I have no problem with foods prodiced with GMO. I would like to be informed when it is being used. The fact that GMO companes like Monsanto are against labeling makes me worry. If the use of GMOs is as benign as Monsanto et al. say, why are they against labeling? If the food coloring industry (as one example) was against labeling foods that are colored, wouldn't you be concerned? Should we know how much salt, fat and additives are in our food, or should that information be kept secret? LoisYou have to first answer why we label anything. Allergies is a good reason. Fat content is a health choice, calories. Generally all ingredients because it gets too complicated to say this one but not that one. Then there's marketing, kosher, low fat, organic, those are claims of something better or choices based on personal reasons. So far, GMO hasn't fallen into any of those, what did I miss? Oh right, I missed the unfounded claim that they are bad for you, therefore they get to make the fallacious argument that I'm hiding something. Labeling has a cost. Why should I pay for someone else's paranoia? And since GMO doesn't fit any of the above, the label sends a false message. Labels are normally warnings, but here you have a label with nothing to warn of. Should the government put an additional statement that this label is informative only? Or would that just add to the confusion?
I have no problem with foods prodiced with GMO. I would like to be informed when it is being used. The fact that GMO companes like Monsanto are against labeling makes me worry. If the use of GMOs is as benign as Monsanto et al. say, why are they against labeling? If the food coloring industry (as one example) was against labeling foods that are colored, wouldn't you be concerned? Should we know how much salt, fat and additives are in our food, or should that information be kept secret? LoisLois the problem with labeling things that are GMO is it gives credence to the claim that they are unsafe. People who are uninformed ( ie. most consumers) will automatically assume that GMO's are not as safe, just as they incorrectly assume that organic products are safer. It results in increased costs for everyone and reduced choice. As an example of what can go wrong with this idea, McDonalds was working with company to make safer potatoes. Few people know that regular potatoes produce a substance called acrylamide which when fried turns into a known carcinogen. McDonalds was working with a company that had genetically modified a potato so that it made less of this cancer causing agent, but when word got out that McDonalds might be using GMO's in their product there was huge consumer backlash, and this from a segment of consumers who are clearly not health conscious. McDonalds pulled the deal and now everyone has to eat potatoes that are more likely to cause cancer. Labeling doesn't give us choice, it takes the choice away. It allows the most uninformed members of society to choose what products the rest of us will have access to. We all have to eat foods that aren't as good or as safe or as inexpensive because of the irrational fears of an ill informed minority.
I have no problem with foods prodiced with GMO. I would like to be informed when it is being used. The fact that GMO companes like Monsanto are against labeling makes me worry. If the use of GMOs is as benign as Monsanto et al. say, why are they against labeling? If the food coloring industry (as one example) was against labeling foods that are colored, wouldn't you be concerned? Should we know how much salt, fat and additives are in our food, or should that information be kept secret? LoisHome Depot has a system where the employees use a smart phone that will take a picture of the bar code and the phone will down load all the information on the product. Works great. If that got expanded to the food markets, it would make it easier. And you could compare prices of different stores at the same time. I’m with you Lois, I want to be informed. I want to know what country the food comes from too.
As far as people eating sheep with jelly fish genes, this is really not the issue people seem to think it is. These were genes for fluorescence which are not harmful to people at all. The only concern is that you had a rogue employee who released the animal for human consumption apparently to get back at the company. In theory a rogue employee could have done something that was actually harmful but this is a concern when employees are responsible for anything that is potentially harmful to others. In this case it was not harmful to anyone. People eat luminescent jellyfish. Why would it matter if the luminescence is consumed through the ingestion of sheep?As far as emotional response. What you are talking about is really major, just like the atom. You can’t tell me that every scientist didn’t have two words in the back of his mind before the first test, “chain reaction". It will take a few years for a comfort level to set in with DNA. Thanks for the info on the sheep. My info was a short news update. The human factor is always hard to control. And you’re right. If people eat luminescent jellyfish, then it should not harm people eaten in lamb.
I’m with you Lois, I want to be informed.Except the label doesn't inform. It misinforms. This makes no more sense than it would to put a label on food that says. This food was grown near high tension wires, or this food contains adenosine triphosphate, or these tomatoes were picked by black people. Do any of those labels inform? of course not, because the statements are meaningless but they make the buyer wonder why the statement is there and the buyer then fills in meaning that doesn't exist. Similarly antivaxxers could push for labels to be put on vaccines stating " Contains formaldehyde" or "Autism free vaccine" which would lead to incorrect conclusions that the minuscule amount of formaldehyde in the vaccine is dangerous or that there are vaccines that do cause autism. GMO's are no more dangerous to anyones health than any other food item but putting the label on there implies that they are or might be ( otherwise why would they put a label on it) and plays into unfounded fears which will make these products unmarketable or much more expensive than they should be.
