Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[Wilber]

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?

Products do have to labeled if they contain "orange stuff". Don't you ever read the list of ingredients on a container?

Edited May 27, 2013 by Wilber

[TimG]

Products do have to labeled if they contain "orange stuff". Don't you ever read the list of ingredients on a container?

They have much more specific descriptions. The only time they use broad categories when describing a function (i.e. preservatives or coloring). Like I said, make the labels specific enough to mean something and I would buy your argument that you 'want to know what you are eating'. Asking for a label 'contains GMO' is not specific enough to allow you to 'know what you are eating'.

[BubberMiley]

Why insist on a meaningless label that increases cost?

Some people don't have religious faith in their corporate overlords, and don't believe that it would be a meaningless label. They should be allowed the information they want.

[TimG]

They should be allowed the information they want.

So if someone says they want to know the exact strains of plants in their food you would be OK with that demand no matter what the cost?

[Bryan]

What you are asking for is information that provides no useful information about the product

No useful information TO YOU. It is useful to other people.

[TimG]

No useful information TO YOU. It is useful to other people.

And putting a Halal or Kosher label on food is meaningful to some people. That does not mean we should mandate Kosher/Halal labels on all products.

[Guest]

Coming late to this discussion and I can't read all of the previous posts. I come down strongly in favour of forcing companies to label GMO contents in food.

I realise I've probably already eaten a ton of it, but what the hell.

[TimG]

I come down strongly in favour of forcing companies to label GMO contents in food.

And what would you say if 90% of the companies simply slapped a 'may or may not contain GMOs' label? How does this help anyone? Seems to me labeling only panders to unscientific nonsense.

[Guest]

And what would you say if 90% of the companies simply slapped a 'may or may not contain GMOs' label? How does this help anyone? Seems to me labeling only panders to unscientific nonsense.

I have to admit to a completely unscientific dislike of Monsanto.

But the labelling requirement would just be so I have a choice. I want the choice. I currently buy mostly organic food so it wouldn't be huge issue, but I don't see any reason for allowing a company to sell GMO without labels. The only reason they want to do so is because they think no-one will eat it. Unscientific or not.

[TimG]

The only reason they want to do so is because they think no-one will eat it.

Not true at all since most people pay attention already know that GMOs are in most foods.

The opposition is one of principal because our society is filled with people who fear technology and seek to block its use despite the fact that there is no rational basis for this fear. Labeling foods with a generic 'contains GMO' label is caving into these Luddites when we should be having a rational discussion about what the science says and does not say.

It not a question of choice because people have a choice of organic foodstuffs. If that choice did not exist I would likely be more sympathetic to calls for labeling.

Edited May 28, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

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?

If there's some specific wheat strain that is untested re: human consumption or may pose health risks than sure, but as far as I know, why would I care about wheat strains?

Something that says "This product contains GMOs" may not be enough, as you say, because a food containing or constituting a GMO should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. But do you seriously think eating GMO's is of no health and environmental concern?

You claim that "there is no way to tell a GMO ingredient from a non-GMO ingredient since the end products are chemically identical". Have a link to support this? GMO foods are by their very nature chemically different than non-GMO foods because their DNA has been artificially altered and gene/genes added to its DNA.

Hundreds of thousand of years of evolution can show humans which foods are safe or not, and allow humans to adapt to these foods (or not), but there is no way to know the long-term effects of new GMO foods except by waiting & observing decades of human consumption of each GMO. People have a right not to want to be a part of that experiment, and the hell if anyone should have to pay any money for a label.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

Can you prove anything you just said? How do you know the long-term health effects of foods with DNA that have never before been consumed in human history?

Do you realize the massive environmental effects GMOs have?

Do you realize the ethical problems that stem from GMO seed companies like Monsanto who maintain monopoly control on more profitable seed products against farmers, including many millions in the developing world who economically hurt or destroyed as a result?

[Moonlight Graham]

Sure there is: all currently required labeling has a scientific justification.

There is no scientific justification for GMO labelling.

The long-term health effects of GMO foods aka foods with modified DNA that have never before been consumed in human history are scientifically unknown and untested. That is the health concern. Case closed.

[carepov]

Can you prove anything you just said? How do you know the long-term health effects of foods with DNA that have never before been consumed in human history?

Do you realize the massive environmental effects GMOs have?

Do you realize the ethical problems that stem from GMO seed companies like Monsanto who maintain monopoly control on more profitable seed products against farmers, including many millions in the developing world who economically hurt or destroyed as a result?

All food in Canada is CFIA approved, therefore it is safe.

Has anyone died or gotten sick from consuming a GMO food?

Where are the massive environmental effects of GMOs?

Farmers choose to buy from Monsanto or other suppliers. "Monsanto monopoly control" seems like irrational paranoia to me:

http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/04/24/measuring-monsanto-2/

[carepov]

I have to admit to a completely unscientific dislike of Monsanto.

But the labelling requirement would just be so I have a choice. I want the choice. I currently buy mostly organic food so it wouldn't be huge issue, but I don't see any reason for allowing a company to sell GMO without labels. The only reason they want to do so is because they think no-one will eat it. Unscientific or not.

More labelling means more cost. This is a waste of resources. Also, higher food costs will disproportionably hurt poor people.

You want Kosher - pay for it

You want free range eggs - pay for it

You want grass-fed, Kobe, shiatsu-massaged beef - pay for it

You want fair trade coffee - pay for it

You want organic, GM-free food - pay for it yourself!

[Guest]

More labelling means more cost. This is a waste of resources. Also, higher food costs will disproportionably hurt poor people.

