it's bad, it's because it's a fact... and allowing the consumer to make an informed decision (even if "may contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds might treating a consumer like an idiot, it's still not misinformation).
Re: (Score:2)
No more so than the label "May contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds. It's not because it's bad, it's because it's a fact... and allowing the consumer to make an informed decision (even if "may contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds might treating a consumer like an idiot, it's still not misinformation).
Except that the reason for the "may contain nuts" label is that some people have dangerous allergic reactions to nuts. There's a known, legitimate hazard that is being warned against. There is no such hazard in the case of genetically-modified foods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Information is good (Score:4, Insightful)
"Perhaps, if this measure were enacted, many people who are fearful of such technology will see just how much of our food is modified from its natural state, while causing no harm to said people."
Deliberate sterilization so that corn can no longer be used to seed for the next season... you have to buy more seed from Monsanto. Said sterilized crops escaping the fields and contaminating other crops. Massive die-offs of bees. Evidence of liver damage.
I think it's fair to say that those things might be considered "harm to people".
Re: (Score:2)
"There will always be those who reject technological advancement. Let them have their information."
And I almost forgot. Next to the bees, the other really big one: insects and other pests becoming resistant to the gene modifications, in exactly the same way that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.
It's not all wine and roses in GMO land.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, isn't RoundUp ready corn resistant to Roundup and as such the farmer can spray this crap as much as he wants without killing the crop?