GMO crops

334 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Reminds me of when Jimmy Kimmel -- before there was a Jimmy Kimmel show -- collected hundreds of signatures on a petition to "End Women's Suffrage".

On the one hand they seem a bit like a mean or cheap joke, but on the other hand they do make one take claims like "80% of people believe  that..." with a grain of salt.

 

 I heard about that, I had a friend witha warped sence of humour try and replicate that and not a single person had a clue what Suffage was and all signed his petition. Whatever you might think of his sense of humour or Kimmels it does highlight the shocking level of ignorance in the general public. Reaffirms ones belief in democracy doesn't it?

 And it goes a ways to show you how little surveys and polls really mean and how little they can be relied upon. It reminds me of a story I heard years ago about a company that makes cerals who normally did surveys to find out what people wanted in cerals, and people said healthy and stuff like that. Then one year they sent Anthropolgists into peoples homes to see the truth of not only what they were buying, but to look at thier life styles and figure out why. 

 

 Turns out people said healthy on the survays, but that was an ideal, not a fact, the truth was it was often sweet and fast, so people could get to work. Why, well the sweet part seems obvious, but the fact that breakfasts were chosen for speed was caused by peoples life styles, they had places to go and stuff to do.

 This was a huge lesson to me and even politics bares this how. Look at peoples responses on issues of values and which party even they say supports these particular values best and for most of them its the NDP, then look at how they actually voted over the years since the founding of the NDP.

 Look at Tea Partiers who demand that the government should say out of thier medicare which of course is a governement run program in the states.

 

 Look at how many people fear GMOs and Nulcear energy and fucking windmills now for fuck sakes without really having the foggest idea how these technologies really worked. 

 

 I've been guilty of this at times. I was antinulcear for years, then I got interested in cold fusion aka Lenr, which got me interested in hot fusion, which got me interested how fission worked beyond the well know atom splitting, and while by no means a Nulcear Phystist, got me over my fear of Nulcear and  now I'm a supporter of Nulcear. This, GMOs, and few other ideas outside the left wing mainstream really expanded my hortizons and made me question my beliefs. I'm still a lefty, just less trusting of leftwing intellictuals elites and leaders and ideas, I'm more likely to question them.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This is a joke thread, correct?

A Genetically Modified Organism walks into a bar.

"Sorry", says the bartender.  "We don't serve Genetically Modified Organisms here, in compliance with the Transgenic Agriculture Retail Act of 2015".

***rimshot***

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
This is a joke thread, correct?

A Genetically Modified Organism walks into a bar.

"Sorry", says the bartender.  "We don't serve Genetically Modified Organisms here, in compliance with the Transgenic Agriculture Retail Act of 2015".

***rimshot***

Thanks, Mr. Magoo. Chuckling out loud.

abnormal

Mr. Magoo wrote:
On the one hand they seem a bit like a mean or cheap joke, but on the other hand they do make one take claims like "80% of people believe  that..." with a grain of salt.

It probably says more about the US education system than anything.  After all, what do you expect from a country where roughly half the population believes in creationism and another third believe in "theistic evolution", aka intelligent design?

 

 

A_J

National Geographic - The War on Science:

  • Climate Change Does not Exist
  • Evolution Never Happened
  • The Moon Landing Was Fake
  • Vaccinations Can Lead to Autism
  • Genetically Modified Food is Evil

Articles:

Brachina

"Genetically Modified Food is Evil"

 

 There are people on rabble that are guilty of this one.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Yup, and the vaccination one is alluded to if not stated openly, and Big Pharma conspiracy is cited every time chemotherapy comes up.  Smart people and lefties are not immune to conspiracy ideation.

Aristotleded24

Because many powerful interests have used science for their own puproses, and rather than answer any legitimate questions, they have simply rammed their ideas through and dismissed any opposition for the sake of "progress." Unfortunately while there are legitimate issues (such as concerns around food safety or GMOs), that mistrust has spread into other areas where the application of science has been proven effective (such as vaccinations).

