RE: The Minister of Agriculture & Agri-Food

[SunnysideTroll]

Lawrence MacAulay currently sits in Cabinet as Minister of Agriculture.  MacAulay's constituency office is located in Montague, PEI.  A Cavendish Farms potato processing plant is located in Montague too, and so is a building that houses the Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development.  Since MacAulay has held his post in Cabinet, Health Canada has approved the genetically modified Innate potato and genetically modified salmon.

Check out: @ http://www.cban.ca/potato 

Check out: @ http://www.cban.ca/fish 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by SunnysideTroll
fixed up the links

[SunnysideTroll]

So are these genetically modified products safe?

"Health Canada does not conduct independent tests but relies on privately owned data submitted by companies applying for product approval." -- Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)

[SunnysideTroll]

Since MacAulay has been the Minister of Agriculture & Agri-Food, genetically modified alfalfa (hay) seed has been released for the first time ever here in Canada too.  This scares me a lot because once the seed has been planted, then there would be no way to stop the genetically modified trait from spreading to crops in other fields where it is not wanted.  Anyway, for more info, check out:  @ http://www.cban.ca/alfalfa

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by SunnysideTroll
Fixed up the link

[SunnysideTroll]

Has anyone here heard of gene drives?  "Gene drives are an experimental genetic engineering technology intended to aggressively spread a specific bio-engineered trait among species or population in nature." -- from info I downloaded @ http://www.synbiowatch.org/gene-drives/gene-drives-moratorium/   Yeah,,, like Lawrence MacAulay has got the common sense to insist on putting a moratorium on that.

[PIK]

Let it happen, to many people starving that this food can help.

[Guest]

I think genetically modified foods are inevitable.  Genetic modification of whatever can be genetically modified is inevitable. 

I agree GM foods should be labelled.  It might be way too late though.

[TimG]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I agree GM foods should be labelled.  It might be way too late though.

I disagree. When a label says something like 'contains sugar or peanuts' that is useful information because it identifies a specific chemical or set of chemicals in a food that could be problematic for some people. OTOH, A "GMO" label is a broad designation that covers way too many very different types of plants and animals and it that provides no useful information about specific chemicals in food. The only purpose such labeling serves is to validate the irrational fears of luddites. The inevitable consequence of such labeling is companies will seek to avoid the label by either working around the regulations or by increasing the cost of food. 

See https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/06/12/pasta-ruby-grapefruits-why-organic-devotees-love-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/

Quote

In the last 60 years, mutation breeding has produced a sizable fraction of the world’s crops. Varieties of wheat, including almost all of the most popular varieties used to make top-grade Italian pasta, vegetables, fruit, rice, herbs and cotton have been altered or enhanced with gamma rays, and often separately or additionally soaked in toxic chemicals, in the hopes of producing new desirable, traits. Now these varieties are marketed as conventional and organic foods, and are unlabelled.

IOW - if we effectively ban carefully modified DNA because of the label requirements, food suppliers will go back to randomly exposing crops to radiation and chemicals in order to produce new varieties. I fail to see why this is better.

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[PIK]

Did the not modify wheat to be able to grow in the prairies??

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, TimG said:

I disagree. When a label says something like 'contains sugar or peanuts' that is useful information because it identifies a specific chemical or set of chemicals in a food that could be problematic for some people. OTOH, A "GMO" label is a broad designation that covers way too many very different types of plants and animals and it that provides no useful information about specific chemicals in food. The only purpose such labeling serves is to validate the irrational fears of luddites. The inevitable consequence of such labeling is companies will seek to avoid the label by either working around the regulations or by increasing the cost of food. 

See https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/06/12/pasta-ruby-grapefruits-why-organic-devotees-love-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/

IOW - if we effectively ban carefully modified DNA because of the label requirements, food suppliers will go back to randomly exposing crops to radiation and chemicals in order to produce new varieties. I fail to see why this is better.

