Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What kind of person says, "I would rather know less about what's in my food."

Except the information you are asking for is completely useless from any rational perspective and mandating the labels perpetuates the anti-GMO mythology. IOW, you want to the government to help propagate the anti-GMO religion which is quite unreasonable. Why should the religious needs of Greens be given anymore consideration than the religious needs of people looking for Kosher or Halal labels? Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the information you are asking for is completely useless from any rational perspective and mandating the labels perpetuates the anti-GMO mythology. IOW, you want to the government to help propagate the anti-GMO religion which is quite unreasonable. Why should the religious needs of Greens be given anymore consideration than the religious needs of people looking for Kosher or Halal labels?

You're just making up a bunch of nonsense. Knowing that your produce is organic is as useless as knowing it's a GMO crop and organics are labelled. Knowing where it's grown is as useless and locations are required. It's information. Nothing more. Nothing less. What people do with that information is up to them. If you don't care that your produce is genetically modified, then continue buying it, just as I will. But to deny people information because YOU think it's useless is stupid.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing that your produce is organic is as useless as knowing it's a GMO crop and organics are labelled.

Not by government mandate. If producers want to label their products as organic, kosher or halal then that is their choice. But the government should not be mandating labels that are only interesting to people with specific religious convictions.

But to deny people information because YOU think it's useless is stupid.

Except I will be paying the costs associated with someone else's religious obsession (tracking ingredients across deep supply chains is hard to do and costs money). That I care about and the general principal that mandating labels for religious reasons is offensive in itself. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the information you are asking for is completely useless from any rational perspective and mandating the labels perpetuates the anti-GMO mythology. IOW, you want to the government to help propagate the anti-GMO religion which is quite unreasonable. Why should the religious needs of Greens be given anymore consideration than the religious needs of people looking for Kosher or Halal labels?

You are comparing gmo labelling to kosher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to labeling GMO food, how much would that cost? How do you keep track of everything and what do you do with food products that mix GMO and nonGMO food?

Maybe it would make more sense to label food as non-GMO, and charge companies that wish to use the non-GMO label a fee in order to cover the regulatory costs to ensure that this food is non-GMO and cover the costs of labeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's useless. TimG would like to be left in the dark about his foods and wants everyone else to be equally ignorant about what they're buying.

Why is the current voluntary regime not sufficient? I am not against companies choosing to put such labels if they decide there is a market. I am against the government mandating such information because such information serves no rational purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Segno: I also fully support the Greens.

Thank you for illustrating my point so beautifully. I point out a problem with a party and its supporters supporting non-scientific claptrap, and you jump in feet first and illustrate my point beautifully.

ipi: If one of those cesium particles gets in the bones it can cause leukemia.

You are probably more at risk from eating a banana (some potassium is radioactive), sleeping next to someone, or living in a concrete building than you are in being affected by some random cesium particle from a Japanese reactor.


Anti-nuclear and organic are not anti-science positions.

Actually yes they are. The fact that you think they are correct does not make them so.


And non organic food is more likely to cause cancer. If you don't believe that you're a fool.

Thank you once again for illustrating my point... that supporters of the green party are less interested in science and more interested in hysteria.

From: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/28/women-organic-foods-develop-cancer

Women who always or mostly eat organic foods are no less likely to develop cancer than women who eat a more conventional diet...They found no difference in overall cancer risk when comparing the 180,000 women who reported never eating organic ally grown food with around 45,000 women who said they usually or always eat organic food.

(Now, they did find variations in the rates for some individual cancer types, but that is likely due to smaller sample sizes.)

It's your party that's anti-scientific. For example I know a guy whose job it was to drill ice cores in the arctic, but Harper eliminated all ice core drilling jobs in Canada. Why? to prevent science from being undertaken and known.

I have no problem admitting that the Conservatives have been poor when it comes to science. That is not why I supported them in the past. And if I do happen to vote for them in the future, it will not likely be due to their policies on science.

