Moonlight Graham Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 All food in Canada is CFIA approved, therefore it is safe. So if a fed agency says something, then it's true? Ha! Of course, Monsanto and other "big agr" TNC's have no influence on government policy whatsoever... 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/ It's obvious from your comments that you don't know much about the issue. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
GostHacked Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 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. The patent Monsanto has on their GMO food says it IS different. Quote
carepov Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 So if a fed agency says something, then it's true? Ha! Of course, Monsanto and other "big agr" TNC's have no influence on government policy whatsoever... It's obvious from your comments that you don't know much about the issue. I do not know as much about GMOs as the CFIA, FDA, and as Tim pointed out: The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society - do you? Here's what I know: -These organizations (and many others) say: GMO food is as safe as non-GMO food. -No one has died or even gotten sick from consuming GMO food Of course big-ag, bid-pharma, big-oil, big-chemical and big-tobacco l influence governments. And yes mistakes are made - no system is perfect. Thankfully however our regulatory systems are based on scientific evidence and mistakes are corrected based on scientific evidence. How about the influence of big-organics, big-green? It's obvious from your comments that you think that you know a lot more than you do. Quote
GostHacked Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 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. We already have that with 'may or may not contain peanuts'. May or may nor? That's a gamble with a person who has allergies to peanuts. Quote
GostHacked Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 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/ When I saw those signs last year the seed company is called Dekalb. Across the road there were signs for Pioneer GMO seeds. BOTH companies are Canadian, and BOTH are now owned by Monsanto. Quote
GostHacked Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 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. You are in the minority here 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... Yes to it all, it should all be labeled. Ignorance is no longer acceptable. Quote
GostHacked Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 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. Pharmaceuticals. Not to mention advertising is all about manipulating the psychology. 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? Do you realize that you have been manipulated to think their way? No? Really? Psychology works. 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. Remember when smoking was actually recommended by doctors? Yeah seemed like a good thing at the time .. right? Quote
TimG Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) Do you realize that you have been manipulated to think their way?I am not looking at a label and making and uninformed emotional decision. I am looking at the science and the arguments on both sides and have rationally concluded that people opposed to the consumption of GMOs are peddling quackery. That said, there may be some adverse effects on the ecosystems where some GMOs are grown but that has nothing to do with whether they are safe to eat. Remember when smoking was actually recommended by doctors? Yeah seemed like a good thing at the time .. right?Except, even at that time there was medical evidence of smoking related illnesses. GMOs have been studied to death for 30 years by people who would love to see them banned yet they have found nothing. This gives me confidence that there is nothing that will ever be found and people opposed to their consumption are no better than homeopaths and anti-vaxxers. Edited May 28, 2013 by TimG Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 Here's what I know: -No one has died or even gotten sick from consuming GMO food How in the world could you ever know that? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 How in the world could you ever know that? Would you at least agree that far more people have been sickened or have perished from "natural" foods, food born pathogens, famine, etc. than from GMOs ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 Would you at least agree that far more people have been sickened or have perished from "natural" foods, food born pathogens, famine, etc. than from GMOs ? No I would not agree. Quote
DFCaper Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 No one has yet answer 2 questions that I think are at the center of the Labeling aspect of the debate: Why is "Organic" or "GMO Free" not suffice to inform customers? As I stated before, I assume all others are likely GMOs What negative impacts have GMOs proven to have in humans over the last 40 years? And I am not referencing the pesticides, as they are a different issue than GMOs, despite the relationship. No one here has justified to me that the label of "Contains GMOs" is nothing more than fear mongering! Quote "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" - Hellen Keller "Success is not measured by the heights one attains, but by the obstacles one overcomes in its attainment" - Booker T. Washington
carepov Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 How in the world could you ever know that? With all the research on GMO foods, and much of it done by anti-GMO people, I am sure that if a single death or serious illness was proven to be caused by GMO food we would all know in a hurry! Then again I could be wrong, so that why I asked earlier: have GMO foods caused a single human death or illness? Quote
Bryan Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 I am not looking at a label and making and uninformed emotional decision. Actually you're the only one here who is acting emotional. Others just want the information. Your defense of attempts to keep information from the public is irrational. I imagine you'd have fit right in with the Catholics during the reformation. "I just want to read the book for myself" "Why would you want to do that? There is no reason for you to read this book. I've read it, I'll tell you what it says, that's all you need to know" Quote
carepov Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 Actually you're the only one here who is acting emotional. Others just want the information. Your defense of attempts to keep information from the public is irrational. If the information was free I wouldn't care as much. Forcing food companies to label GMOs would waste resources and that is not rational. Some people want all kinds of information on labels, where would you draw the line and say: "x" information is required by law "y" information is not required by law How would you decide? Quote
GostHacked Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 If the information was free I wouldn't care as much. Forcing food companies to label GMOs would waste resources and that is not rational. Some people want all kinds of information on labels, where would you draw the line and say: "x" information is required by law "y" information is not required by law How would you decide? Why would Monsanto and agribiz spend over $45 million to kill the GMO label bill in California? I doubt they are worried about the cost of GMO labels. Quote
