RE: The Minister of Agriculture & Agri-Food

[TimG]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

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.  

There is no evidence that GMOs have any impact on the body that is different from non-GMO foods. The other issues are best handled on a case by case basis during the approval process for specific GMO strains. Treating all GMOs foods as equal is  when it comes to ancillary impacts on the environment is nonsensical. If you had access to all of the strains used in food you could make an informed decision on a case by case basis. Refusing to eat any GMO because of such objections is a religious requirement and should be treated as one.

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

29 minutes ago, TimG said:

But as I said: why not require disclosure of all strains of plants used in food?

Absolutely, more information is better. The fact of the matter is however that the GMO companies demand payment and therefore the information is readily available. It is next to impossible to trace back all seed stock from selective breeding programs 100 years ago but it is 100% possible to identify GMO food because the lawyers for the GMO companies demand that already.

[TimG]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Absolutely, more information is better. The fact of the matter is however that the GMO companies demand payment and therefore the information is readily available. It is next to impossible to trace back all seed stock from selective breeding programs 100 years ago but it is 100% possible to identify GMO food because the lawyers for the GMO companies demand that already.

Every season farmers buy seeds. They know the strain of seeds they buy. A list of strains that go into any given food product could be made available. If someone wants to avoid certain strains that is their choice. But governments should not be in the business of deciding what is a GMO seed and what is not. That is best left to third party organizations.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

But governments should not be in the business of deciding what is a GMO seed and what is not. That is best left to third party organizations.

Governments can create legislation, third party organizations cannot. I want to know what I am consuming, and the government works for me. The food companies are responsible for complying with the regulation. That is the way it should work, that is the way it always has worked (in modern times), that is the way it will work.

[Omni]

13 minutes ago, TimG said:

There is no evidence that GMOs have any impact on the body that is different from non-GMO foods. The other issues are best handled on a case by case basis. Treating all GMOs foods as equal is  when it comes to ancillary impacts on the environment is nonsensical. If you had access to all of the strains used in food you could make an informed decision on a case by case basis. Refusing to eat any GMO because of such objections is a religious requirement and should be treated as one.

There are opposing views on various impacts of GMO's including human, environmental and agricultural health. All I want is to be able to make the choice. I'm sure the Sifto salt people don't like having the excess salt listed on the package of so many things, but if you want to keep your BP under control it's good to know.

[TimG]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Governments can create legislation, third party organizations cannot. I want to know what I am consuming, and the government works for me. The food companies are responsible for complying with the regulation. That is the way it should work, that is the way it always has worked (in modern times), that is the way it will work.

Like I said, I am fine with requiring that all strains be made available so people have the information they need to make whatever decision they want. But the government should not be pandering to irrational fears by requiring that the GMO label be included.

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

There are opposing views on various impacts of GMO's including human, environmental and agricultural health. All I want is to be able to make the choice. I'm sure the Sifto salt people don't like having the excess salt listed on the package of so many things, but if you want to keep your BP under control it's good to know.

Disclosing salt content means you are disclosing the chemical properties of the food. This is necessary. Chemically there is no difference between a GMO tomato and a non-GMO tomato. There is no science based rational decision you could make about your health based on a catch-all GMO label.

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, TimG said:

But the government should not be pandering to irrational fears by requiring that the GMO label be included.

Deal with irrational fears by education, not obfuscation. The expensive campaign by the GMO companies to hide what they are doing is a larger contributor to fear than anything. With proper and practical labeling we are not pandering to irrational fears, we are providing facts upon which rational decisions can be based. The irrational fear is that putting the proper and practical label on the food item is somehow going to cause civilization to crumble before us, lets not pander to that irrational fear.

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Deal with irrational fears by education, not obfuscation. The expensive campaign by the GMO companies to hide what they are doing is a larger contributor to fear than anything. With proper and practical labeling we are not pandering to irrational fears, we are providing facts upon which rational decisions can be based. The irrational fear is that putting the proper and practical label on the food item is somehow going to cause civilization to crumble before us, lets not pander to that irrational fear.