LB Cultured Thought

Thomas Mulcair tweeted his support for Rachel Parent and the 'evils' of GMOs tonight. Nice to see that no party can be considered "evidence based".

https://twitter.com/ThomasMulcair/status/570689852699762689

The NDP (and Green party) has long been against GMOs, with Murray Rankin leading the charge, but this is the first time I've noticed it being done by anyone of importance in the [NDP] party.

I was happy to see Canadian scientists quite vocal on twitter right away against this position, and happy to lend my voice as well. A similar response was given to Elizabeth May for her tweets against arctic apples (a Canadian invention) a couple of days ago.

Brachina

 I've made my disagreement with Tom on this issue clear on these forums. And I as a left winger and NDPer I agree with you, on this issue the NDP is being anti science and it's unfortunate. It's because too much of the pro GMC voice is funded by big corporate businesses, those of us who have no ties to these industries have to work together to be a counter voice to the powerful anti GMC lobby.

A_J

Aristotleded24 wrote:

... while there are legitimate issues (such as concerns around food safety or GMOs) ...

The safety of genetically modified foods has as much support among scientists as the notion that humans are responsible for climate change or that children should be vaccinated.

 

 

National Geographic - Poll Reveals Rift Between Scientists, Regular Folks

Brachina

 Reading the tweets I noticed the NDP backing away from banning GMC tech, Murray made that clear that it's just labeling GMOs. That's something. I don't think the NDP was expecting a back lash.

Aristotleded24

A_J wrote:
The safety of genetically modified foods has as much support among scientists as the notion that humans are responsible for climate change or that children should be vaccinated.

So can you tell me if Health Canada and the FDA have actually done their own independent studies on these foods, or are they still relying on the data supplied by Monsanto et al?

I'll also add that it's ridiculous to lump in GMO skeptics with climate change deniers, when it's the American public that has the highest percentage of people denying climate change, while people in other parts of the world are just as skeptical of GMOs, as evidenced by the fact that the US and Canada have the fewest restrictions against them, and considering that they are also restricted in countries where widespread famine is a huge issue.

I'll also note that the Union of Concerned Scientists has also expressed concern about GMOs and is also concerned about climate change denial. Trying to lump in GMO skeptics with climate change denial is merely a "guilt by association" tactic that the GMO lobby is trying to use that has no basis in logic.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
I've made my disagreement with Tom on this issue clear on these forums. And I as a left winger and NDPer I agree with you, on this issue the NDP is being anti science and it's unfortunate. It's because too much of the pro GMC voice is funded by big corporate businesses, those of us who have no ties to these industries have to work together to be a counter voice to the powerful anti GMC lobby.

Why the anti-GMO lobby is so powerful that we can't even grow the crops in Canada and GMOs are all labelled on the store shelf.

Oh wait....

jerrym

The release of the AAAS statement just before the California Proposition 37 vote involving non-scientific statements arguing against labelling seems suspicious. Rather than support scientific education of the general public the whole attitude reeked of a elitist thei-public-is-too-dumb-to- make-its-own-decisions-on-GMO-foods. Furthermore, the AAAS statement was not based on a vote of the membership but made by decree of the Board of Directors. The Board Chair as the following article notes has ties to the Republican party and the chemical industry, hardly making her neutral.

Quote:

... With a week to go before California voters head to the polls to decide the fate of Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified (or GMO) foods to be labeled, I’ve been expecting an ugly campaign fueled by $41 million in corporate ad dollars to get even uglier.

These talking points come straight from the No on 37 campaign. For example, what does the idea of “gaining competitive advantages” have to do with science? Nothing, but it’s a favorite refrain from the anti-labeling side. In fact, the idea was featured on the mailer sent to my home.

The statement also claims it’s a “false belief” that GM crops are untested. On the contrary, that is a scientific fact. According to David Schubert, professor and laboratory head at the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute: “Any statement suggesting extensive safety testing of all genetically modified crops is absolutely false. A majority of the new GM crops coming through the agriculture biotech pipeline have had zero testing done on them.”

In a statement he made earlier this year, Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist with Consumers Union, noted [PDF] that, unlike in other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require safety testing for genetically engineered plants or foods. In a recent email to the Yes on 37 campaign, Hansen described the AAAS statement as, “filled with distortion and misleading statements. If mandatory labeling of GM foods would ‘mislead and alarm consumers,’ does the AAAS really believe that 60 other countries are misleading and alarming their consumers?”