Of course, given a choice between the conservatives (poor in a couple of areas of science) and the Greens (poor in probably twice as many areas of science) I'd probably go with the conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there are fringe Green supporters, but the party itself is not a fringe group. Greens are pro clean energy and pro-labelling, not anti-science. There's a huge difference.

I've pointed to multiple areas where the party has been anti-science... a rejection of nuclear power (even though it has caused fewer deaths per KWh generated than "clean" solar/wind)... acceptance of alternative medicine (even though evidence shows it doesn't work)... support for organic farming (even though evidence shows that it may actually be more dangerous). As for GMOs, they have outright stated they will ban some experimentation, and the 'pro-labelling' is just a way to make its use impractical and ban it that way.

Mmmm, I just love eating vegetables doused in carcinogen....

If you like eating vegetables doused in carcinogens, you must really love organic foods...

From: http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf

Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens

Oh, but don't worry... because natural pesticides are less effective, you get to use more of them...

From: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

Yummm... more than twice the organic pesticide.

Of course, while you are sitting there patting yourself on the back for sticking to Organic foods, just remember, you're more likely to catch e.coli poisoning long before you get cancer. (Organic foods are more responsible for food poisoning than non-organic.)

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019?popular=true

Why do we label ingredients?

We label ingredients in food because there is a biological difference between the different components. Someone with severe food allergies (for example) will need to know to avoid negative reactions.

However, GMO foods (those that have been tested and are in use) have the same biological effects as non-GMO foods. There is no difference in nutrition, nor in their effect on the body. Nobody is made 'safer' by knowing whether the corn used in their food was a GMO or not.

It would be as if the government passed a law mandating that all dairy products must provide the breed of cow used. It does not matter whether your milk came from a holstein or jersey, so mandating such labeling would be useless red tape and would drive up the costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so make it a religious rights issue. You support those don't you?

Makers can add religious labels if they believe it is in their interests to do so. Government should not prohibit or mandate. That is what freedom of religion means. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the information you are asking for is completely useless from any rational perspective and mandating the labels perpetuates the anti-GMO mythology. IOW, you want to the government to help propagate the anti-GMO religion which is quite unreasonable. Why should the religious needs of Greens be given anymore consideration than the religious needs of people looking for Kosher or Halal labels?

I would like the ingredients labeled not only if they are GMO, but also with the name of the farm that grew each ingredient, the particular strain of each crop that was used, and the complete history of all selective breeding practices that were used to arrive at the current cultivar. Additionally, the exact amounts of all fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides used in the production of each ingredient should be listed. I'd also like a complete statement of all farm tools that were employed and the total CO2 footprint involved in the production and use of each tool associated with the production of each ingredient. The total water and energy usage associated with the production of each ingredient should also be specified.

If you argue against any of this, you would rather be "left in the darkness" about your foods! How could anyone argue against the free availability of information about what is in their food??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you argue against any of this, you would rather be "left in the darkness" about your foods! How could anyone argue against the free availability of information about what is in their food??

I tried that argument before. In the end, the GMO labellers admitted that they did not really want information because such detail would be too much to sort though. They just wanted a label which would allow them to make uninformed decisions about a product based on something they have religious objections to. I think the comparison to Kosher or Halal is appropriate. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ipi: If one of those cesium particles gets in the bones it can cause leukemia.

Segno: I also fully support the Greens.

Anti-nuclear and organic are not anti-science positions. Both positions are scientific. Nuclear energy causes massive amounts of nuclear waste, which costs millions and millions in the future. So it is not cheap energy in the long run.

And non organic food is more likely to cause cancer. If you don't believe that you're a fool.

It's your party that's anti-scientific. For example I know a guy whose job it was to drill ice cores in the arctic, but Harper eliminated all ice core drilling jobs in Canada. Why? to prevent science from being undertaken and known.