Using the GMO label as a catch all for a huge range of products is obfuscation. Making all of the strains available would allow people and third party labeling organizations to make judgements about plants on a case by case basis.  

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, TimG said:

Disclosing salt content means you are disclosing the chemical properties of the food. This is necessary. Chemically there is no difference between a GMO tomato and a non-GMO tomato. There is no science based rational decision you could make about your health based on a catch-all GMO label.

There are DNA differences or it wouldn't be a GMO. And a lot of the pro GMO research is funded by non other than Monsanto. I like the idea of being able to increase the worlds food supply but let's make sure we are doing it safely.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

Using the GMO label as a catch all for a huge range of products is obfuscation. Making all of the strains available would allow people and third party labeling organizations to make judgements about plants on a case by case basis.  

I already said, the more complete the labeling the better. While we don`t have complete records of all selective breeding that has occurred over thousands of years we do have 100% complete and accurate information for GMO foods (because the GMO companies demand it in order to collect their tax). Lets put what details are practical on labels.

[TimG]

Just now, Omni said:

There are DNA differences or it wouldn't be a GMO.

DNA differences are not necessarily chemical differences. Would you not agree that Roma tomato and a Beeksteak tomato are chemically identical even though they have different DNA?

[TimG]

8 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Lets put what details are practical on labels.

Giving prominence to an arbitrary piece of information simply because it is available is misleading to consumers (i.e. why would it be on  the label if it is not important?). The fact that some strains are GMO has no impact on the quality or safety of the food and should not be on the label. If the GMO strains are so well known it would be easy for third parties to manage websites that allow people with religious objections to GMOs to select food based on their criteria. If there is enough demand third party organizations can convince makers to add their label to their products.

Edited December 28, 2016 by TimG

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, TimG said:

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? 

Calling it a religion is nothing more than tossing out ridicule first, facts later.

Much of the GMO you see out there now is actually hybrids of two other previous GMO strains. You are right it would be hard to label it all. But you are better off to assume everything is GMO. Not even organic is really organic. The labels don't mean anything because there is no real enforcement on the labels. The other problem is with label of origins which tend to muddy it all that much more.  Entities like Monsanto are not straight up with much of this. They say it is no different than any other natural thing out there, but they hold an intellectual property (aka patents) on a plant and will enforce their regulations on farmers. 

It's weird that a company like Monsanto would spend millions fighting a bill in California that involved labeling GMO foods as such. Since they sing high praises about their product, wouldn't you think they would be more than proud to support the initiative?

There was a time when we thought injecting the cattle with growth hormones (now banned in Canada) was a good idea. We have since learned then. And we probably would have heard the same arguments, calling those 'religious' that believed the growth hormones were a bad idea. Don't give the authorities and companies like Monsanto an easy pass on anything.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by GostHacked

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

 If the GMO strains are so well known it would be easy for third parties to manage websites that allow people with religious objections to GMOs to select food based on their criteria.

The GMO strains are well known, right up to the point companies like Monsanto collect their tax. Then they spend millions of dollars more to hide the fact. Why are they costing us more money to hide what they are doing?

[TimG]

Just now, ?Impact said:

The GMO strains are well known, right up to the point companies like Monsanto collect their tax. Then they spend millions of dollars more to hide the fact. Why are they costing us more money to hide what they are doing?

The are fighting a meaningless label that lumps a huge range of products together that have nothing to do with each other. They are fighting the irrational demonization of a valuable technology by a well funded groups of luddites. If they objected to making all strains of plants available with products then you could accuse them of hiding information. But simply objecting to the nonsensical GMO label does not mean a desire for secrecy. 

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, TimG said:

They are fighting the irrational demonization of a valuable technology by a well funded groups of luddites.

They are a well funded group of marketeers that want to force their technology down our throats without our consent. Nothing more demonizing than calling people who seek the truth luddites and irrational. We want to know what we are eating, and Monsanto is trying to hide that.

