I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case. Looks like a black or white issue happening here.... What's black and what's white? I HAVE made a case for labeling. You have simply rejected it. You apparemtly want to be kept in the dark. How about you making a case for not labeling. I have yet to hear a valid one. Lois All I was pointing out is that labeling is not a black or white issue. This was a response to what you said to Lausten. I think its fine to support labeling in some cases, while not others. I just saw your list of concerns and have not had the time to research them. Maybe someone else has some feedback for you.It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case. Looks like a black or white issue happening here.... What's black and what's white? I HAVE made a case for labeling. You have simply rejected it. You apparemtly want to be kept in the dark. How about you making a case for not labeling. I have yet to hear a valid one. LoisHow about having no labels unless you choose to use no GMOs and label your product "GMO Free." Same results as you want, except the opposite route. It accomplishes the same thing, plus no one can use the labeling of GMO products as 'proof' they are bad simply due to a (most likely) useless label.It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
Lois I hate to say it but you are starting to sound like the antivaxxers in your arguments. You use scare words and chemical names that add nothing to the discussion. Demanding 100% safety when even organically grown non-GMO’s don;t provide 100% safety ( or any additional safety over what you find with a GMO product)
As I have already stated, labeling a product is only useful if it provides useful information. Labeling something as being GMO provides not useful information. There is no evidence at all that GMO’s pose any additional risk over non-GMO products.
While you drug analogy is critically flawed ( drugs all have potential side effects whereas GMO’s do not) I can think of one way in which drug labeling proves my case. When you pick up a drug prescription from the pharmacy these days or look it up on the internet you will find a long list of side effects associated with every single drug. While this may seem like a good idea on the surface that’s not necessarily true. The reason is that most of the information in those lists is either wrong or misleading (if you want to know more you can read this article from my website Dr Melgar - medicationsideeffects). As a result of this I frequently find that patients have failed to take important medications and put their health at risk because they were provided with this flawed information.
More information is only a helpful when the information is accurate, relevant, and actionable. Labeling foods as GMO or non-GMO does not fulfill any of those criteria
I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case. Looks like a black or white issue happening here.... What's black and what's white? I HAVE made a case for labeling. You have simply rejected it. You apparemtly want to be kept in the dark. How about you making a case for not labeling. I have yet to hear a valid one. LoisHow about having no labels unless you choose to use no GMOs and label your product "GMO Free." Same results as you want, except the opposite route. It accomplishes the same thing, plus no one can use the labeling of GMO products as 'proof' they are bad simply due to a (most likely) useless label. That is what the Non-GMO Project is doing. http://www.nongmoproject.org/It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
Issues surrounding GMO technology A worrisome issue in GM foods is the ability of a food to trigger an allergy in humans. Some of the genes used in GM technology might be taken from a food that causes allergies in some people. Inserting that gene into another organism could cause the host organism to express that allergen as a trait. Alternately, a new allergen could be produced when genes are mixed across different species. Another potential downside to GM technology is that other organisms in the ecosystem could be harmed, which would lead to a lower level of biodiversity. By removing one pest that harms the crop, you could be removing a food source for an animal. Also, GM crops could prove toxic to an organism in the environment, leading to reduced numbers or extinction of that organism. Given that some GM foods are modified using bacteria and viruses, there is a fear that we will see the emergence of new diseases. The threat to human health is a worrisome aspect of GM technology and one that has received a great deal of debate. http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/fact-sheet-pros-vs-cons.htmlThe claim that GMO's are more likely to cause allergies is a false argument . While GMO's sometimes introduce a new protein in to a food chain, every food is made up of thousands of different proteins and every time you eat a new food or an old food prepared a new way you are being introduced to dozens or hundreds of new proteins rather than just one. So while there is some risk of a novel allergic reaction from a GMO it's orders of magnitudes less than what you experience from most other foods you consume every day. Additionally there have been no documented allergic reactions associated with GMO's to date. So while this is a theoretical risk its a disproportionate and misplaced concern given the risk of allergies we face from non-GMO foods. While GMO's do have the potential for environmental impacts, every time we introduce a new crop or pesticide or herbicide or other method of crop control we run a greater risk of having an impact on the environment. GMO's are extensively tested an environmental studies are conducted before they are released into the environment. By comparison plants and animals produced through selective breeding undergo no testing at all. The greatest risk of environmental impact is not from GMO's but invasive organisms introduce either accidentally or intentionally from other countries. One of the major goals of GMO technology is to reduce the blanket use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides so as to limit the effects of agriculture on the environment compared to standard agricultural techniques. In regards to "the fear" that there will be new diseases because bacteria and viruses are used in GMO technology I need to correct this. There is no fear in the scientific community. This is a fear born entirely out of ignorance. The types of bacteria and viruses that infect plants are completely incapable of infecting mammalian cells. We are infinitely more likely to see the rise of novel human pathogens from the millions of different species of bacteria and viruses that already know how to infect our cells rather than pathogens that infect the plant kingdom. If you want to read more about GMO's from sites where the writers actually know what they are talking about look at the references at the end of this article of mine http://mdaskme.com/blog/2014/09/09/gmos-genetically-modified-organisms-are-they-truly-frankenfoods-or-our-best-hope-for-feeding-a-hungry-world
That is what the Non-GMO Project is doing. http://www.nongmoproject.org/That's fine as long as no governmental organization including the FDA endorses or verifies the validity of the label.