As suspicious as the pro-biotech spin of this recent statement is the fact that the AAAS statement  lists other organizations that apparently claim that GMO foods are safe to consume, using rhetoric that strongly echoes the No campaign:

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion …

Where did this handy list come from? The No campaign listed three of these four groups — the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences — in the official California voter guide as concluding GMO foods are safe. But in fact, the World Health Organization saysthat ongoing risk assessments are needed and that “GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.” Meanwhile, the American Medical Association favors pre-market safety testing, which the FDA does not require. So, how did a science organization miss all of that?

In their statement, the AAAS wrote:

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

Michael Hansen takes issue with this assertion. In a recent email, he wrote: “Perhaps the most galling part is the quote about the 10 year EU study. That quote does not come from the study itself, but by a representative of the EU Commission in a press release. If you actually look at the “study” it’s just a review of all the EU-funded biotech work for a ten year period. Most of the studies were about developing test methodologies to use in investigating genetic engineering (GE), not GE safety studies themselves. In fact, only three of the studies could be considered GE feeding trials and they all did find effects. Dr. Fedoroff has been using that quote a good deal ever since that EU review was released.”

But back to the suspicious timing of the statement’s release. What I want to know is: Who exactly instigated it? The statement says it’s from the AAAS board of directors. Who are they? The board chair, Nina Federoff, has an impressivepedigree, including a stint as science advisor to Condoleezza Rice. Curiously, Federoff has been listed as a leading scientist on the No on 37 website since June, where she is quoted as being “passionately opposed to labeling.” Maybe her previous board membership with Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company helped drive that passion. ...

So the question remains: Why this position right now? Why would such a mainstream scientific organization stick its neck out on a highly controversial issue just days before the election? And how can we trust any future AAAS statements to be based on science, instead of what this looks like: a carefully orchestrated political and public relations maneuver that puts the AAAS motto — “Advancing science, serving society” — to shame. The only interests this statement serves are those of the biotech, chemical, and junk food industries.

http://grist.org/food/is-a-major-science-group-stumping-for-monsanto/

 

LB Cultured Thought

Aristotleded24 wrote:

A_J wrote:
The safety of genetically modified foods has as much support among scientists as the notion that humans are responsible for climate change or that children should be vaccinated.

So can you tell me if Health Canada and the FDA have actually done their own independent studies on these foods, or are they still relying on the data supplied by Monsanto et al?

I'll also add that it's ridiculous to lump in GMO skeptics with climate change deniers, when it's the American public that has the highest percentage of people denying climate change, while people in other parts of the world are just as skeptical of GMOs, as evidenced by the fact that the US and Canada have the fewest restrictions against them, and considering that they are also restricted in countries where widespread famine is a huge issue.

I'll also note that the Union of Concerned Scientists has also expressed concern about GMOs and is also concerned about climate change denial. Trying to lump in GMO skeptics with climate change denial is merely a "guilt by association" tactic that the GMO lobby is trying to use that has no basis in logic.

A_J's point isn't that it's necessarily the same people who believe "Climate change is a lie", "Genetic engineering is evil", and "Vaccines cause autism". He's saying that all of these positions run counter to a clear scientific consensus, so believing them requires an illogical dismissal and mistrust of scientists that tends to become a conspiracy theory (see jerrym's last comment). In fact, the anti-gmo groups are now using the same tactics that anti-climate change groups used to try to discredit scientists working in these fields (see my below reply to jerrym).

LB Cultured Thought

jerrym wrote:

The release of the AAAS statement just before the California Proposition 37 vote involving non-scientific statements arguing against labelling seems suspicious. Rather than support scientific education of the general public the whole attitude reeked of a elitist thei-public-is-too-dumb-to- make-its-own-decisions-on-GMO-foods. Furthermore, the AAAS statement was not based on a vote of the membership but made by decree of the Board of Directors. The Board Chair as the following article notes has ties to the Republican party and the chemical industry, hardly making her neutral.