[TimG]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

They are a well funded group of marketeers that want to force their technology down our throats without our consent. Nothing more demonizing than calling people who seek the truth luddites and irrational. We want to know what we are eating, and Monsanto is trying to hide that.

I offered a path to provide the information you are looking for: a list of all strains of plants used in a product. If some other organization wants to label a particular strain 'GMO' then they can. There is no reason for the government to do it. There are a lot of parallels between the anti-vaxxer arguments and the anti-GMO arguments. Both groups claim corporate conspiracies to hide health risks which are not supported by science. Do you think anti-vaxxer arguments should be taken seriously?

Edited December 29, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

Do you think anti-vaxxer arguments should be taken seriously?

There are no parallels, despite your desperate attempt to pretend there is one. All I am asking for is information - period. I am not arguing against GMO foods, I am asking to be told what I am consuming. If a vaccine was pushed into the population through covert means, then I would argue that it should be exposed. That doesn`t make me against the vaccine, just wanting to be able to make an informed choice. I don`t want a company or government forcing me to take a vaccine through the air I breathe, the food I eat, etc.

[TimG]

Just now, ?Impact said:

. I am not arguing against GMO foods, I am asking to be told what I am consuming.

The GMO label does not provide you with any useful information when it comes to understanding the risks associated with consuming a food. You might want to know if the farmer who grew the food had solar panels on his barn but that does not belong on the label either. Government mandated labels should only have information about the chemical properties of the food.     

[blueblood]

23 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

There are no parallels, despite your desperate attempt to pretend there is one. All I am asking for is information - period. I am not arguing against GMO foods, I am asking to be told what I am consuming. If a vaccine was pushed into the population through covert means, then I would argue that it should be exposed. That doesn`t make me against the vaccine, just wanting to be able to make an informed choice. I don`t want a company or government forcing me to take a vaccine through the air I breathe, the food I eat, etc.

The organic industry labels their foods as such and charge a premium for being chemical and gmo free.  

The gmos aren't being pushed through covertly, there is literature from the seed companies talking about the strains traits and performance - higher yields, chemical resistance, earlier maturity, frost/drought tolerance.  Think of it this way, if a company made a bad strain which harmed someone they would be on the hook for billions of dollars resulting in the shareholders pulling the plug on the company.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

The GMO label does not provide you with any useful information when it comes to understanding the risks associated with consuming a food. You might want to know if the farmer who grew the food had solar panels on his barn but that does not belong on the label either. Government mandated labels should only have information about the chemical properties of the food.     

Genetically modified organism are the food itself, not at all similar to if the farmer had solar panels. I might want to know that as well, but I agree the government does not need to be involved there. The fact that the food itself is modified is however relevant, and the government should mandate that labelling.

Look at how food is marketed, is the chemical makeup the most important factor? No, it is way, way, way, way, way down on the list. Things like taste, texture, colour, blemish free, etc. rank much higher. Why does Monsanto want to hide what they are doing from the consumer? They know exactly what food is modified because they collect their tax from it, but then they spend millions and millions to hide it from the consumer. This is not credible behaviour.

[?Impact]

47 minutes ago, blueblood said:

The gmos aren't being pushed through covertly

Yes they are. Put the label on the food and then we have transparency. Spending millions to hide the fact and you lose all credibility.

[TimG]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The fact that the food itself is modified is however relevant, and the government should mandate that labelling.

All food we use has modified DNA. Sometimes through selective breeding/cross breeding, sometimes through mutagenesis and sometimes through direct manipulation. Why is one category of manipulation so critical that it needs to be singled out? Why is the modification to the food more important than the fertilizer or pesticides used? You say you want "more information" but you are fixated one thing and you want to lump a wide range of foods into the same category even though there is no rational reason to group foods based on that criteria. That is why I prefer the model where all strains are published an the government does not require any other statement. Determining which strains are a concern to people with specific religious objections should be left to private organizations.

Edited December 29, 2016 by TimG

[blueblood]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes they are. Put the label on the food and then we have transparency. Spending millions to hide the fact and you lose all credibility.

So every technological advancement in anything needs to be labeled.  Sounds costly...