Congress passes weak GMO labeling law

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by mainebrokerman

Jim,,remember pink slime??

the whole meat industry got dumped on ...total broad brush ..and did individual consumers do their own research or listen to the media sensationalize something they didn't even understand..


the result was consumers were scared,,,stopped eating burger,,,even when the stores put up signs saying they have no pink slime




its all scare tactics and the sky is falling journalism..

this is exactly what we get from 24/7 coverage. I am not going to get shock up over a weak bill, I would be more concerned about a too inclusive bill. Being informed, yes, as you say is needed, but it is up to the consumer to learn based on what is important to them. it is not the governments place to control what we eat or put the fear of God into us, based on studies that may or may not be grounded.

[1insider]

Originally Posted by IslandCityGirl

GMO's are not all good or all bad. There is plenty of evidence to support they are a bit of both - certainly a more complex issue than many try to make it out to be. Period. Live in ignorance and fear, or seek truth. You choose.

This is kind of the reason I don't support mandatory labeling. By requiring labeling everything bearing that label becomes suspect and, to a large number of consumers, to be avoided. The average consumer does not do research and usually forms opinions based on whatever is trending on Facebook. Access to genetically modified rice would have prevented several deaths and new cases of blindness today except for the resistance to GMO rice which was based on the same type of misguided effort behind mandatory labeling.

Should mandatory labeling include all types of genetic alteration or only those made in a certain way?

Imagine if foods containing dihydrogen monoxide were required to be labeled as such. America would starve.

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by jimdc58

There are no BENEFITS to GMO's outside of corporate profits, so your last statement is ridiculous.

And *that* statement shows that you are completely clueless about the benefits of GMO products, and are merely engaging in Chicken Little 'sky is falling' hysteria.

The numerous benefits include enhanced flavor and appearance, disease resistance (avoids crop failure that would result in higher consumer prices) and insect resistance (natural pesticide action that some plants *already* use).

'Round-up Ready' plants are herbicide tolerant, which reduces labor costs in controlling weeds in the field, which translates to lower pricing for consumers. This, in large part, is why 'organic' products tend to be more expensive- the labor costs are much higher due to constant hands-on attention to the crops to keep weeds down and control insects.

Many GMO products are the result of selective cross-breeding, not technical artificial manipulation.

GMO products have proven safe for human consumption, no modifications have any effects on humans.

GMO labeling adds extra expense and complexity in attempting to track the source of all ingredients to determine whether any are GMO or not. These costs, of course, will be passed on to consumers.

Some GMO strategies result in greatly increased crop production, which increases the food supply and reduces costs to consumers, labeling laws will erase some of that benefit.

Oh, BTW, I am a member of the Maine Organic Farmer's and Gardener's Association (MOFGA) using organic methods to produce food crops, but I don't buy in to the anti-GMO hysteria because I have a brain and an education in science...but if crackpots want to pay me more money for a 'natural' product, who am I to refuse?

I'll save you a trip to the clue store, here's one for free:

Many of those pushing for GMO labeling are organic producers (who stand to benefit from the consumer being forced to pay higher prices for ordinary commercial products) or complete whackjobs who don't have a clue...some of them wear both hats.

[IslandCityGirl]

Originally Posted by Steve McDonald

Did you take a Biology class in high school? There was nothing in the poster's message you quoted, to indicate whether he had an understanding of Genetics or not.

Not that it matters, but I have a degree in molecular and cellular biology. Total nerd... I use it zilch in my day to day now, but it's something I've got in my tool belt.

I guess my post was too nuanced (there were several back-&-forths), but my point was that an "all" or "none" labeling method for GMO doesn't exactly work. This has to do with the way the spliced genes are determined in testing (can't always tell the difference between a modification and a natural mutation. Natural mutations are happening constantly.). That was my reference to gaining a bit of knowledge in genetics, specifically. In the same spirit, that was my rebuttal to the "GMO's have no benefits" statement. They do. Science has proved that. It's something that can be easily researched and that a genetics lesson would inform about (while dispelling fears). I had already mentioned both of these things in a previous post. Another reason that the all-or-none labeling doesn't work is because of the way farming equipment and storage methods are utilized in the industry. You end up with some slight carry-over between fields. It's just the reality of it. That would force manufacturers to do something like a "may contain" label or prevent them from using a non-GMO label. It's technically true, but it's a bit misleading and carries the wrong connotation, as 1Insider has pointed out. Then there is the part about different types of modifications. This is where my own opinion and priorities shape my thoughts. To me, it does matter whether a product has been modified for drought resistance, increased vitamin content, or herbicide resistance. That tells me a story about how the product has been treated, environmentally, and what it has to offer me and my body. It's complex, which is what I keep saying. My whole point is that it's not a black and white issue, and that there are reasons other than shady corporations trying to protect their reputations for there being some pushback about labeling methods. That's all I'm saying. I am pro-labeling, in some form. I've said that three times now.

[newtovenice]

What companies need to do is to label their NON-GMO products. Non-GMO. Which a lot of them do. Just assume any product that is not labeled as non-GMO *is* a product that contains GMO. And that is what people who don't want GMOs look for as a lot of companies are doing this today.

Should food be labeled? Absolutely. Am I going to wait for the gov't to actually do something about? No. I look for non-GMO. It's just a tremendous shame that they want to hide what is in the food.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by jimdc58

Labeling should mean LABELING. This nonsense about having to own the proper technology to scan a QR code.....or worse yet....having to call an 800 number.....that is yet again Congress caving to corporate demands, and providing the public with a basically useless law.

Ya it basically means nothing.... Congress doesnt give a rats tail about GMO... Its up to US to make sure we dont have it if we dont want it!

[David A Stone]

Seems RoundUp is getting a bad rap here.


As a retired farmer, I have a question for you GMO bashers....................was there MORE herbicide used on corn and soybeans before RoundUp resistance GMO plants were developed?


YES