 

Scientists promoting science in the face of misinformed legislation is something we should encourage, not deem suspicious and meet with personal attacks on the scientists.

Anti-GM groups have even now begun to go after public scientists who do research that includes GMOs (in full climategate style).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/gm-opponents-are-scie...

Quote:

In the latest organised attack on science, 14 senior US scientists are being targeted by anti-GM lobby group US Right to Know (USRTK), an offshoot of the failed California GM labelling campaign Yes on 37. USRTK is using the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) to demand access to years of private emails and other correspondence of these scientists, undoubtedly aiming to undermine their credentials and sully their names in public.

As three former presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, we know how important it is for scientists to engage meaningfully in societal debates about their work. But we also know how important it is for scientists to be able to speak freely in conducting their work, both publicly and privately. USRTK’s attack is reminiscent of ‘Climategate’, where the release of private emails did immense, unwarranted damage to the reputations of climate scientists. Now the vocal anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook.

The facts are clear: the scientific consensus on the safety of foods derived from GM plants is equivalent to that on global climate change driven by human activities. The AAAS has issued statements on both subjects, underscoring that climate change is real and that GM technology is safe. Numerous other learned societies and public bodies have reached the same conclusions and continue to be attacked by science deniers on both issues.

The AAAS isn't some fringe group; it is the largest general science organization in the world and headed by some of the best scientists in the world. The three past presidents who wrote the piece linked above are all very accomplished scientists with expertise in areas related to GMOs. It's not a conspiracy, they are just trying to inform the public and counter the lies being spread by anti-GMO groups.

Brachina

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

jerrym wrote:

The release of the AAAS statement just before the California Proposition 37 vote involving non-scientific statements arguing against labelling seems suspicious. Rather than support scientific education of the general public the whole attitude reeked of a elitist thei-public-is-too-dumb-to- make-its-own-decisions-on-GMO-foods. Furthermore, the AAAS statement was not based on a vote of the membership but made by decree of the Board of Directors. The Board Chair as the following article notes has ties to the Republican party and the chemical industry, hardly making her neutral.

 

Scientists promoting science in the face of misinformed legislation is something we should encourage, not deem suspicious and meet with personal attacks on the scientists.

Anti-GM groups have even now begun to go after public scientists who do research that includes GMOs (in full climategate style).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/gm-opponents-are-scie...

Quote:

In the latest organised attack on science, 14 senior US scientists are being targeted by anti-GM lobby group US Right to Know (USRTK), an offshoot of the failed California GM labelling campaign Yes on 37. USRTK is using the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) to demand access to years of private emails and other correspondence of these scientists, undoubtedly aiming to undermine their credentials and sully their names in public.

As three former presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, we know how important it is for scientists to engage meaningfully in societal debates about their work. But we also know how important it is for scientists to be able to speak freely in conducting their work, both publicly and privately. USRTK’s attack is reminiscent of ‘Climategate’, where the release of private emails did immense, unwarranted damage to the reputations of climate scientists. Now the vocal anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook.

The facts are clear: the scientific consensus on the safety of foods derived from GM plants is equivalent to that on global climate change driven by human activities. The AAAS has issued statements on both subjects, underscoring that climate change is real and that GM technology is safe. Numerous other learned societies and public bodies have reached the same conclusions and continue to be attacked by science deniers on both issues.

The AAAS isn't some fringe group; it is the largest general science organization in the world and headed by some of the best scientists in the world. The three past presidents who wrote the piece linked above are all very accomplished scientists with expertise in areas related to GMOs. It's not a conspiracy, they are just trying to inform the public and counter the lies being spread by anti-GMO groups.

 

 This is horrible, is this what the antiGM lobby has fallen too? Its clear just like climate skeptics they're out of serious arguements.