Sure, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I'd like the option, but I can always look for the "No GMO" label.  I do realize I'm already infected.  

[TimG]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I'd like the option, but I can always look for the "No GMO" label.  I do realize I'm already infected.  

GMO labeling should be treated like other religion based labeling such as Kosher or Halal. i.e. leave to the private sector to create brands and certification organizations. Governments do not need to be involved.

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

45 minutes ago, TimG said:

The only purpose such labeling serves is to validate the irrational fears of luddites.

Wrong, completely wrong. Labelling serves to inform, not obfuscate like the marketeers want to pull the wool over the lemmings eyes.

20 minutes ago, TimG said:

GMO labeling should be treated like other religion based labeling such as Kosher or Halal. i.e. leave to the private sector to create brands and certification organizations. Governments do not need to be involved.

Government need to force the GMO marketeers to inform the public about their activities. Why do you want the public to remain ignorant?

Edited December 28, 2016 by ?Impact

[TimG]

23 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Wrong, completely wrong. Labelling serves to inform, not obfuscate like the marketeers want to pull the wool over the lemmings eyes.

Government need to force the GMO marketeers to inform the public about their activities. Why do you want the public to remain ignorant?

Why should your religion be given preference over other religious dietary requirements such as 'Halal' or 'Kosher'? 

Private labeling works for for people who want food that conforms to those standards. Private labeling is more than enough to meet your needs.

Why should everyone else pay more so you can practice your religion? 

[?Impact]

Just now, TimG said:

Why should your religion be given preference over other religious dietary requirements such as 'Halal' or 'Kosher'? 

My religion is truth. Your religion is obfuscation. Why should your religion be given preference over mine?

[TimG]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

My religion is truth. Your religion is obfuscation. Why should your religion be given preference over mine?

The science has shown over and over again that GMOs are chemically indistinguishable from non-GMOs and are safe for human consumption. There is no rational basis for labels. It is purely a requirement driven by your religion. So my question again: why should others pay more so you can practice your religion?  

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, TimG said:

The science has shown over and over again that GMOs are chemically indistinguishable from non-GMOs and are safe for human consumption. There is no rational basis for labels. It is purely a requirement driven by your religion. So my question again: why should others pay more so you can practice your religion?  

Religion is about promoting ignorance, exactly what you are trying to do. Why should my request for full disclosure of truth be ignored so you can practice your religion? Why do you want to promote ignorance to enrich your church?

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Religion is about promoting ignorance, exactly what you are trying to do. Why should my request for full disclosure of truth be ignored so you can practice your religion? Why do you want to promote ignorance to enrich your church?

Your obsession with GMOs is promoting ignorance. If you wanted people to have information you would be calling for all plant strains used in a product to be made available online. That would allow someone who cared about the science to review the literature on a case by case basis and make a decision. But you don't want that because you want people to be ignorant and fear things they don't understand. As a result, you would rather have a single meaningless label that would allow you attack it spread your irrational fears. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

Your obsession with GMOs is promoting ignorance. If you wanted people to have information you would be calling for all plant strains used in a product to be made available online. That would allow someone who cared about the science to review the literature on a case by case basis and make a decision. But you don't want that because you want people to be ignorant and fear things they don't understand. As a result, you would rather have a single meaningless label that would allow you attack it spread your irrational fears. 

I want full disclosure, plain and simple. I am not obsessed with GMOs, your are. I am simply stating that people need to be informed and promoting ignorance is a problem. Can you quote a single time I had expressed fears (irrational or not) about GMOs? I want the truth, and you want ignorance. You want to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I want full disclosure, plain and simple. I am not obsessed with GMOs, your are. I am simply stating that people need to be informed and promoting ignorance is a problem. Can you quote a single time I had expressed fears (irrational or not) about GMOs? I want the truth, and you want ignorance. You want to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

Full disclosure means a listing of all plant strains used in a product. That is not what you want. Instead of "full disclosure" you want a meaningless label attached because it suits your religion. If you really want full disclosure then start asking for all plant strains to listed. That would give people all the information they could possibly want.