We are discussing this using tools created by corporations. The people running those corporations are mostly the same jeans and T-shirts people that we praised for being innovative. Did they become evil at some point?That is an excellent question. Probably somewhere on the way to deciding that the bottom line was more important than anything else. When do decent people turn into a demonic mob capable of unspeakable atrocities??? But, I'll bow out of this thread, since you seem to think it's all about GMOs - and I'm not into trying to demonize GMO in and of themselves. I'll eat that GMO corn, particularly after some of the reading I've done this past week, not that I had any phobia about them before, but I'd never really looked into it before either. My grip is about the buying up of every competitor in sight, or crushing them by any means a big powerful ruthless bully has at their disposal. It's the getting so big that companies turns into inhumane driven machines rather than human enterprises. It's the too much is never enough mentality that permeates corporates; it's the looking at what those giant corporations have done to our natural world - you know our life support systems. We are literally in the process of destroying the planet us older farts grew up in last century and replacing it with a ravaged landscapes and ocean incapable of sustaining our society. For real, and it's horrifying, even if most the population stays blithely blind to what's happening out there on our one and only home planet. On a personal level, my curious fascinating life has in the past few years put me in a position of watching two different greed-is-good/bottomline-is-everything corporations buying out successful happy businesses and it's ugly as hell. In a way I wish I could write about it, but I can't. Suffice it to say good decent people put into corporate setting are capable of incredible disconnect from their own basic decency and become capable of doing truly ugly things to other people who have been reduced to figures on a spread sheet. Cheers see you around the neighborhood.
I have no problem with foods prodiced with GMO. I would like to be informed when it is being used. The fact that GMO companes like Monsanto are against labeling makes me worry. If the use of GMOs is as benign as Monsanto et al. say, why are they against labeling? If the food coloring industry (as one example) was against labeling foods that are colored, wouldn't you be concerned? Should we know how much salt, fat and additives are in our food, or should that information be kept secret? LoisYou have to first answer why we label anything. Allergies is a good reason. Fat content is a health choice, calories. Generally all ingredients because it gets too complicated to say this one but not that one. Then there's marketing, kosher, low fat, organic, those are claims of something better or choices based on personal reasons. So far, GMO hasn't fallen into any of those, what did I miss? Oh right, I missed the unfounded claim that they are bad for you, therefore they get to make the fallacious argument that I'm hiding something. Labeling has a cost. Why should I pay for someone else's paranoia? And since GMO doesn't fit any of the above, the label sends a false message. Labels are normally warnings, but here you have a label with nothing to warn of. Should the government put an additional statement that this label is informative only? Or would that just add to the confusion? Labels are not only warnings, they are statements of fact. What the public does with those facts is up to them, but they should not be hidden--especially by entities that are making a profit on hiding such statements. If I don't want to buy or eat something that has been genetically engineered should I not have that right? Whose rights should be paramount--the producer's or the customer's? Lois
Well, it was a pretty decent thread while it lasted. But now it’s a Franken-thread.
Well, it was a pretty decent thread while it lasted. But now it's a Franken-thread.In what way? Lois
Labels are not only warnings, they are statements of fact. What the public does with those facts is up to them, but they should not be hidden--especially by entities that are making a profit on hiding such statements. If I don't want to buy or eat something that has been genetically engineered should I not have that right? Whose rights should be paramount--the producer's or the customer's? LoisLabels are not just statement of fact. In the case of GMO's a label becomes an inaccurate implied warning. What the uninformed public does with that has effects on everyone else not just themselves. To some extent putting GMO labels on food is like yelling fire in a crowded theater simply because someone said it felt warm in the theater. Please read posts #41 and #44
Well, it was a pretty decent thread while it lasted. But now it's a Franken-thread.In what way? Lois Well, there's Mike, no explanation needed there. Then there's citizen challenge, who I asked for an explanation of the logic of "corporations bad" and from that he concluded "it's all about GMOs for me". Then there's you, who hasn't thought through labeling at all, but has an opinion. Sure, there is the label on the back that lists facts, like ingredients and fat content. But why? Because without that, they could say "healthy" or "low fat" and it would have no meaning. Healthy and low compared to what? But unhealthy fatty foods have a societal cost, so we require that the facts be listed, and let the consumer compare. Labels on the front have implied meanings, organic, imported, they are facts for people that want those facts, basically they are marketing. The producer should pay for that. If they list corn as an ingredient, it's likely they have more than one supplier, and each supplier gets their corn from multiple farmers. Each farmer selects seeds from a variety of seed providers each year, so all that would have be tracked back to that label. Simply saying "GMO" does not tell you what genetic modification has been done, you'd have to track the details. So, you could say "might contain GMOs" to be safe, but now the label is pretty pointless. Might as well just put that sign up as you come into the grocery store, save us the expense.