LB Cultured Thought

You can see the general attitude towards science within the anti-GM movement in their celebration of vandalism of scientific experiments. It’s been happening for a while with Golden Rice (thanks Greenpeace!), and on March 5 experimental eucalyptus trees in Brazil were destroyed by vandals who took over FuturaGene’s research facility. The destruction was called a ‘victory’. I can’t imagine how frustrating such events must be for the scientists involved.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2015-articles/15978-victory-brazil-meeting-to-approve-gm-eucalyptus-trees-occupied-and-cancelled

Video of the vandals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7K-xJyvek8

Some background on the tress:

http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/2013/04/01/more-cellulose-per-square-centimeter/

Basically they grow faster (5 ½ years to harvest instead of 7) and produce about 20% more wood, allowing for a much better product for a variety of uses. We need technology like this to reduce further loss of forested areas (protecting species, preventing loss of a carbon sink, etc.). 

 

jerrym

If you were so confident in your position, you would support GMO labelling because it would be self-evident, according to your logic, to the public that the GM foods are safe and anti-GMOers are only a small fringe group, just like the tiny minority of global warming skeptics. Those who support the view that humans are the principal cause of climate change, including myself, do not oppose having the evidence presented and allowing people to make their own decisions. However, you are against such a logical approach to GM labeling because you know that a large fraction of the public will not buy what you are selling.

Climate change scientists are more trusted because lts leading advocates have no monetary incentives to advocate on this issue, which is not the case with a significant number of scientists pushing the GMO agenda because of their links to the GM industry. 

Brachina

 I don't oppose labeling, I oppose a moratorium, I like labelling so I can make sure I get the benifits of the lastest health benifiting GMO foods.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Would this "labelling" mean that GMO products are listed in the ingredients, the way additives and such are?  If so, you might see something like this on a label:

Ingredients:  Wheat flour, rice flour, corn (MON 810), millet, salt, sugar, disodium edta, spices

Would that be enough for people to make their own decisions?  It would not only indicate a GMO in the ingredients, but also WHICH.  It's not like they're all the same.

Simply labelling a can of food with "Contains GMOs" is as useless, informationally, as "Contains Chemicals" or "May contain allergens".

 

Brachina

 Good point Mr. Magoo, that is an important point.

LB Cultured Thought

jerrym wrote:

If you were so confident in your position, you would support GMO labelling because it would be self-evident, according to your logic, to the public that the GM foods are safe and anti-GMOers are only a small fringe group, just like the tiny minority of global warming skeptics. 

If you want a big warning label on anything that’s come from GE tech, then you know as well as I that people will be afraid of it. This is precisely why organic companies are supporting labelling in the first place. General fear and mistrust of GMOs is pretty widespread, but also tends to be inversely correlated with understanding of the technology.

I’m against labelling since slapping a “genetically engineered” sticker on everything doesn’t provide any useful information, but still adds a significant cost to the food supply (I believe it was estimated to be roughly $500 for a family, but obviously that depends on the specifics). Genetic engineering is a process, not a product, so I’m not sure why the government should mandate labels for it any more than for kosher foods or the model of tractor used by the farmer who grew the crops.

Even if you decide to label GMOs, I’m not sure what that would mean. Do we label things like sugar or vitamins made in GE plants/bacteria, but that we couldn’t even determine were GE by any test of the final product? What about animals fed GMO feed? What would the label look like? Magoo’s example is perfect for this last point, and I think that would be the best way to do it. Adding in the variety might actually give consumers additional information, especially if we start developing quite a few different lines of each type; however, I assume all the non-gmo varieties would get the same label.

 

Aristotleded24

LB Cultured Thought wrote:
I’m against labelling since slapping a “genetically engineered” sticker on everything doesn’t provide any useful information, but still adds a significant cost to the food supply (I believe it was estimated to be roughly $500 for a family, but obviously that depends on the specifics).

Why is that any more onerous than labelling something to be kosher?

jerrym

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

I’m against labelling since slapping a “genetically engineered” sticker on everything doesn’t provide any useful information, but still adds a significant cost to the food supply (I believe it was estimated to be roughly $500 for a family, but obviously that depends on the specifics). Genetic engineering is a process, not a product, so I’m not sure why the government should mandate labels for it any more than for kosher foods or the model of tractor used by the farmer who grew the crops.

Even if you decide to label GMOs, I’m not sure what that would mean. 

 

64 countries already have mandatory GM labeling laws without casusing rioting in the food aisles over prices.