So are you done with the argument about how we label drugs so we should label food produced with GE technology? Because you keep just introducing new things without seeming to know what you’re talking about, then you change the subject when challenged. I want to be sure we’re done with the previous non-arguments you’ve presented before we discuss this latest fear mongering about how GE is done.
That argument seems to be that since cells are somehow torn into during the process, this makes the process bad. So, if you needed surgery, where they cut you open and have to stick needles in your arm and hook you up to machines, would you not do it because it sounds gross?
I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case. Looks like a black or white issue happening here.... What's black and what's white? I HAVE made a case for labeling. You have simply rejected it. You apparemtly want to be kept in the dark. How about you making a case for not labeling. I have yet to hear a valid one. LoisHow about having no labels unless you choose to use no GMOs and label your product "GMO Free." Same results as you want, except the opposite route. It accomplishes the same thing, plus no one can use the labeling of GMO products as 'proof' they are bad simply due to a (most likely) useless label. Nobody is saying that labeling is "proof" that they are bad except anti labelers. Do you think nutritional labels are "proof" that the ingredients are "bad" or unwholesom! The label is there to give information, it's not there as as proof of wholesomeness. Labels that say only "GMO Free" would be like nutrition labels that say, "Free of all known bad stuff." Unsaid: "So don't get your knickers in a twist."It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
How about having no labels unless you choose to use no GMOs and label your product "GMO Free." Same results as you want, except the opposite route. It accomplishes the same thing, plus no one can use the labeling of GMO products as 'proof' they are bad simply due to a (most likely) useless label.Nobody is saying that labeling is "proof" that they are bad except anti labelers. Do you think nutritional labels are "proof" that the ingredients are "bad" or unwholesom! The label is there to give information, it's not there as as proof of wholesomeness. Labels that say only "GMO Free" would be like nutrition labels that say, "Free of all known bad stuff." Unsaid: "So don't get your knickers in a twist."Unless there is science supporting the idea that GMOs are different in a way that warrants flagging items containing them, we shouldn't flag them. Once again we can relate this to the anti vaccine lobby. They fixate on something and are ignorant of the science refuting their argument. Don't give ignorant people any targets to shoot at. If you're in favour of GMOs at all, then calling for mandatory labeling is the last thing you should want to do.
Lois I hate to say it but you are starting to sound like the antivaxxers in your arguments. You use scare words and chemical names that add nothing to the discussion. Demanding 100% safety when even organically grown non-GMO's don;t provide 100% safety ( or any additional safety over what you find with a GMO product) As I have already stated, labeling a product is only useful if it provides useful information. Labeling something as being GMO provides not useful information. There is no evidence at all that GMO's pose any additional risk over non-GMO products. While you drug analogy is critically flawed ( drugs all have potential side effects whereas GMO's do not) I can think of one way in which drug labeling proves my case. When you pick up a drug prescription from the pharmacy these days or look it up on the internet you will find a long list of side effects associated with every single drug. While this may seem like a good idea on the surface that's not necessarily true. The reason is that most of the information in those lists is either wrong or misleading (if you want to know more you can read this article from my website http://mdaskme.com/medicationsideeffects). As a result of this I frequently find that patients have failed to take important medications and put their health at risk because they were provided with this flawed information. More information is only a helpful when the information is accurate, relevant, and actionable. Labeling foods as GMO or non-GMO does not fulfill any of those criteriaI never said to merely label them as GMO or non-GMO. I am for labeling them with the GMO techniques used. The way I see it your position is more like the position of anti-vaxxers. What do you call it when people are told that if they don't get vaccinated or have their kids vaccinated that terrible diseases will reach epidemic proportions? For the record I'm in favor of vaccines, but I don't think patients should be kept in the dark about how they work and what they contain. Lois
