Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/34/breaking_big_food_sues_vermont_0613141236.html
hope the link works, i have already prepared a letter that i am sending to the state house in vermont. this case will set precedence for the whole country, so even though i dont live in vermont i believe this will affect me in the near future.

I agree with them, Labeling GMOs when they pose no significant harm is fear mongering.
Organic means nothing.

Indeed, and besides, you can actually already find out if your food is GMO.

1) Is there Corn in it? Yes, unless it specifically says it is not.

2) Is there Soy in it? Yes, unless it specifically says it is not.


The following words mean NOTHING on a label.

Natural, Wholesome, and Naturally Raised.


The only thing which is regulated is the word Organic. There are specific things which must be met to be organic. But this doesn't mean without any chemicals or pesticides, there are plenty of very nasty organic chemicals. Many non-organic chemicals are actually safer(but not as effective)

If GMO does nothing then why are they scared of labeling things?

Add it to the ingredient list. A simple (GMO) behind any ingredient that is modified. No extra cost to produce, no extra cost to label, no extra anything.

Is there a Dakka policy against solicitation?

And if so, does this violate it?

 d-usa wrote:
If GMO does nothing then why are they scared of labeling things?

Add it to the ingredient list. A simple (GMO) behind any ingredient that is modified. No extra cost to produce, no extra cost to label, no extra anything.

Altering labels isn't no cost.

It costs money to alter labels.


People should just be knowledgeable enough to know what crops are GMO. Its not hard to go on the internet.

God forbid that the public should be allowed to know what is in the food they buy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God forbid that the public should be allowed to know what is in the food they buy.

You mean it isn't just called 'meat' and 'green bits'?

 d-usa wrote:
If GMO does nothing then why are they scared of labeling things?

Because people are terrified of GMOs for reasons that I can't understand. OH NOES my tomatoes are pesticide resistant and will take over the world and give me cancer!1!

There are genuine concerns about GMOs in agriculture but these arguments tend to get drowned out by a tidal wave of ignorance.

 Palindrome wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If GMO does nothing then why are they scared of labeling things?

Because people are terrified of GMOs for reasons that I can't understand. OH NOES my tomatoes are pesticide resistant!1!

They are not afraid of pesticide resistant tomatoes though, so that statement is factually incorrect.

 Palindrome wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If GMO does nothing then why are they scared of labeling things?

Because people are terrified of GMOs for reasons that I can't understand. OH NOES my tomatoes are pesticide resistant!1!

They're just scared of what the gubbermint's been messing with that they don't know about, like your pesticide resistant tomatoes having seeds that allow people to be tracked 24/7, and that corn you're barbecuing releasing mind-control toxins as it cooks.

GMO food is an Illuminati conspiracy, and Obama is secretly a cabbage. Pass it on.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God forbid that the public should be allowed to know what is in the food they buy.

You mean it isn't just called 'meat' and 'green bits'?

\

It is called "substance" and people should be glad to know that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If GMO does nothing then why are they scared of labeling things?

Add it to the ingredient list. A simple (GMO) behind any ingredient that is modified. No extra cost to produce, no extra cost to label, no extra anything.

Altering labels isn't no cost.

It costs money to alter labels.

Depends on the alteration.

Requiring technicolor GMO labels that are a minimum of 4 square inches on the front and back will cost money.

Adding (gmo) to the already existing labeling required by law doesn't.

People should just be knowledgeable enough to know what crops are GMO. Its not hard to go on the internet.

Oh mighty wizard, teach me how you read "corn" on the ingredient list and know if it is GMO or not.

 d-usa wrote:

They are not afraid of pesticide resistant tomatoes though, so that statement is factually incorrect.

That really depends on who 'they' are. There are people out there who appear to be terrified of all GMOs.

 Palindrome wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They are not afraid of pesticide resistant tomatoes though, so that statement is factually incorrect.

That really depends on who 'they' are. There are people out there who appear to be terrified of all GMOs.

That doesn't mean they are afraid of pesticide resistant crops though.

To be fair pretty much all the "corn" grown in the USA is genetically modified.

 d-usa wrote:

That doesn't mean they are afraid of pesticide resistant crops though.

Pesticide resistance is a common product of genetic modification.

Instead of pesticide resistance tomatoes how about drought resistant maize or blight resistant potatoes are going to cause the end of the world as we know it.

 Palindrome wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

That doesn't mean they are afraid of pesticide resistant crops though.

