Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not true, Organic can be labeled on a lot of things.
which foods can legally be proclaimed organic that knowingly have GMO content?
Quote:
All I am saying is having a small tag on the box or product saying "made with GMO products" isn't going to kill anyone. It scares the hell out of monsanto and some farmers, but the consumer should be able to have an informed decision.
again, you already have that label on foods labeled usda certified organic. buy 'em.
for the third time, did you read katiana's post?
Quote:
You may not have organic food, and it still isn't GMO.
But analysis of a massive data set of the feeding records and productivity and mortality of 100 BILLION animals is useless? Really?
Sorry, but a major premise of the anti-GMO rhetoric, repeated mindlessly ad nauseum, but without any credible evidence to support it, is that GMO feed is making livestock sick and that they're dying from it.
I go back to what Dr. Gonsalves, the retired Cornell University researcher who conquered the Ringspot Virus that was decimating the Hawaiian papaya industry by using GMO technology to turn on the plants immune system so it could ward off the disease said, to paraphrase... there's nothing to be afraid of... it was a papaya before, and it's still a papaya afterward.
Don't apologize to me. Apologize to your liver
I am simply saying, you can not determine the long term effects of GMO's on a human, based on that study.
Folks can choose whether to eat GMO foods. You don't really have a choice with corn or wheat anymore. But, they have yet to invade Oats and they are surprisingly good for you. But eat GMO's to your heart's content...Not sure about that. Doesn't matter to me personally but it is becoming a global issue for the mere fact of what we are now eating globally because of GMO foods is now creating more heart disease since these particular foods were not readily eaten in such high consumption 50 years ago, e.g. wheat and soybean.
Get into the yield lag and corporate monopoly on crop production that GMO foods creates, driving family farms into distinction. And I am not a fan of GMO products.
BTW, there is much more to why folks don't like GMO's besides what I have stated. It is not just delegated to your small argument of research on a few rats.
I also don't eat papaya Not because it's GMO, but because i really don't like it.
Don't apologize to me. Apologize to your liver
I am simply saying, you can not determine the long term effects of GMO's on a human, based on that study.
can you please cite some studies on non-GMO foods that you would use as a model for this that would satisfy your requirements.
Quote:
Folks can choose whether to eat GMO foods. You don't really have a choice with corn or wheat anymore. But, they have yet to invade Oats and they are surprisingly good for you. But eat GMO's to your heart's content...Not sure about that. Doesn't matter to me personally but it is becoming a global issue for the mere fact of what we are now eating globally because of GMO foods is now creating more heart disease since these particular foods were not readily
eaten in such high consumption 50 years ago, e.g. wheat and soybean.
is that so? according to whom?
Quote:
Get into the yield lag and corporate monopoly on crop production that GMO foods creates, driving family farms into distinction. And I am not a fan of GMO products.
BTW, there is much more to why folks don't like GMO's besides what I have stated. It is not just delegated to your small argument of research on a few rats.
I also don't eat papaya Not because it's GMO, but because i really don't like it.
If a producer adheres to all aspects of the NOP regulations, including never utilizing genetically modified seeds, but a certifying agent tests and detects the presence of genetically modified material in the crop, is that crop's status determined to be no longer certified organic?
As long as an organic operation has not used excluded methods and takes reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan, the unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods should not affect the status of the organic operation or its organic products.
..
Crops grown on certified organic operation may be sold, labeled and represented as organic, even with the inadvertent presence of GMOs, provided that all organic requirements under 7 CFR Part 205 have been followed.
Consumers did win one though with that cow hormone and labeled milk. Monsanto lost and then sold off the hormone.
I'm afraid you have that backwards, and it illustrate why demanding GMO labels is a waste of time.
In the first big legal case involving recombinant genetic engineering, back in the 1990s, the State of Vermont passed a law that dairy producers who used the rBGH hormone to increase milk production had to label the milk as such. Monsanto sued.
The US District Court eventually ruled the law was unconstitutional, a violation of the milk producers' Freedom of Speech, because it required the producer to put a label on its product without any scientific basis for the requirement, and which label had been so demonized by the activists that it was effectively like putting a poison label on the container. And by the way, it was also illegally attempting to take over a federal power, since the FDA regulates food labeling.
The court also said that there are many things a consumer might want to know about about the milk it buys, such as the cow's name and what it ate for breakfast, but that merely wanting information is insufficient justification to legally require it. There must be a compelling public benefit to rise to that level.
Now the demand for mandatory GMO labels is going down exactly the same path, demanding mandatory labeling without any compelling evidence that it is required, and with the label having been demonized without credible evidence to support it, and it's reasonable to expect it will end up the same way... overturned as unconstitutional.
Now, back to the rBGH case... in Pennsylvania milk producers could voluntarily label milk that did NOT contain rBGH, and after a court challenge, this was allowed. Producers in other states copied the labelling, and eventually rBGH fell out of favor with enough consumers that a lot of dairy farmers stopped using it. It's not illegal, but it's no longer used very much.
In a parallel fashion, voluntarily labeling foods as containing No GMOs, if that is the case, like Chipotle and Whole Foods are doing, is both legal and productive among those who are concerned about such things. Or just buy Cewrtified Organic, since that is a label with actual legal standards behind it.
But mandatory GMO labeling? Not gonna happen. Sorry.
In a parallel fashion, voluntarily labeling foods as containing No GMOs, if that is the case, like Chipotle and Whole Foods are doing, is both legal and productive among those who are concerned about such things. Or just buy Cewrtified Organic, since that is a label with actual legal standards behind it.
But mandatory GMO labeling? Not gonna happen. Sorry.
As I just posted..Organic is a process based certification, not a content based one.
If the organic farm followed all organic processes but their food tested for GMO then that farm can still use the organic label. That is the USDA rule.
If a producer adheres to all aspects of the NOP regulations, including never utilizing genetically modified seeds, but a certifying agent tests and detects the presence of genetically modified material in the crop, is that crop's status determined to be no longer certified organic?
As long as an organic operation has not used excluded methods and takes reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan, the unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods should not affect the status of the organic operation or its organic products.
..
Crops grown on certified organic operation may be sold, labeled and represented as organic, even with the inadvertent presence of GMOs, provided that all organic requirements under 7 CFR Part 205 have been followed.
however, this raises an excellent point. for those screaming for labels, how will you avoid the adventitious presence issue you just cited?
do you plan to require that every portion of food be tested by PCR to determine it doesn't contain so much as a molecule of GMO plant material?
"Monsanto finds GMOs safe."
In other shocking news: "Obama is Black! "
It's comforting to know that the makers of DDT and Agent Orange are now in charge of our food supply
and the funding of our university studies isn't it? /sarcasm
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not because it's GMO, but because i really don't like it.
