Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[TimG]

I am still missing an answer to WHY there are so many with peanut allergies.

There is science done on that too:

Parents who keep their homes obsessively clean could be causing their children to develop life-threatening nut allergies, researchers claim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2230263/Does-having-spotless-house-cause-nut-allergies-Clean-homes-weakening-childrens-immune-systems.html

[Bryan]

So banning stuff makes people allergic to it?

I am still missing an answer to WHY there are so many with peanut allergies.

Lots of people have sensitivities to a lot of things when they're young. Regular exposure gets their bodies used to these things until for most people they are no longer a problem. No exposure, and the sensitivity gets stronger.

Add to that, a growing number of over-diagnosis where the kids are NOT allergic, but believe they are because the Dr. said so without proper testing. I know several parents whose naturopaths told them their kids were allergic to all manner of things through a hair sample test.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Bryan

[GostHacked]

What's religious about wanting to know if a food product contains GMO's, and what those GMO's are? There are many reasons one might not want to buy certain GMO's, be it health, ethical, economic, environmental reasons etc. or a combo. Consumers should have the right to know what they're buying, especially when they're eating it, and especially if what they're eating hasn't been tested for long-term health effects on humans. Consumers deserve informed consent.

We are constantly told to be informed to make better healthier choices when it comes to food. These are the same companies telling us we don't need to know what is GMO and what is not. Hypocrisy?

From what I understand the testing/approval of GMO foods is very short.

Also from the stuff I saw last year with the test plot, there where at least two new corn varieties that were hybrids of two existing GMO products.

[GostHacked]

There is science done on that too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2230263/Does-having-spotless-house-cause-nut-allergies-Clean-homes-weakening-childrens-immune-systems.html

So why do we see this with just peanuts? What other items are banned from schools? Could also be the low nutritional content of GMO foods. A growing child needs a lot of nutrients for the body to remain healthy and fight off diseases and ailments.

Maybe getting rid of the Coke/Pepsi/Chips/chocolate bars/candies machines out of the schools would be a good start.

Or allowing parents to pack a nutritional lunch. Or having a cafeteria that actually serves good food instead of processed meat sticks that are hot dogs.

Edited May 27, 2013 by GostHacked

[TimG]

What's religious about wanting to know if a food product contains GMO's, and what those GMO's are?

You are mixing two different things. If there is evidence that a specific GMO causes problems (lets say allergic reactions) then labeling would be warranted. But advocates are not asking for such specific labeling. They are asking for a useless blanket label that allows no one to distinguish between the many types of GMOs. Calls for this type of labeling are no different than calls for kosher or halal labeling.

As for informed consent: lets say a label law is passed and the majority of food companies just stamped a 'may contain GMOs' label on the package. How does that provide more information than we have now? It is like labeling something 'this food is not kosher' - i.e. it is appeal to religious superstitions rather than facts.

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

So why do we see this with just peanuts?

Most likely because there is something in peanuts that triggers an autoimmune response from an immune system that has not properly developed when someone is young.

The link be allergies and cleanliness is well established. You asked for an explanation and I gave you one.

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[Bryan]

You are mixing two different things. If there is evidence that a specific GMO causes problems (lets say allergic reactions) then labeling would be warranted. But advocates are not asking for such specific labeling. They are asking for a useless blanket label that allows no one to distinguish between the many types of GMOs. Calls for this type of labeling are no different than calls for kosher or halal labeling.

As for informed consent: lets say a label law is passed and the majority of food companies just stamped a 'may contain GMOs' label on the package. How does that provide more information than we have now?

The "May Contain" boilerplate is a cop-out. All it does is guarantee that the food won't be allowed somewhere. Either you put that ingredient in, or you didn't. If you can't guarantee me what's in your product, you should not be selling food for human consumption. If labelling would put you out of business, you SHOULD be out of business.

[TimG]

Either you put that ingredient in, or you didn't.