You want Kosher - pay for it

You want free range eggs - pay for it

You want grass-fed, Kobe, shiatsu-massaged beef - pay for it

You want fair trade coffee - pay for it

You want organic, GM-free food - pay for it yourself!

I do. I want adequate labelling too. I don't care how much it costs, because if it is labelled as GMO, I won't be buying it anyway.

[TimG]

If there's some specific wheat strain that is untested re: human consumption or may pose health risks than sure, but as far as I know, why would I care about wheat strains?

But let's say someone else did because their grand Poooba Davel Kuzuki told them that certain wheat strains were destroying the eco-system despite the complete lack of supporting scientific evidence. Let's say companies opposed labeling becaus it would add costs for no benefit. Would you say that we all needed to pay to assuage the irrational fears of a minority of people? Why are your demands any different?

But do you seriously think eating GMO's is of no health and environmental concern?

The only evidence I have seen is that some genetically modified crops might affect the ecosystem where they are grown but there is zero evidence that consumption of these crops is harmful. But don't take my word:

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report1 states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breed-ing technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

You claim that "there is no way to tell a GMO ingredient from a non-GMO ingredient since the end products are chemically identical".

I am trying to find a scientific definition of 'equivalence' that is used in the industry.

Neutral site:

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

The cost of labeling involves far more than the paper and ink to print the actual label. Accurate labeling requires an extensive identity preservation system from farmer to elevator to grain processor to food manufacturer to retailer (Maltsbarger and Kalaitzandonakes, 2000). Either testing or detailed record-keeping needs to be done at various steps along the food supply chain. Estimates of the costs of mandatory labeling vary from a few dollars per person per year to 10 percent of a consumer’s food bill (Gruere and Rao, 2007). Consumer willingness to pay for GE labeling information varies widely according to a number of surveys, but it is generally low in North America. Another potential economic impact for certain food manufacturers is that some consumers may avoid foods labeled as containing GE ingredients.

I do not think my food bills should go up 10% because some people are scared of technology.

[BC_chick]

Not true at all since most people pay attention already know that GMOs are in most foods.

Really? I've read otherwise. When you go to the supermarket all your life, you don't really question what you buy when it changes silently without your knowledge.

The only reason people even have the knowledge they do now is because of GMO awareness campaigns in the last 5 or 6 years. Given the spike in sales of organic, it goes to show that more awareness = more demand for organic.

Labelling is a continuation of the awareness campaign. If GMO products are as safe as you insist, there should have no concern about awareness of the issue.

[TimG]

If GMO products are as safe as you insist, there should have no concern about awareness of the issue.

Don't be ridiculous. Anti-GMO campaigners know that putting label on will make people think there is an issue even when there is absolutely no scientific basis for it. i.e. 'if the government requires the label then it must be problem' line of thinking.

It is great to hear there are businesses making money marketing organic products when they can find people with the disposal income required to pay the prices. This is actually an argument against labeling because people already have a choice.

[BC_chick]

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.

Yeah, but peanut allergies can be fatal. I don't know about you but if my daughter could possibly die of coming into contact with something, I couldn't care less if it builds immunity in other children. Keep it at home.

A kid almost died recently at a local Steve Nash child-mining area because some thoughtless parent thought it's fine to bring a peanut butter sandwich to the facility.

Honestly, I don't understand how ignorant some people can be.

[BC_chick]

Don't be ridiculous. Anti-GMO campaigners know that putting label on will make people think there is an issue even when there is absolutely no scientific basis for it. i.e. 'if the government requires the label then it must be problem' line of thinking.

It is great to hear there are businesses making money marketing organic products when they can find people with the disposal income required to pay the prices. This is actually an argument against labeling because people already have a choice.

If there is no scientific basis for it, then awareness should not be a problem. Label = google search = more purchase of the cheap product.

What's the concern?

ETA - and once again, I repeat, awareness = less consumption. Fact.

Edited May 28, 2013 by BC_chick

[TimG]

If there is no scientific basis for it, then awareness should not be a problem. Label = google search = more purchase of the cheap product.

Spare me your transparent duplicity. Labeling is a nothing but a cheap attempt to manipulate human psychology because the fact that that the label is there implies that there is a concern. There is absolutely no evidence that it is a concern which means putting it on labels means the government is promoting a lie.

If you want GMO-free organic products then you pay for them.

Edited May 28, 2013 by TimG

[BC_chick]

Spare me your transparent duplicity. Labeling is a nothing but a cheap attempt to manipulate human psychology because the fact that that the label is there implies that there is a concern. It should not be on labels because there is absolutely no evidence that it is a concern which means putting it on labels is a lie.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

[TimG]

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I have to worry that people are too busy to understand the facts instead make emotional decisions based on a misleading label. We have laws that are designed to prevent companies from manipulating people psychologically. For example, companies cannot advertise products with 'no tax' they must say that 'they pay the tax'. Why should government participate in anti-GMO campaigners attempts to psychologically manipulate consumers?

Labels should go on if scientific evidence is found that shows there is a real risk from eating GMO products. Until then the status quo is fine.

[Bonam]

Why are people worried about DNA changes through modification in a laboratory but not equally worried about DNA changes through selective breeding? In both cases, the DNA of the plant/animal in question has been modified consciously by humans. Should we put labels indicating selective breeding has been used? I don't see anyone advocating for that. The only distinction I can see is the reflexive "that's just not natural!" repulsion of the layman. What about pesticides, fertilizers, growth hormones, antibiotics? Should we put these labels on foods in which they have been used? If not, why not? The existing approach of letting companies label their products as "organic" or "GMO-free" to appeal to consumers who are looking for that seems adequate to me...