TimG Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) Others just want the information. Your defense of attempts to keep information from the public is irrational.Sorry - you are one being completely irrational because lumping all GMOs together under a single label is a useless exercise that provides no information. The only people who think it is a good idea are anti-GMO activists who believe they can play psychological games with an uninformed public. If you really simply wanted 'information' you would be asking for information on the exact strains of plants that are in the food because that would allow you to evaluate GMO and non-GMO strains on a case by case basis. But you aren't asking for that which means your claim of wanting 'information' is a pure deception. Edited May 28, 2013 by TimG Quote
Bryan Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 Why would Monsanto and agribiz spend over $45 million to kill the GMO label bill in California? I doubt they are worried about the cost of GMO labels. Correct. What they're worried about is losing customers. Quote
Bryan Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) The only people who think it is a good idea are anti-GMO activists who believe they can play psychological games with an uninformed public. If you really simply wanted 'information' you would be asking for information on the exact strains of plants that are in the food because that would allow you to evaluate GMO and non-GMO strains on a case by case basis. But you aren't asking for that which means your claim of wanting 'information' is a pure deception. Wrong. I'm not anti-GMO. I already said in this thread that I'd probably eat it anyway, and that I fully realize they've done a lot of good. Millions of lives have been saved by GMO foods. The point is, if it's been modified to the point that they can PATENT it, that means it is a substantially different product than the natural food (for better, worse, or neutral effect). If it wasn't different, they would not be allowed to patent it. If it's not the same thing, then people have a right to at least that basic information. What I'm opposed to, is any food manufacturer telling me I don't need to know what's in my food. That's for me to decide. What Monsanto doesn't understand is, the more strenuously they oppose that labelling, the more people want to see it, and the more onerous those requirements are going to be once they get passed. If they don't smarten up, they WILL have to keep a public database of every little strain. Edited May 28, 2013 by Bryan Quote
DFCaper Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 Still, not one single person who used science to justify their stand. Just fear mongering without fact. Maybe Monsanto is aware that people would fear monger against there product without any evidence. And people will panic and leave there product because some idiot on the internet told them to avoid GMOs. Do we not also have the right to know what fertilizers and pesticides were used at every set of the process to produce the food being sold. Seems to me that would be more relevant. Should we be warning people about to be vacinated that people believe that the vaccination may cause autism? Sure there is no science to back it but would have the same result. Quote "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" - Hellen Keller "Success is not measured by the heights one attains, but by the obstacles one overcomes in its attainment" - Booker T. Washington
TimG Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) What I'm opposed to, is any food manufacturer telling me I don't need to know what's in my food.Fine. Then I can set aside my objections to the increased cost and support labeling provided every strain of plant that makes up more than X% of a product is listed on the label. No distinction will be made between GMO and non-GMO strains (informed consumers can look them up). The effort would be more onerous for companies but it would address my concerns that labeling is nothing but an attempt to play psychological tricks on consumers. Would that be acceptable to you? Edited May 28, 2013 by TimG Quote
Bryan Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 Should we be warning people about to be vacinated that people believe that the vaccination may cause autism? Sure there is no science to back it but would have the same result. That's not what's happening. A better analogy would be, your doctor is giving you a shot, but refuses to tell you what is in it. When you get a flu shot, they tell you what strain it's inoculating you against, and the manufacturers keep meticulous records of where, when, and how the vaccine was developed. If you ask for it, you can have the full monograph. People have a right to make an informed decision. Quote
carepov Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 Why would Monsanto and agribiz spend over $45 million to kill the GMO label bill in California? I doubt they are worried about the cost of GMO labels. Yes Monsanto is concerned about loosing profits and customers. Why don't you and Bryan answer some recent questions posed to you: 1. Why is "Organic" or "GMO Free" not suffice to inform customers? As I stated before, I assume all others are likely GMOs 2. What negative impacts have GMOs proven to have in humans over the last 40 years? 3. What criteria should regulatory systems have in order to decide what information is required on food labels? Quote
Bryan Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 Fine. Then I can set aside my objections to the increased cost and support labeling provided every strain of plant that makes up more than X% of a product is listed on the label. No distinction will be made between GMO and non-GMO strains (informed consumers can look them up). The effort would be more onerous for companies but it would address my concerns that labeling is nothing but an attempt to play psychological tricks on consumers. Would that be acceptable to you? I'm not clear what you're saying. Do you mean the full info would be on their website rather than on the box? If so, they would be a good start. The bottom of the ingredient list could say "contains genetically modified organisms, see our website for details". As long as there's no "may contain" weaselling that would probably satisfy most people. If you don't know for sure, you should not be selling food to the public. Quote
TimG Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) I'm not clear what you're saying. Do you mean the full info would be on their website rather than on the box? If so, they would be a good start. The bottom of the ingredient list could say "contains genetically modified organisms, see our website for details". As long as there's no "may contain" weaselling that would probably satisfy most people. If you don't know for sure, you should not be selling food to the public.There would be no mention of GMOs at all. A simple list of strains - GMO and non-GMO - on the package. It would also apply to organic label stuff. From a practical perspective this list will likely qualified with 'may contain one or more of the following strains' since the exact strains that go into a product change depending on the season. It would give you the information you claim to want to know. What it does not give you is a label that can be easily targeted by anti-GMO campaigners. So do you want the information like you say or are you really after the target for an anti-GMO campaign? Edited May 28, 2013 by TimG Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.