 

Quote:

Currently, 64 countries around the world require labeling of genetically modified foods.  Unlike most other developed countries – such as 28 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China – the U.S. has no laws requiring labeling of genetically modified foods.

Labeling Around the World

 

http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-around-the-world/

 

jerrym

As the above map shows even many Third World countries can afford to have mandatory GM food labelling without bursting family budgets. The $500 a family cost of food labelling is part of the food industry's fantasy attack on referendums in the U.S. to require food labelling by generating fear over the costs involved.

Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages estimated the cost of labelling Canada's packaged products and came to a much different conclusion, even though this requires both extensive labelling, as well as translation.

Quote:

Critics must consider whether the protection afforded by the language requirements of the packaging and labelling regulations, in effect the continued health, safety and security of the entire Canadian public, is worth the cost involved: $0.002 per dollar of product revenue.

http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/en/pages/cost-impact-two-language-packaging-an...

Perhaps the real reason for such shrill warnings can be found in the following article.

Quote:

The Non-GMO Project seal appears on Nature’s Path’s products, as does the certified organic seal.

“Maybe I shouldn’t say this,” said Stephens. “But, we had 31 per cent growth in sales last year.

“And consumers love it, and we’re seeing some of our competitors that are not embracing this change, their sales are actually dropping.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/1608084/gmo-food-and-labelling-the-cost-question/

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Oddly, though, with all those countries who do mandate labelling, and all the other countries currently debating it, there don't seem to be many authentic photographs of what the labels actually look like (in the countries that label them).

One I did find simply put "(Genetically Modified)" after any genetically modified ingredients.  To compare with my example above:

Ingredients:  Wheat flour, rice flour, corn (Genetically Modified), millet, salt, sugar, disodium edta, spices

I don't really have a huge quarrel with that, other than that it's a bit ascientific to assume that all GMOs are the same (just as we can't assume that all herbicides are the same, all drugs are the same, etc.).

If the point is to give consumers real information for an educated choice, we should be telling them WHICH GMO they'd be buying, shouldn't we?

Otherwise, all we're really telling them is "Uh-oh, this is some kind of FrankenFood that you probably shouldn't buy!"  And frankly, I've got the sense that a lot of people don't really want INFORMATION labels (like the nutritional information), they want WARNING labels (like on paint stripper).

LB Cultured Thought

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Why is that any more onerous than labelling something to be kosher?

 

Good question. I suspect Kosher labels are much less expensive because you just need to certify whether ingredients are present, not source them to individual growers and test for other contaminants etc. For Kosher meat, you do see higher costs because of the change in slaughter requirements. In any case, the kosher label is completely voluntary and companies can choose to pay to receive it to expand their customer base (same as a Non-GMO verification, which is also already available).

jerrym wrote:

As the above map shows even many Third World countries can afford to have mandatory GM food labelling without bursting family budgets. The $500 a family cost of food labelling is part of the food industry's fantasy attack on referendums in the U.S. to require food labelling by generating fear over the costs involved.

Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages estimated the cost of labelling Canada's packaged products and came to a much different conclusion, even though this requires both extensive labelling, as well as translation.

Quote:

Critics must consider whether the protection afforded by the language requirements of the packaging and labelling regulations, in effect the continued health, safety and security of the entire Canadian public, is worth the cost involved: $0.002 per dollar of product revenue.

http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/en/pages/cost-impact-two-language-packaging-an...

Perhaps the real reason for such shrill warnings can be found in the following article.

Quote:

The Non-GMO Project seal appears on Nature’s Path’s products, as does the certified organic seal.

“Maybe I shouldn’t say this,” said Stephens. “But, we had 31 per cent growth in sales last year.

“And consumers love it, and we’re seeing some of our competitors that are not embracing this change, their sales are actually dropping.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/1608084/gmo-food-and-labelling-the-cost-question/

Except we aren’t just talking about a label here. In order to accurately label any product that has any ingredient that was produced via GE, you need to track every ingredient all the way through the food system. I think it’s fairly obvious that will add a much higher cost than just putting a new label on a final product. See the blog post below for some background on what would be required JUST at the individual farmer level to have labelling of GM crops.

http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.ca/2014/04/the-costs-of-gmo-labeling.html

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I don't really have a huge quarrel with that, other than that it's a bit ascientific to assume that all GMOs are the same (just as we can't assume that all herbicides are the same, all drugs are the same, etc.).