Not true. Companies constantly change suppliers depending on the market conditions. Sometimes they would source non-GMO ingredients and sometimes they would not. They are not going to produce different packages depending on the day of the week or the source factory. That means the label 'may contain GMOs' as the only thing they could put on the package. It is not a cop out but a reflection of reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

The CFIA has a long list of food ingredients that are exempt from component declaration (labeling):

1. 	butter
2. 	margarine
3. 	shortening
4. 	lard
5. 	leaf lard
6. 	monoglycerides
7. 	diglycerides
8. 	rice
9. 	starches or modified starches
10. 	breads subject to compositional standards in Sections B.13.021 to B.13.029
11. 	flour
12. 	soy flour
13. 	graham flour
14. 	whole wheat flour
15. 	baking powder
16. 	milks subject to compositional standards in Sections B.08.003 to B.08.027
17. 	chewing gum base
18. 	sweetening agents subject to compositional standards in Sections B.18.001 to B.18.018
19. 	cocoa, low-fat cocoa
20. 	salt
21. 	vinegars subject to compositional standards in Sections B.19.003 to B.19.007
22. 	alcoholic beverages subject to compositional standards in Sections B.02.001 to B.02.134
23. 	cheese for which a standard is prescribed in Division 8, if the total amount of cheese in a prepackaged product is less 10 percent of that packaged product
24. 	jams, marmalades and jellies subject to compositional standards in Sections B.11.201 to B.11.241 when the total amount of those ingredients is less than 5 percent of a prepackaged product
25. 	olives, pickles, relish and horseradish when the total amount of those ingredients is less than 10 percent of a prepackaged product
26. 	one or more vegetable or animal fats or oils for which a standard is prescribed in Division 9, and hydrogenated, modified or interesterified vegetable or animal fats or oils, if the total of those fats and oils contained in a prepackaged product is less than 15 percent of that prepackaged product
27. 	prepared or preserved meat, fish, poultry meat, meat by-product or poultry by-product when the total amount of those ingredients is less than 10 percent of a prepackaged product that consists of an unstandardized food
28. 	alimentary paste that does not contain egg in any form or any flour other than wheat flour
29. 	bacterial culture
30. 	hydrolyzed plant protein
31. 	carbonated water
32. 	whey, whey powder, concentrated whey, whey butter and whey butter oil
33. 	mould culture
34. 	chlorinated water and fluorinated water
35. 	gelatin
36. 	toasted wheat crumbs used in or as a binder, filler or breading in or on a food product

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch2-1e.shtml

[Moonlight Graham]

You have not offered any compelling reason not to. People have a right to know what is put in their food. You can't make an informed choice if you aren't given the information.

Exactly. I want to know what is going into my body. I have a right to know this information.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[carepov]

So why do we see this with just peanuts? What other items are banned from schools? Could also be the low nutritional content of GMO foods. A growing child needs a lot of nutrients for the body to remain healthy and fight off diseases and ailments.

Maybe getting rid of the Coke/Pepsi/Chips/chocolate bars/candies machines out of the schools would be a good start.

Or allowing parents to pack a nutritional lunch. Or having a cafeteria that actually serves good food instead of processed meat sticks that are hot dogs.

Overall non-organic foods are as nutritious ass organic foods:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264

Again you are making a good case for putting aside this silly debate on GM-foods. We should instead focus our energy on foods that we KNOW are making us fat, sick, and literally killing us!

-excessive salt, sugar, fat

-cigarettes (it kills me to see anti-GMO protesters with a cigarette in their mouth!)

[carepov]

Exactly. I want to know what is going into my body. I have a right to know this information.

So do orthodox Jews and Muslims, that's why they pay for Koshur/Halal labelling. You pay for what you want and I will pay for what I want.

[TimG]

Exactly. I want to know what is going into my body. I have a right to know this information.

So do you want to know the specific strains of wheat were used in your pasta? Was it Clearfield or Kamut or Graziella Ra or Durham? Given your logic food makers are hiding that information from you. Is that OK? Why is it OK to leave valuable information about the specific strains of plants used but OK to slap a useless label like GMO on a package?

[bush_cheney2004]

So do you want to know the specific strains of wheat were used in your pasta? Was it Clearfield or Kamut or Graziella Ra or Durham? Given your logic food makers are hiding that information from you. Is that OK? Why is it OK to leave valuable information about the specific strains of plants used but OK to slap a useless label like GMO on a package?