How about having no labels unless you choose to use no GMOs and label your product "GMO Free." Same results as you want, except the opposite route. It accomplishes the same thing, plus no one can use the labeling of GMO products as 'proof' they are bad simply due to a (most likely) useless label.Nobody is saying that labeling is "proof" that they are bad except anti labelers. Do you think nutritional labels are "proof" that the ingredients are "bad" or unwholesom! The label is there to give information, it's not there as as proof of wholesomeness. Labels that say only "GMO Free" would be like nutrition labels that say, "Free of all known bad stuff." Unsaid: "So don't get your knickers in a twist."Unless there is science supporting the idea that GMOs are different in a way that warrants flagging items containing them, we shouldn't flag them. Once again we can relate this to the anti vaccine lobby. They fixate on something and are ignorant of the science refuting their argument. Don't give ignorant people any targets to shoot at. If you're in favour of GMOs at all, then calling for mandatory labeling is the last thing you should want to do. I'm for labeling pharmaceuticals. Should I be against mandatory labeling because ignorant people will have targets to shoot at? No, let's keep them ignorant. That's a much better idea. Lois
I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case. Yet it is mandatory that those things be measured and labeled. Are you sure you want to do away with mandatory labeling of ingredients in prepared foods? After all, if the public knows there are large amounts of salt, sugar fat and preservatives in a product or that they include peanut products, they might actually go into a panic and not buy them. How terrible would that be? It might eat into someone's profits. LoisIt’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case. Yet it is mandatory that those things be measured and labeled. Are you sure you want to do away with mandatory labeling of ingredients in prepared foods? After all, if the public knows there are large amounts of salt, sugar fat and preservatives in a product or that they include peanut products, they might actually go into a panic and not buy them. How terrible would that be? It might eat into someone's profits. Lois You are losing this argument so badly, you are resorting to misrepresenting the words that you quoted. GMO is not an ingredient. You keep trying to sneak things into this conversation, or sneak them back in after we've corrected you.It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
Lois look at this from this point of view. Why is anyone arguing for labeling? They are arguing for it because they feel there is something wrong with GMO’s and they want that information so they can choose not to buy them. That means that labeling items as non-GMO will inevitably result in higher sales of non-GMO products and lower sales of GMO products. That point is not up for debate.
Furthermore, there are many people out there who are not part of the anti-GMO movement who are at least peripherally aware of this manufactured controversy. If you asked 100 people on the street I’ll bet more than half have some awareness and most of them would have some impression that GMO’s might be harmful or that their safety might at the very least be in question. This will result in a further loss of market share for GMO products.
Taking this further, retailers and marketers are very sensitive to public opinion. If it becomes apparent that selling GMO containing foods will reduce foot traffic to their restaurant they will avoid using them even if the majority of people don’t care. These companies don’t care about the science, onlhy about profits and public opinion.
The outcome of all of this will be that the public will have been convinced that GMO’s are bad simply because the anti-GMO groups got their way, not because their is any science to support their opinion and those of us who are aware of the science and have no concern about GMO’s ( and no desire to pay a ridiculous surcharge for non-GMO foods) will have fewer choices and be forced to pay more for food because retailers are concerned about scaring people if they use GMO’s.
This isn’t theoretical, its already happening. Granted a lot of these companies are the same ones which also cater to the crazy people who pay more to buy organic products but some mainstream retailers have also jumped on board. Chipotle announced more than a year ago that they would eliminate GMO’s from their products. Safeway supermarkets have carved out a section of their stores and devoted it to non-GMO products ( reducing the floor space available to more affordable products) and Trader Joes has eliminated GMO’s from all of its branded products.
Labeling products says to the public that the anti-GMO faction is correct. It gives the win to their unsupported ideas. It gives the win to ignorance.
Yet it is mandatory that those things be measured and labeled. Are you sure you want to do away with mandatory labeling of ingredients in prepared foods? After all, if the public knows there are large amounts of salt, sugar fat and preservatives in a product or that they include peanut products, they might actually go into a panic and not buy them. How terrible would that be? It might eat into someone's profits. LoisThe purpose of labeling is to either inform the consumer or sell the product. If someone is allergic to peanuts or is lactose intolerant, they need to know if the food they are buying contains those things. If someone has high cholesterol (sadly, that's me) or diabetic or simply wants to be an informed consumer, they should have the data available. But if a food contains GMOs, any impact can be indicated on the nutrition label, while the fact that the source of the nutrients is GMOs is irrelevant. Since there is a very prominent conspiracy group against GMOs, labeling foods with GMOs will give them ammunition but provide no benefits to anyone. I admire your optimistic view of the general population, but the advertising industry is proof we are easily swayed by unimportant and useless information.