Pesticide resistance is a common product of genetic modification.

Put it can also be achieved without genetic modification.

You know, like humans have been doing for a very very long time.

 d-usa wrote:

You know, like humans have been doing for a very very long time.

You mean the slow method of genetic modification. Selective breeding and genetic modification are both essentially the same thing; the latter is simply more precise, has a broader scope and is apparently playing god.

They are not the same thing and that is the danger. In nature a gene cannot jump from a frog to a maize. Once the frog gene has been spliced into the maize though, it could jump to another crop.

 Palindrome wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

You know, like humans have been doing for a very very long time.

You mean the slow method of genetic modification. Selective breeding and genetic modification are both essentially the same thing; the latter is simply more precise, has a broader scope and is apparently playing god.

Already time for the "selective breeding is the same thing as handpicking genetic traits and inserting and removing them via biological engineering" argument?

The only issue I have with GMO is the patenting/trademarking of specific crops and the heavy handed tactics related to such practices.

Yeah, I'm looking at you Monsanto!

Well, when some crops are now being treated with what is essentially Agent Orange, then yeah... I think people have a right to have some concern about how their food is produced.

Also, I've seen articles where they've seen massive spikes in certain allergies in areas like Chicago that were virtually non-existent in that area 30-50 years previously. Of course, whether that in particular is due to GMO crops, shifts in atmosphere, an overall weakening of them city-slickers' immune systems, I dunno.


And I'm in the camp of Selective Breeding (of plants/lesser animals) =/= GMO

That's my main beef with GMO, that it makes for lazy farming that isn't good for the environment.

I might very well be able to eat GMO crops without any ill effects whatsoever, and I really have not seen any concerns about human intake of GMO that has been validated.

But let's look at pesticide resistance: now we have a way to farm that just relies on the farmer spraying a metric crap-ton of pesticides on his crops. Those pesticides will then runoff into the rivers and lakes, affect the environment, enter the food chain and drinking water, and cause bad effects down the road.

So GMO might not be bad for me, but it can encourage farming techniques that are bad for me.

So by being able to identify GMO foods and not purchasing them I am able to make sure that my money doesn't go to farmers and businesses that utilize farming practices that might be bad for me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They are not the same thing and that is the danger. In nature a gene cannot jump from a frog to a maize. Once the frog gene has been spliced into the maize though, it could jump to another crop.

There are measures in place to prevent that, terminator genes, in-built sterility, application of isolation distances between crops or the growth of non-GM barrier crops that are destroyed. The risk of spread to the wild is really overstated IMO, and that's being said as someone who worked on non-GM crop breeding strategies and genetics for several years.

No one talks of the risks of crossing varieties that would never naturally meet (yet this is standard in creating new varieties), where you have no complete idea of the full genetic background of a plant. It's known that introducing non-native species can affect an Eco system adversely. Through standard breeding approaches you could have a raft of unknown alien genes released into the local environment after they were cross bred with current plant stock. But apparently precisely dropping a single known gene into a plant, and people are up in arms because that could lead to disaster. Too much alarmist material about GM is written without context, so many of the risks equally apply to accepted breeding strategies including those that produce varieties that could be raised organically.

 d-usa wrote:
That's my main beef with GMO, that it makes for lazy farming that isn't good for the environment.

I might very well be able to eat GMO crops without any ill effects whatsoever, and I really have not seen any concerns about human intake of GMO that has been validated.

But let's look at pesticide resistance: now we have a way to farm that just relies on the farmer spraying a metric crap-ton of pesticides on his crops. Those pesticides will then runoff into the rivers and lakes, affect the environment, enter the food chain and drinking water, and cause bad effects down the road.

So GMO might not be bad for me, but it can encourage farming techniques that are bad for me.

So by being able to identify GMO foods and not purchasing them I am able to make sure that my money doesn't go to farmers and businesses that utilize farming practices that might be bad for me.

Don't know many farmers do you? With drought and weather patterns effecting millions upon millions of dollars of crops each year (on top of already rising food costs), we need every leg up we can get. If you know of a farmer spraying 'a metric crap ton' of pesticides, report them. Because every one I know needs help to sustain production in the face of ever growing demand.

I'd be more worried about why we're using government money to pay farmers NOT to sow crops.

