Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[GostHacked]

Sure they do. The environmentalist religion tells their followers that they should not eat GMOs because they are 'unclean'. The Muslim religion tells their followers that they should not eat non-Halal foods because they are 'unclean'.

Unclean in the sense that the animals have to be blessed in a certain fashion according to their customs. Companies willingly put the Halal or Kosher label on the product because they are catering to a specific group and want to identify with that and advertise to their market base. You don't see those companies complain that they HAVE to put a Kosher or Halal label on it, they WELCOME it.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for either claim but if such things are important to individuals then they have the option of looking for private labels that provide the assurances they want. There is absolutely no justification for forcing everyone to pay more because some people have religious objections to GMOs.

This keeps getting thrown around a lot about the cost of implementing this. I am calling total bullshit on it, because companies spend quite a bit of money on product advertisement. So if they can do that, then they can do this.

Your ignorance of the manufacturing process is showing. The cost is not in the cost of printing new packages.

Your ignorance of the power Monsanto has over our food is also showing.

Question - Why would Monsanto and agribiz spend over $45 million to kill that GMO bill in California?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/05/prop-37-food-gm-bill

Labels on bags of snack foods indicate they are non-GMO food products. Opponents say the labels would be burdensome to retailers, and would force prices to rise.. Photograph: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

Monsanto and other agribusiness and food companies have spent more than $45m (£28m) to defeat a California ballot measure that would require labelling of some GM foods.

The measure, proposition 37, is one of the most contentious initiatives on California's election ballot on Tuesday.

If it passes, it would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants. It also has a number of gaping loopholes. For example, the law would not require labels on meat from animals that were fed GM corn.

So they have money to spend on making sure a package does not require a GMO label because it would cost them too much.

The cost is in the system that has to be set up to ensure that what is on the box is correct. i.e. how does a company that buys flour from another company know that there is no GMOs in the flour?

I have a solution for that, put a damn label on it.

The company has to demand that all of their suppliers set up audit systems which imposes costs on their suppliers which are often in different countries. Running and maintaining such a system is expensive.

I have the right to know exactly what I am eating and so do you.

[GostHacked]

Again, a clear scientific rational exists for nut labeling. There is no such scientific rational for GMO labelling - it is demand only made because of religious objections to GMOs.

It is not bigoted to require a scientific justification for regulations.

We cannot cater to idiosyncrasies of every religion.

There was no labeling for nuts 20 years ago ... what's changed?

[TimG]

You don't see those companies complain that they HAVE to put a Kosher or Halal label on it, they WELCOME it.

And there is absolutely nothing stopping companies from putting GMO-free labels on their products today. The only reason they don't is because they don't believe the market is large enough to justify the costs. If companies don't see the market then why should governments force everyone to pay the costs? Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

There was no labeling for nuts 20 years ago ... what's changed?

A much larger number of people with peanut allergies.

[BubberMiley]

The only reason they don't is because they don't believe the market is large enough to justify the costs.

No. The reason they don't is because few people trust Monsanto's claims that it is safe and they don't want to be their guinea pigs. Again, you should be happy to have labelling because you would be able to get your frankenfood at discount rates.

[Wilber]

And there is absolutely nothing stopping companies from putting GMO-free labels on their products today. The only reason they don't is because they don't believe the market is large enough to justify the costs. If companies don't see the market then why should governments force everyone to pay the costs?

How do companies know their products are GMO free if their suppliers aren't required to label their products? If a company isn't required to reveal information by law, it can tell you anything it wants and it would be up to you to prove otherwise. Not only would non GMO companies have to certify their own products, they would have to certify the integrity of all their suppliers products. I think you are so far out to lunch on this. Maybe we should not bother to require country of origin on our products as well. Why put any info on them if it might cost a company a nickel to provide it?

Edited May 27, 2013 by Wilber

[TimG]

No. The reason they don't is because few people trust Monsanto's claims that it is safe and they don't want to be their guinea pigs.

Only deluded conspiracy nuts think this is about Monsanto.

From the AAPS statement on GMOs:

Slapping labels on genetically modified (GM) foods is a bad idea, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The science advocacy organization's executive board approved a statement on October 20th saying that requiring such labels, as a ballot measure in California seeks to do, could "mislead and falsely alarm consumers."

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33057/title/AAAS--Don-t-Label-GM-Foods/

If there was actual evidence against consuming GMOs then there would be science to support it.

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

How do companies know their products are GMO free if their suppliers aren't required to label their products?