If the point is to give consumers real information for an educated choice, we should be telling them WHICH GMO they'd be buying, shouldn't we?

Otherwise, all we're really telling them is "Uh-oh, this is some kind of FrankenFood that you probably shouldn't buy!"  And frankly, I've got the sense that a lot of people don't really want INFORMATION labels (like the nutritional information), they want WARNING labels (like on paint stripper).

Exactly. The only way current and proposed labels would provide ANY useful information would be if the process of GE someone changed the nature or safety of the final product (no matter what change was made); it doesn’t. The organic companies supporting labelling are quite aware of this, but they are happy to create fear of the new technology to make more money for themselves.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

House Ag Committee Says ‘No’ to GMO Labeling, What’s Next?

With no debate and only a voice vote, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture today (July 14, 2015) passed out of committee H.R. 1599, a bill to preempt states’ rights to label GMOs. Within hours, it was announced that the bill will go straight to the House floor, as early as next week, with no vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

If we don’t stop it in the House next week, the fight to stop this “Mother of All Monsanto Protection Acts” will take place next in the U.S. Senate, by early fall. In his opening statement this morning, Committee Chairman Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) (who shortly after today’s vote said he will co-sponsor H.R. 1599) couldn’t have sounded more like a Monsanto employee if he’d tried. Conaway nailed the biotech industry’s favorite talking points and mistruths, beginning with this one:

With no debate and only a voice vote, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture today (July 14, 2015) passed out of committee H.R. 1599, a bill to preempt states’ rights to label GMOs. Within hours, it was announced that the bill will go straight to the House floor, as early as next week, with no vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

If we don’t stop it in the House next week, the fight to stop this “Mother of All Monsanto Protection Acts” will take place next in the U.S. Senate, by early fall. In his opening statement this morning, Committee Chairman Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) (who shortly after today’s vote said he will co-sponsor H.R. 1599) couldn’t have sounded more like a Monsanto employee if he’d tried. Conaway nailed the biotech industry’s favorite talking points and mistruths, beginning with this one:

In testimony before this Committee, multiple representatives of the food and agricultural sectors commented on the cost burden that would be placed on our food system if we were to allow the 50 States, more than 3000 counties and nearly 20,000 towns and cities in the United States to establish their own laws regulating interstate commerce.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Today's xkcd illustrates perfectly the doubts I was trying to express in post 1434.

xkcd comic

NDPP

CBAN - Take Action

http://www.cban.ca/Take-Action

No GM Fish! Stop the GM Apple. Stop GM Alfalfa. Will the GM Potato go to market...?"

 

Putin Bans GMO Food (video)

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/03/putin-bans-gmo-food-video.html

"While GMO is already banned in a number of countries, the US and Canada don't even have labeling requirements for GMO foods. Russia is moving forward banning all GMO products from the country, with any producer/importer that breaks the law, facing up to 20 years in prison..."

As is frequently the case, 'progressive' mythologies of western superiority and democratic choices are proven false again. Or perhaps Canadians really do prefer frankenfoods, and especially unlabeled ones...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

16 European Nations Vote Against GMO Crops

The majority of European Union governments voted against a proposal to authorize two new strains of genetically modified (GMO) maize today.

The two varieties of maize, DuPont Pioneer's 1507 and Syngenta's Bt11, kill insects by producing its own pesticide and is also resistant Bayer's glufosinate herbicide.

If approved, the varieties would be the first new GMO crops authorized for cultivation in the EU since 1998.

However, as Reuters noted, the votes against authorization did not decisively block their entry to the EU because the opposition did not represent a "qualified majority."

A qualified majority is achieved when at least 16 countries, representing at least 65 percent of the European population, vote in favor or against. (Scroll down for the vote breakdown)

The majority of EU governments also voted against renewing the license for another maize, Monsanto's MON810, the only GMO crop currently grown in the EU. The votes against its renewal was not considered decisive either....

Pages