And now you see many scientists come forth and make a stand on the political spectrum. This is notable only because this really has never happened before. Scientists never needed to stand up for science as much as they need to now. When do we start seeing 'evolution is only a theory' plastered all over the science texts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stockwell Day who ran for the conservative party's antecessor's PM post actually is on the record for saying that Humankind Co-habited with Dinosaurs. If you consider your party scientific scientific after that, you might as well do yourself a favour and prove Darwin's theory.

Edited by G Huxley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like the ingredients labeled not only if they are GMO, but also with the name of the farm that grew each ingredient, the particular strain of each crop that was used, and the complete history of all selective breeding practices that were used to arrive at the current cultivar. Additionally, the exact amounts of all fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides used in the production of each ingredient should be listed. I'd also like a complete statement of all farm tools that were employed and the total CO2 footprint involved in the production and use of each tool associated with the production of each ingredient. The total water and energy usage associated with the production of each ingredient should also be specified.

If you argue against any of this, you would rather be "left in the darkness" about your foods! How could anyone argue against the free availability of information about what is in their food??

Well, when I catch fish for a living my fish are traceable right back to me personally, the boat, where they were caught, whether the fishery was properly managed for sustainability when, how, and where the catch was landed, validated and how the record of all this is audited for veracity.

Fishermen and producers around the world are being compelled to comply with laws being passed by governments around the world that are mandating that fish being imported into their markets are sustainably - green, in a word - produced and that they are not being laundered into the food supply.

Consumers and processors are the primary drivers demanding this and you can probably have as much information as you'd like.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fishermen and producers around the world are being compelled to comply with laws being passed by governments around the world that are mandating that fish being imported into their markets are sustainably - green, in a word - produced and that they are not being laundered into the food supply.

Fisheries are being put at risk by over fishing. Carefully monitoring the supply is a rational response to a real problem. There is no "problem" associated with GMOs. It is simply an irrational paranoia similar to the hysteria over vaccines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fisheries are being put at risk by over fishing. Carefully monitoring the supply is a rational response to a real problem. There is no "problem" associated with GMOs. It is simply an irrational paranoia similar to the hysteria over vaccines.

Let's consider this. Companies that develop and patent gmo seeds are the same companies that develop and patent pesticides and herbicides which these seeds are resistant to. Not only that. Monsanto is the largest seed company in the world and owns 86% of gmo seeds sown globally. They are also the parent of Roundup (they produce pesticides and herbicides).

Food for thought but hopefully that food has gmo labelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fisheries are being put at risk by over fishing. Carefully monitoring the supply is a rational response to a real problem. There is no "problem" associated with GMOs. It is simply an irrational paranoia similar to the hysteria over vaccines.

Actually it's really really bad management that's responsible for the damage. Who after all let the fisheries be over-fished?

You do realize the same governments that have cocked-up so many fisheries manage pretty much how all the other food we consume is produced right? And you're still okay with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Companies that develop and patent gmo seeds are the same companies that develop and patent pesticides and herbicides which these seeds are resistant to.

So? What does that have to do with anything? Farmers buy these seeds because they make more money if they do. If Monsanto did not deliver value for money farmers would look elsewhere.

In any case, non-GMO does not mean pesticide free. In fact, non-GMO crops often require the use of more pesticides than their GMO cousins.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize the same governments that have cocked-up so many fisheries manage pretty much how all the other food we consume is produced right? And you're still okay with that?

You can use the same argument to argue that slapping a no-GMOs label on stuff would be meaningless because you cant trust the government to monitor it properly. If anything, it is an argument for third party organizations that create and market voluntary labels which producers can choose to use. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when I catch fish for a living my fish are traceable right back to me personally, the boat, where they were caught, whether the fishery was properly managed for sustainability when, how, and where the catch was landed, validated and how the record of all this is audited for veracity.

Fishermen and producers around the world are being compelled to comply with laws being passed by governments around the world that are mandating that fish being imported into their markets are sustainably - green, in a word - produced and that they are not being laundered into the food supply.

Consumers and processors are the primary drivers demanding this and you can probably have as much information as you'd like.

There's a big difference between collecting information, and requiring it to be printed on every label on the final product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...