Monsanto Protection Act.

[Tension]

suck it hippies. You want clean food, grow it yourself you lazy bums.

 

[djacobox372]

Control of the food supply is any tyrants wet dream. I'm sure the government is all for it. Just gotta put up enough mock resistance to it to fool people into thinking they tried.

Last I checked large corporations control the food supply, government is far less involved than ever before.

Bills like this are basically saying government CAN'T do anything to stop the corporations. It's less government, not more.

 

[kpt018]

Somewhat unrelated:

What do people think about GMO labeling? Right now, if an apple is grown the good old fashioned way, it must pass tests to be labeled "Organic". However, GMO foods require no labeling at all. Do people think this makes sense?

I'm not one of those liberals adamantly opposed to GMOs, but I don't see why we can't have more transparency as to what is in our food. Just let people choose whether they want to eat GMO foods or not.

 

[Siderealmotion]

Somewhat unrelated:

What do people think about GMO labeling? Right now, if an apple is grown the good old fashioned way, it must pass tests to be labeled "Organic".

Since Organic is a marketing label that describes a claimed method of production, this makes sense.

However, GMO foods require no labeling at all. Do people think this makes sense?

As recombinant DNA techniques are just a recent addition to a history of genetic modification techniques that extend back to the dawn of civilization, yes, that makes perfect sense. Do you feel that all products of radioactive and chemical mutagenesis should have to be labelled as such? Forced hybridization and inbreeding?

Ironically, GMO crops are the only ones tested for safety, despite the fact that earlier techniques, including basic "natural" methods, can and have produced dangerous results.

I'm not one of those liberals adamantly opposed to GMOs, but I don't see why we can't have more transparency as to what is in our food. Just let people choose whether they want to eat GMO foods or not.

And would a "GMO" label serve any purpose other than to be an assumed negative? Once again, why do previous methods get a pass in this regard? Are you going to force organic ruby red grapefruit farmers to start labeling their produce as "product of massive, repeated doses of gamma radiation?" The average person thinks that the Organic label means a crop was grown without chemical pesticides or fertilizers, just imagine what they will assume about GMOs.

 

[JuliaB4GSP]

Somewhat unrelated:

What do people think about GMO labeling? Right now, if an apple is grown the good old fashioned way, it must pass tests to be labeled "Organic". However, GMO foods require no labeling at all. Do people think this makes sense?

I'm not one of those liberals adamantly opposed to GMOs, but I don't see why we can't have more transparency as to what is in our food. Just let people choose whether they want to eat GMO foods or not.

GMO labeling will be as autistic as USDA Certified Organic labeling. To take an example of what's called organic apple as certified by USDA, you have a variety of apple that was created in Geneva, NY or at the University of Michigan in a lab that is grown with certain "natural" pesticides under certain conditions and it gets to be labelled organic. And there is no good science, just the USDA sending a few guys out a year testing residues on the organic crops, testing livestock for hormones.

Genetically modified means something different every couple of years and is different country by country, state by state.

 

[jackietreehorn8]

Since Organic is a marketing label that describes a claimed method of production, this makes sense.

As recombinant DNA techniques are just a recent addition to a history of genetic modification techniques that extend back to the dawn of civilization, yes, that makes perfect sense. Do you feel that all products of radioactive and chemical mutagenesis should have to be labelled as such? Forced hybridization and inbreeding?

Ironically, GMO crops are the only ones tested for safety, despite the fact that earlier techniques, including basic "natural" methods, can and have produced dangerous results.

And would a "GMO" label serve any purpose other than to be an assumed negative? Once again, why do previous methods get a pass in this regard? Are you going to force organic ruby red grapefruit farmers to start labeling their produce as "product of massive, repeated doses of gamma radiation?" The average person thinks that the Organic label means a crop was grown without chemical pesticides or fertilizers, just imagine what they will assume about GMOs.

I think you nailed it. I'm totally against it. Every housewife in America would think nothing but GMO label = poison, and would immediately stop buying them. What would this force the food producers to do? I honestly don't really know the market impact, but they'd need to change everything. All for something that as I understand it is pretty insignificant.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

I think you nailed it. I'm totally against it. Every housewife in America would think nothing but GMO label = poison, and would immediately stop buying them. What would this force the food producers to do? I honestly don't really know the market impact, but they'd need to change everything. All for something that as I understand it is pretty insignificant.

You are making the assumption that people actually read the labels of the food they are purchasing. In my experience they don't. I don't know anyone who reads a food label before they decide to purchase said food.

 

[kpt018]

Since Organic is a marketing label that describes a claimed method of production, this makes sense.




As recombinant DNA techniques are just a recent addition to a history of genetic modification techniques that extend back to the dawn of civilization, yes, that makes perfect sense. Do you feel that all products of radioactive and chemical mutagenesis should have to be labelled as such? Forced hybridization and inbreeding?

Ironically, GMO crops are the only ones tested for safety, despite the fact that earlier techniques, including basic "natural" methods, can and have produced dangerous results.




And would a "GMO" label serve any purpose other than to be an assumed negative? Once again, why do previous methods get a pass in this regard? Are you going to force organic ruby red grapefruit farmers to start labeling their produce as "product of massive, repeated doses of gamma radiation?" The average person thinks that the Organic label means a crop was grown without chemical pesticides or fertilizers, just imagine what they will assume about GMOs.

Is there a labeling system that makes sense to your? Or not worth the trouble? Are the differences between GMO and non-GMO so insignificant a distinction is not warranted?