'Zactly....I want information about every constituent component complete with lab chromatography data by lot number. I also want information on the impact of preservation and shelf life on such constituents and compounds. Lastly, I want warnings about dangerous food constituent interactions (e.g. drug interaction warnings).

It is my right as a consumer to have these things at no additional cost. Government has an obligation to protect me from myself.

[BubberMiley]

What's religious about wanting to know if a food product contains GMO's, and what those GMO's are?

Some people don't know what religion is and they think it just means strongly believing in something. It's kind of hard to argue with people who don't understand their own vocabulary.

[Wilber]

This is a great argument against GMO labelling. GMO foods are as safe and nutritious as non-GMO foods, therefore we consumers should pay no attention to them and instead pay attention to to the things that matter:

-fat (especially trans fats)

-sugar

-salt

-allergens

All that is involved here is providing people with information. The only ones who strongly oppose such things are people who are trying to control a situation. To them, the ignorance of others really is bliss.

[Wilber]

Some people don't know what religion is and they think it just means strongly believing in something. It's kind of hard to argue with people who don't understand their own vocabulary.

Some people would just like to know what they are eating. Tim wants to tell people what they should be eating. Which sounds more like a religion to you?

[TimG]

All that is involved here is providing people with information.

What you are asking for is information that provides no useful information about the product since there is no scientific evidence that a GMO product is different from a non-GMO product. When it comes to labels for things like sugars, salt or allergens there are clear scientific reasons to support putting them on labels.

[TimG]

Tim wants to tell people what they should be eating.

I am not telling you any such thing. I am saying if you don't want GMOs then buy organic. You have that choice today and no label require would change that. You are the one demanding that I pay more for my food because you have a superstitious fear of GMOs. Your superstitious fear of GMOs is nothing but a religion. Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

I am not telling you any such thing. I am saying if you don't want GMOs then buy organic. You have that choice today and no label require would change that. You are the one demanding that I pay more for my food because you have a superstitious fear of GMOs. Your superstitious fear of GMOs is nothing but a religion.

I'm not demanding you pay more for anything. You are demanding people remain ignorant. That's religion.

[TimG]

I'm not demanding you pay more for anything.

Oh right - you are one of those silly people who thinks that government regulation costs nothing. Sorry, but I live in the real world where every time the government regulates something the cost will go up. It is a price I am willing to pay when the regulation serves a purpose but in this case it is serves only to pander to people who have a religious objection to GMOs. People with such objections can buy organic so I don't see the need. Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[BubberMiley]

Oh right - you are one of those silly people who thinks that government regulation costs nothing.

And when the price goes down because few people will buy foods labelled GMO, you'll be in favour of labelling. So it's all good. Win-win.

There were no scientific studies showing Vioxx caused heart attacks until there were. There were no scientific studies that said DDT was dangerous until there were. If people don't trust Monsanto's paid scientists, they have a right to know what foods to avoid.

Edited May 27, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Wilber]

Oh right - you are one of those silly people who thinks that government regulation costs nothing. Sorry, but I live in the real world where every time the government regulates something the cost will go up. It is a price I am willing to pay when the regulation serves a purpose but in this case it is serves only to pander to people who have a religious objection to GMOs. People with such objections can buy organic so I don't see the need.

I understand you don't see the need but you should stop calling people who disagree with you religious zealots. All it does is damage your own credibility. There are people (like me) who don't have a philosophical objection to GMO's, in the long term they may prove very beneficial to society, we just think we have a right to know what we are eating.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....we just think we have a right to know what we are eating.

Where does this "right" come from ? Does it include all gasses, liquids, and solids ? Does it include clothing, topical treatments, blood transfusions, organ / tissue donation, etc. etc. ?

[TimG]

I understand you don't see the need but you should stop calling people who disagree with you religious zealots.

Labeling a product as 'containing GMOs' is as useful as labeling a product as 'containing orange stuff'. If you really wanted to 'know what are eating' you should be asking for much more specific information about the strains of plants that are in the food (which would also tell you whether they are GMO or not). So my question is why don't you ask for that? Why insist on a meaningless label that increases cost?