We are discussing this using tools created by corporations. The people running those corporations are mostly the same jeans and T-shirts people that we praised for being innovative. Did they become evil at some point?That is an excellent question. Probably somewhere on the way to deciding that the bottom line was more important than anything else. When do decent people turn into a demonic mob capable of unspeakable atrocities??? But, I'll bow out of this thread, since you seem to think it's all about GMOs - and I'm not into trying to demonize GMO in and of themselves. I'll eat that GMO corn, particularly after some of the reading I've done this past week, not that I had any phobia about them before, but I'd never really looked into it before either. My grip is about the buying up of every competitor in sight, or crushing them by any means a big powerful ruthless bully has at their disposal. It's the getting so big that companies turns into inhumane driven machines rather than human enterprises. It's the too much is never enough mentality that permeates corporates; it's the looking at what those giant corporations have done to our natural world - you know our life support systems. We are literally in the process of destroying the planet us older farts grew up in last century and replacing it with a ravaged landscapes and ocean incapable of sustaining our society. For real, and it's horrifying, even if most the population stays blithely blind to what's happening out there on our one and only home planet. On a personal level, my curious fascinating life has in the past few years put me in a position of watching two different greed-is-good/bottomline-is-everything corporations buying out successful happy businesses and it's ugly as hell. In a way I wish I could write about it, but I can't. Suffice it to say good decent people put into corporate setting are capable of incredible disconnect from their own basic decency and become capable of doing truly ugly things to other people who have been reduced to figures on a spread sheet. Cheers see you around the neighborhood. I don’t want to get into the details in this thread, but what you have described is exactly what companies do when they go worldwide and have a NSA banker sitting on the board of directors. The NSA opens up the government money bag for the companies to expand in ways that otherwise would be too risky and the profile of the companies seem to change to how you described the companies as big powerful ruthless bullies. These companies will go into countries and lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Over and over again and grow bigger while losing all this money. An example. Midland Savings, a small bank in upper New York. The NSA steps in and in a couple of years it becomes the fourth largest savings bank in the U.S. But the largest U.S. bank doing currency exchange from Asia. If you really want to understand international business, follow the career of an NSA banker and I think that will answer a lot of your questions. The war for safe haven currency is taking place right now. And the government uses companies like Monsanto to do monetary battle around the world, mainly with China at this time. Thanks for the chat, mike.
Well, it was a pretty decent thread while it lasted. But now it's a Franken-thread.In what way? Lois Well, there's Mike, no explanation needed there. Then there's citizen challenge, who I asked for an explanation of the logic of "corporations bad" and from that he concluded "it's all about GMOs for me". Then there's you, who hasn't thought through labeling at all, but has an opinion. Sure, there is the label on the back that lists facts, like ingredients and fat content. But why? Because without that, they could say "healthy" or "low fat" and it would have no meaning. Healthy and low compared to what? But unhealthy fatty foods have a societal cost, so we require that the facts be listed, and let the consumer compare. Labels on the front have implied meanings, organic, imported, they are facts for people that want those facts, basically they are marketing. The producer should pay for that. If they list corn as an ingredient, it's likely they have more than one supplier, and each supplier gets their corn from multiple farmers. Each farmer selects seeds from a variety of seed providers each year, so all that would have be tracked back to that label. Simply saying "GMO" does not tell you what genetic modification has been done, you'd have to track the details. So, you could say "might contain GMOs" to be safe, but now the label is pretty pointless. Might as well just put that sign up as you come into the grocery store, save us the expense. Lausten, I know several corn farmers and the way they tell me it works is that they contract to grow the corn on their farm. The corn processor will plant the corn. They also control the seeds and fertilizers and the farmer never sees the seeds at all. Then the processor combines the crop and controls when it harvests. The farmer is basically an irrigator for the crop because he owns the land and water rights. Farming for the big food processors is very systematic. I think the GMO for the food consumption like corn is way past the abilities of the average farmers today. Now, feed corn and green chop is still up to the farmers to pick the type, plant and harvest.