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, TimG said:

Full disclosure means a listing of all plant strains used in a product. That is not what you want. Instead of "full disclosure" you want a meaningless label attached because it suits your religion. If you really want full disclosure then start asking for all plant strains to listed. 

You are the one promoting ignorance, that is the mark of a religion. I certainly expect when picking fresh produce to know what kind of potato, apple, or tomato I am buying. Yes, when I buy processed food like ketchup the religious people like you have managed to keep details off the label and only listed tomato. That should change. I don't subscribe to your religion.

[TimG]

46 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You are the one promoting ignorance, that is the mark of a religion. I certainly expect when picking fresh produce to know what kind of potato, apple, or tomato I am buying. Yes, when I buy processed food like ketchup the religious people like you have managed to keep details off the label and only listed tomato. That should change. I don't subscribe to your religion.

And if exact strains used to grow the fresh produce were available then you would know exactly what you were buying. That should be more than enough to meet your requirement for 'full disclosure'. Why is this solution not acceptable? Perhaps it is because your real motivation is not 'full disclosure' but instead you want the government to force everyone to pay for labels that you want because of your religious requirements.

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

43 minutes ago, TimG said:

And if exact strains used to grow the fresh produce were available then you would know exactly what you were buying. That should be more than enough to meet your requirement for 'full disclosure'. Why is this solution not acceptable?

Companies like Monsato are forcing themselves into the payment chain for the food I am eating, not the process but the food itself. Why are you so intent on obfuscating that fact. Did you high priestess demand that the plebs be kept ignorant?

Your argument about food prices is completely irrational. If the demand for non-GMO foods decreases because of labeling then they will be forced by competitive pressures to decrease their prices. The genetically modified food you crave will be cheaper.

[TimG]

16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Companies like Monsato are forcing themselves into the payment chain for the food I am eating, not the process but the food itself. Why are you so intent on obfuscating that fact. Did you high priestess demand that the plebs be kept ignorant?

Your argument about food prices is completely irrational. If the demand for non-GMO foods decreases because of labeling then they will be forced by competitive pressures to decrease their prices. The genetically modified food you crave will be cheaper.

Government mandated food labels should disclose the chemical composition of the food only because that is the only thing that matters from a food safety perspective. GMO foods are chemically identical to non-GMO foods which means it makes no sense to mandate labels. Your objections are based on the process used to create the foods which is not unlike the requirements for Halal or Kosher food. This is why I say such labeling should be done by private organizations and leave it up to companies to decide if they wish to provide products that qualify for those labels.

The cost is real because all government regulations impose a cost. There is no scenario where mandated labeling leads to cheaper food.

But as I said: why not require disclosure of all strains of plants used in food? Unlike the GMO label, this would at least be rational because it would provide useful information.

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[Omni]

I like being able to pick up a product and read the label. It helps me make decisions as to what I'm planning to put in my body. A GMO label would be just as helpful as say, the salt content etc. 

[TimG]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

I like being able to pick up a product and read the label. It helps me make decisions as to what I'm planning to put in my body. A GMO label would be just as helpful as say, the salt content etc. 

Except you are fooling yourself. Your body does not care if a food is GMO or not because they are chemically identical. The label only tells you how the food was made (like free-range-chicken-eggs). Why should society pay the cost to help you make irrational decisions about food?

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, TimG said:

Except you are fooling yourself. Your body does not care if a food is GMO or not because they are chemically identical. The label only tells you how the food was made (like free-range-chicken-eggs). Why should society pay the cost to help you make irrational decisions about food?

There is evidence that GMO's have negative impacts not only to the body, but also to the rest of agriculture through super bugs and super weeds, and also to the environment. So I can decide to support the industry or not if I know what I am buying.