Just asking questions here, again, not opposing GMOs. Certainly the science has not show them to be harmful to humans, from what I've read. TBH, organic fruits taste 1000X better to me and that's why I buy them. I'm glad they're labeled for that reason.

I do have an issue with the idea of our food supply held in the hands of a few companies, however.

 

[jackietreehorn8]

You are making the assumption that people actually read the labels of the food they are purchasing. In my experience they don't. I don't know anyone who reads a food label before they decide to purchase said food.

I don't think the GMO label would be a little thing by the nutrition label or in the ingredients. As I understand it, what the anti-GMO crowd wants is highly visible sticker. This would be the equivalent of putting one of these on food...

 

[kpt018]

I don't think the GMO label would be a little thing by the nutrition label or in the ingredients. As I understand it, what the anti-GMO crowd wants is highly visible sticker. This would be the equivalent of putting one of these on food...

While I think labels should be effective in conveying info to the buyer, I don't think you can hold back information because some people are stupid. People already know that most of what they eat are GMO and they aren't going crazy about it.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

I don't think the GMO label would be a little thing by the nutrition label or in the ingredients. As I understand it, what the anti-GMO crowd wants is highly visible sticker. This would be the equivalent of putting one of these on food...

GM foods have to be labelled in my country at present and this has been the case for quite some time, not a single fuck has been given:

Do GM foods have to be labelled?

GM foods, ingredients, additives, or processing aids that contain novel DNA or protein must be labelled with the words

 

[Siderealmotion]

Is there a labeling system that makes sense to your? Or not worth the trouble?

If you are going to be honest about how things are actually produced, the labels are going to get so long and complicated as to rapidly lose all meaning. Safety testing and nutritional content are ultimately the best you can do, most likely. If companies want to add marketing labels like "organic" or "non-gmo," that's fine, but people need to realize the limitations of these labels. A lot of people make a lot of assumptions about organic, for example, that aren't even close to the truth.

 

[jackietreehorn8]

While I think labels should be effective in conveying info to the buyer, I don't think you can hold back information because some people are stupid. People already know that most of what they eat are GMO and they aren't going crazy about it.

Well, I disagree. I think the amount of misinformation out there that way too many people think is the god's honest truth makes mandated GMO labeling very dangerous to the food market. It would become too easy for people to turn their back on it, and like I said above, I don't even want to know how that would impact farmers, grocers, etc...all based on lies and misinformation.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

If you are going to be honest about how things are actually produced, the labels are going to get so long and complicated as to rapidly lose all meaning. Safety testing and nutritional content are ultimately the best you can do, most likely. If companies want to add marketing labels like "organic" or "non-gmo," that's fine, but people need to realize the limitations of these labels. A lot of people make a lot of assumptions about organic, for example, that aren't even close to the truth.

See my post above, each method needs to be defined by guidelines. If they meet the guidelines they are labelled GM or organic or nothing at all. It is simply about informing people in regards to what is in their food, not scaring them into not buying it.

But as I said previously I think we seriously overestimate the amount of people who actually read food labels and who really care whether or not their food is GM.

We have had food labelling in Australia for 13 years requireing GM to be visible and there has been no mass hysteria. It is a myth imo.

 

[SammyPops]

'murica

 

[kpt018]

If you are going to be honest about how things are actually produced, the labels are going to get so long and complicated as to rapidly lose all meaning. Safety testing and nutritional content are ultimately the best you can do, most likely. If companies want to add marketing labels like "organic" or "non-gmo," that's fine, but people need to realize the limitations of these labels. A lot of people make a lot of assumptions about organic, for example, that aren't even close to the truth.

Why do you think they have been banned in pretty much every other industrialized nation on the planet?

 

[jackietreehorn8]

GM foods have to be labelled in my country at present and this has been the case for quite some time, not a single fuck has been given:

Do GM foods have to be labelled?

GM foods, ingredients, additives, or processing aids that contain novel DNA or protein must be labelled with the words

 

[kpt018]

Well, I disagree. I think the amount of misinformation out there that way too many people think is the god's honest truth makes mandated GMO labeling very dangerous to the food market. It would become too easy for people to turn their back on it, and like I said above, I don't even want to know how that would impact farmers, grocers, etc...all based on lies and misinformation.

Why would it be "very dangerous"? People will stop eating? Not following you.

And let's be honest, food companies have taken advantage of previously demonized things like "fat". Companies are fast to label "low fat", "lowers cholesterol", etc., while it is an awfully unhealthy product. They have capitalized on fads and misconceptions. Now a GMO label would sink the food industry?

 

[jackietreehorn8]

Why would it be "very dangerous"? People will stop eating? Not following you.

My line of thinking is that a pretty high % of produce and meat available right now is GMO. If the market on that food all of a sudden drops through the floor, what impact does that have on the food industry at large? Everybody scrambling to go non-GMO would certainly have some pretty major implications. And why should it have any impact at all if it's not based on good science?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

My line of thinking is that a pretty high % of produce and meat available right now is GMO. If the market on that food all of a sudden drops through the floor, what impact does that have on the food industry at large? Everybody scrambling to go non-GMO would certainly have some pretty major implications. And why should it have any impact at all if it's not based on good science?

In all honesty I equate those opposed to it as being in the same crowd as those who oppose flouride in drinking water or people who refuse to have their children vaccinated.

Very much the minority.