I think the GMO for the food consumption like corn is way past the abilities of the average farmers today. Now, feed corn and green chop is still up to the farmers to pick the type, plant and harvest.Sure, not all farmers own the land and the equipment and the whole business. Somebody somewhere is making the seed decision though. I have no idea what you're saying in these last couple sentences or what it has to do with anything else said here.
I think the GMO for the food consumption like corn is way past the abilities of the average farmers today. Now, feed corn and green chop is still up to the farmers to pick the type, plant and harvest.Sure, not all farmers own the land and the equipment and the whole business. Somebody somewhere is making the seed decision though. I have no idea what you're saying in these last couple sentences or what it has to do with anything else said here.OK, let me say it another way. For the last 50 thousand years GMO has been a process of the farmer by the use of selective farming methods. Today the farmer is being replaced by the scientists and the food processors in the areas of GMO for human use. This is very understandable do to the complexity of the GMO’s. If you were insuring the GMO crop, would you want to insure thousands of farmers picking from hundreds of GMO choices, or a few processors who use and process the GMO products? The farmer still can control the animal feed products, but when it comes to human consumption the numbers in citizenshallenge post #10 shows that most of the food comes from only 10% of the farms. And that should be expected with the GMO type of farming. When it comes to GMO corn for human consumption as an example used by you, the farmer still prepares the fields for planting and watering. Then waters the crop during the growth period and that’s about all. The idea being when a recall takes place the processors know exactly which products to recall by control numbers stamped upon the packaging. Thus the information LoisL is talking about is at the processors already. I agree that putting all the info on the packaging could be a problem. But putting it on a web site should not be that much of a problem except for competitive secrets. Some companies have gone with 1-800 numbers.
Mike; You are confusing what is meant by “farmer”. Just because there are different people owning the land, driving the tractor, or making other decisions, that doesn’t mean they aren’t people who understand the land and how to grow food. You’re confused about the tracking thing too, but you’re so far off track I don’t know where to start.
I think the GMO for the food consumption like corn is way past the abilities of the average farmers today. Now, feed corn and green chop is still up to the farmers to pick the type, plant and harvest.Sure, not all farmers own the land and the equipment and the whole business. Somebody somewhere is making the seed decision though. I have no idea what you're saying in these last couple sentences or what it has to do with anything else said here.OK, let me say it another way. For the last 50 thousand years GMO has been a process of the farmer by the use of selective farming methods. Today the farmer is being replaced by the scientists and the food processors in the areas of GMO for human use. This is very understandable do to the complexity of the GMO’s. If you were insuring the GMO crop, would you want to insure thousands of farmers picking from hundreds of GMO choices, or a few processors who use and process the GMO products? The farmer still can control the animal feed products, but when it comes to human consumption the numbers in citizenshallenge post #10 shows that most of the food comes from only 10% of the farms. And that should be expected with the GMO type of farming. When it comes to GMO corn for human consumption as an example used by you, the farmer still prepares the fields for planting and watering. Then waters the crop during the growth period and that’s about all. The idea being when a recall takes place the processors know exactly which products to recall by control numbers stamped upon the packaging. Thus the information LoisL is talking about is at the processors already. I agree that putting all the info on the packaging could be a problem. But putting it on a web site should not be that much of a problem except for competitive secrets. Some companies have gone with 1-800 numbers. GMO is not "selective farming methods". It is genetically engineering seed in a laboraory. i know the anto-labelers wanto make it look as benign and simple as possible, but genetic modification is a lot more sophisticated and complicated than the "selective farming methods." they would like you to believe they are. It isn't just rotating crops or fertilizing. It's an engineering industry. It's lucrative enough that they will spend billions of dollars to keep their methods off the labels and the public in the dark. Lois
GMO is not "selective farming methods". It is genetically engineering seed in a laboraory. i know the anto-labelers wanto make it look as benign and simple as possible, but genetic modification is a lot more sophisticated and complicated than the "selective farming methods." they would like you to believe they are. It isn't just rotating crops or fertilizing. It's an engineering industry. It's lucrative enough that they will spend billions of dollars to keep their methods off the labels and the public in the dark. LoisI'm not expecting much of answer, but what are you talking about? The GMOs that make it to the market are heavily studied. Their methods are well known. It's actually the heavy requirements for testing that make it so expensive to bring a seed to market. We're going to get over that and GMOs will be common in the future.