I've worked in the GM field, both the basic technology, isolating genes of interest and looking into way to prevent cross hybridisation of modified crops with 'wild' stock

I'd be quite happy to eat GM food, I think (with a few rare exceptions) it's safe, and although the very early applications were more intended to make money for the seed producers more recent stuff has a very important part to play in both world food production and in boosting the nutritional value of food.

That said labelling is really important and I'm strongly in favour of doing so. Companies that are using GM should be prepared to stand up and defend it.

While it may cost a bit to redesign labels the companies use of GM produce will have saved them money already, and it's a single one off cost.

Customers that don't want to eat GM should be able to make that choice (and pay extra for it as GM free corn and soya are hard to get hold of)

i didnt start this to get them money so i am not trying to solicit for them. i am trying to get people aware of what is going on. monsanto says it is unconstitutional to have to label, i think the consumer has a right to know what they are eating. we haven't been able to do long term testing on gmo's since we have allowed them to dominate the main stream food market with out there being enough time to due 50 year studies. the big problem is that monsanto has already won cases sueing and takeing over small farms, where due to the unpreventable cross pollination of crops the small farms unintentionally start growing a patented monsanto strain of corn. which in turn will lead to there being no natural food products left due to the wind spreading there pollen furthur and furthur season after season. the pesticide thing- you know they are poisonous to you, and you wash your produce off before eating it, these pesticides, although organic in nature being derived from caterpillar secretion, are now directly put into the dna so you can no longer wash off these toxins.
this will inevitably allow monsanto and other food giants to buy out the organic farmers for there names and not change the labels to let the consumer know
i live in maine, farm and know many farmers, won said to me thankfully we grow our own food, i replied with that whole spreading pollination speech, it will affect us all
the american legal system is a joke but useing the constitution to enact something so unconstitutional is more that a light slap to the face



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I've worked in the GM field, both the basic technology, isolating genes of interest and looking into way to prevent cross hybridisation of modified crops with 'wild' stock

I'd be quite happy to eat GM food, I think (with a few rare exceptions) it's safe, and although the very early applications were more intended to make money for the seed producers more recent stuff has a very important part to play in both world food production and in boosting the nutritional value of food.

That said labelling is really important and I'm strongly in favour of doing so. Companies that are using GM should be prepared to stand up and defend it.

While it may cost a bit to redesign labels the companies use of GM produce will have saved them money already, and it's a single one off cost.

Customers that don't want to eat GM should be able to make that choice (and pay extra for it as GM free corn and soya are hard to get hold of)

i would also agree with that. advances in science are great and if it isn't going to hurt any one why would you not back up your product with all the information.

forgotten ghosts wrote:
monsanto says it is unconstitutional to have to label,

Get Winston-Salem on the phone, my Marlboro's have been unconstitutionally labelled


Honestly, I think if people understood MORE about GMO, especially when it comes to foodstuffs, there'd be a better, less jihad-like response to it. I know from talking to a farmer, that people cannot eat GMO corn that is used for biodiesel, just like GMO corn for food cannot be used for fuel (though he couldn't go into why, beyond "that's what I been told").

The problem that some folks have with the pesticide resistant crops is that various scientific studies/gov't organizations have found that when you modify a crop for a specific weed-killer, eventually those chemicals are so steeped in the ground that the weeds no longer react to that product, so they have to redesign the same crop for another pesticide, and so on and so forth, until recently, when one of the major pesticides used has a primary ingredient that is literally half of the active ingredient list in Agent Orange, which anyone over the age of 15 has heard of, and knows it caused butt-loads of cancer and other major issues for Vietnam vets.

On the flip side of that, modifying a crop to be heavily drought resistant is great because it can go to regions of Africa that have been facing droughts for a decade, or California and anywhere else where a drought is predicted or expected.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If GMO does nothing then why are they scared of labeling things?

Add it to the ingredient list. A simple (GMO) behind any ingredient that is modified. No extra cost to produce, no extra cost to label, no extra anything.

Altering labels isn't no cost.

It costs money to alter labels.

Depends on the alteration.

Requiring technicolor GMO labels that are a minimum of 4 square inches on the front and back will cost money.

Adding (gmo) to the already existing labeling required by law doesn't.

People should just be knowledgeable enough to know what crops are GMO. Its not hard to go on the internet.

Oh mighty wizard, teach me how you read "corn" on the ingredient list and know if it is GMO or not.

Adding even one letter to a label costs thousands. Because it means they will have to reprint millions of labels.