Some companies choose to provide organic, kosher or halal labels on their products and charge accordingly. Consumers that care about such labels are willing to pay the price. Why do anti-GMO advocates think their religious beliefs deserve special considerations and require that governments force companies to put a meaningless label on a product? Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

If there was actual evidence against consuming GMOs then there would be science to support it.

What on earth would make you think that. The effects of consuming some things aren't known for decades.

[Bryan]

Only deluded conspiracy nuts think this is about Monsanto.

From the AAPS statement on GMOs:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33057/title/AAAS--Don-t-Label-GM-Foods/

If there was actual evidence against consuming GMOs then there would be science to support it.

Do you consider the AAAS to be a credible source? Given their stance on AGW, I sure don't.

[Wilber]

Some companies choose to provide organic, kosher or halal labels on their products and charge accordingly. Consumers that care about such labels are willing to pay the price. Why do anti-GMO advocates think their religious beliefs deserve special considerations and require that governments force companies to put a meaningless label on a product?

Because it isn't meaningless. Just because you don't care, doesn't make something meaningless.

[TimG]

What on earth would make you think that. The effects of consuming some things aren't known for decades.

So? That still means there is no evidence. If evidence appears then I would change my opinion but I am 100% certain that if harm shows up in 20 years it will be associated with a particular plant strain and would be justification for a restriction on the use of that plant strain. It would not be a justification for generic labeling of all GMOs. Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Because it isn't meaningless. Just because you don't care, doesn't make something meaningless.

The are thousands of GMOs out there yet you want a single label to identify any one of them.

That is the definition of a meaningless label.

But it does not change the simple point: if you don't want GMOs then pay for organic brands.

Why should your religion be give special treatment?

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[Boges]

I'm curious what danger people think GMOs pose.

You'd think modifying food for a great yield would be good for the environment.

Aren't the different types of produce we didn't have years ago a kind of genetic modification?

Edited May 27, 2013 by Boges

[TimG]

Do you consider the AAAS to be a credible source? Given their stance on AGW, I sure don't.

The AAAS reflects the generally held scientific opinion. I don't see any reason to question the generally held scientific opinion on CO2 either. I only raise issues when scientists start insisting on nonsensical policies to deal with CO2.

If you want GMO free food then pay for organic labels. Stop trying to impose your religion on everyone else.

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[DFCaper]

What on earth would make you think that. The effects of consuming some things aren't known for decades.

Since GMOs have been available since the 70s, we are about 4 decades in. What are these negative effects? We live longer despite being fat lazy slobs?

[Wilber]

So? That still means there is no evidence. If evidence appears then I would change my opinion but I am 100% certain that if harm shows up in 20 years it will be associated with a particular plant strain and would be justification for a restriction on the use of that plant strain. It would not be a justification for generic labeling of all GMOs.

Among other things, we are still learning about the long term effects of pot use for cripes sake. At the rate non GMO strains are being contaminated by GMO strains, there will be no point in labeling them in 20 years, because there probably won't be any non GMO strains left. You better be right because future generations will be screwed if you aren't.

[Wilber]

Since GMOs have been available since the 70s, we are about 4 decades in. What are these negative effects? We live longer despite being fat lazy slobs?

They have been available but haven't dominated the food supply until fairly recently.

[Wilber]

The are thousands of GMOs out there yet you want a single label to identify any one of them.

That is the definition of a meaningless label.

But it does not change the simple point: if you don't want GMOs then pay for organic brands.

Why should your religion be give special treatment?

I don't have a position on GMO foods other than wanting to know what I am eating. That isn't a godamn religion.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Wilber

[TimG]

At the rate non GMO strains are being contaminated by GMO strains, there will be no point in labeling them in 20 years, because there probably won't be any non GMO strains left.

Labeling changes none of that because most people today assume that 'no label' means 'may contains GMOs'. Yet this has not stopped them from buying products that 'may contain GMOs'.

[TimG]

I don't have a position on GMO foods other than wanting to know what I am eating.

Then buy organic brands. You get what you want.

[Wilber]

Labeling changes none of that because most people today assume that 'no label' means 'may contains GMOs'. Yet this has not stopped them from buying products that 'may contain GMOs'.

We don't know that do we, because we don't give them the choice. Food suppliers don't even get the choice because they can't even verify what they are putting in their products.

[TimG]

Food suppliers don't even get the choice because they can't even verify what they are putting in their products.

Organic suppliers seem to manage.

People have a choice today: buy organic.

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

A much larger number of people with peanut allergies.

WHY are there a growing number of people allergic to peanuts. Otherwise you are playing Captain Obvious here.

[GostHacked]

Organic suppliers seem to manage.

People have a choice today: buy organic.

And you don't hear them complaining about adhering to the organic label guidelines or the cost of it.