I think the GMO for the food consumption like corn is way past the abilities of the average farmers today. Now, feed corn and green chop is still up to the farmers to pick the type, plant and harvest.Sure, not all farmers own the land and the equipment and the whole business. Somebody somewhere is making the seed decision though. I have no idea what you're saying in these last couple sentences or what it has to do with anything else said here.OK, let me say it another way. For the last 50 thousand years GMO has been a process of the farmer by the use of selective farming methods. Today the farmer is being replaced by the scientists and the food processors in the areas of GMO for human use. This is very understandable do to the complexity of the GMO’s. If you were insuring the GMO crop, would you want to insure thousands of farmers picking from hundreds of GMO choices, or a few processors who use and process the GMO products? The farmer still can control the animal feed products, but when it comes to human consumption the numbers in citizenshallenge post #10 shows that most of the food comes from only 10% of the farms. And that should be expected with the GMO type of farming. When it comes to GMO corn for human consumption as an example used by you, the farmer still prepares the fields for planting and watering. Then waters the crop during the growth period and that’s about all. The idea being when a recall takes place the processors know exactly which products to recall by control numbers stamped upon the packaging. Thus the information LoisL is talking about is at the processors already. I agree that putting all the info on the packaging could be a problem. But putting it on a web site should not be that much of a problem except for competitive secrets. Some companies have gone with 1-800 numbers. GMO is not "selective farming methods". It is genetically engineering seed in a laboraory. i know the anto-labelers wanto make it look as benign and simple as possible, but genetic modification is a lot more sophisticated and complicated than the "selective farming methods." they would like you to believe they are. It isn't just rotating crops or fertilizing. It's an engineering industry. It's lucrative enough that they will spend billions of dollars to keep their methods off the labels and the public in the dark. Lois Lois the only real difference is in the speed with which things take place (faster with new GMO techniques) and the increased oversight and safety measures ( non existent with older selective breeding techniques). In both cases you are altering the genetic code and given enough time and effort both methods have the potential to lead to the same ends. As stated previously it's important to remember that nature is doing this every minute of every day and in the case of bacteria it's doing wholesale gene transfer between species much in the same way we are doing with new GMO techniques without any oversight at all. Current GMO products are the must tested of any genetically modified organisms ever produced by man. When broccoli and cauliflower were introduced as extremely bizarre mutants of cabbage there were no pre-market studies or follow up studies at all.
I think the GMO for the food consumption like corn is way past the abilities of the average farmers today. Now, feed corn and green chop is still up to the farmers to pick the type, plant and harvest.Sure, not all farmers own the land and the equipment and the whole business. Somebody somewhere is making the seed decision though. I have no idea what you're saying in these last couple sentences or what it has to do with anything else said here.OK, let me say it another way. For the last 50 thousand years GMO has been a process of the farmer by the use of selective farming methods. Today the farmer is being replaced by the scientists and the food processors in the areas of GMO for human use. This is very understandable do to the complexity of the GMO’s. If you were insuring the GMO crop, would you want to insure thousands of farmers picking from hundreds of GMO choices, or a few processors who use and process the GMO products? The farmer still can control the animal feed products, but when it comes to human consumption the numbers in citizenshallenge post #10 shows that most of the food comes from only 10% of the farms. And that should be expected with the GMO type of farming. When it comes to GMO corn for human consumption as an example used by you, the farmer still prepares the fields for planting and watering. Then waters the crop during the growth period and that’s about all. The idea being when a recall takes place the processors know exactly which products to recall by control numbers stamped upon the packaging. Thus the information LoisL is talking about is at the processors already. I agree that putting all the info on the packaging could be a problem. But putting it on a web site should not be that much of a problem except for competitive secrets. Some companies have gone with 1-800 numbers. GMO is not "selective farming methods". It is genetically engineering seed in a laboraory. i know the anto-labelers wanto make it look as benign and simple as possible, but genetic modification is a lot more sophisticated and complicated than the "selective farming methods." they would like you to believe they are. It isn't just rotating crops or fertilizing. It's an engineering industry. It's lucrative enough that they will spend billions of dollars to keep their methods off the labels and the public in the dark. Lois Lois the only real difference is in the speed with which things take place (faster with new GMO techniques) and the increased oversight and safety measures ( non existent with older selective breeding techniques). In both cases you are altering the genetic code and given enough time and effort both methods have the potential to lead to the same ends. As stated previously it's important to remember that nature is doing this every minute of every day and in the case of bacteria it's doing wholesale gene transfer between species much in the same way we are doing with new GMO techniques without any oversight at all. Current GMO products are the must tested of any genetically modified organisms ever produced by man. When broccoli and cauliflower were introduced as extremely bizarre mutants of cabbage there were no pre-market studies or follow up studies at all. Does that mean there should never be? Should we be forced to repeat mistakes and be allowed to hide them no matter what we learn? Lois