[tjay]

Originally Posted by kooks35

There is nothing stopping people from labeling their products to say that they don't use genetically engineered ingredients.

Yeah there is, Monsanto. For example: There is no significant difference between cows treated with or not treated with rBST

If a company wanted to label their product "rBST Free", they also had to put the above. Why? Because Monsanto paid the FDA to enforce this false statement. Monsanto doesn't want anyone to think their chemicals are 'bad'. And the FDA does whatever Monsanto says.

Now that isn't the same as all GMO food, but its an example of how powerful Monsanto is. Right now, Monsanto wins. You all get to think their food is safe. And the sad part is, there really aren't many products in your local grocery store free of GMO's. Its a harsh reality most people don't want to face.

C'mon cosmicrwbar.....where did ya go? Did you check out the sources? Read the books? See the movies? Did YOU do YOUR research? Where's the proof that GMO's are safe?????????????

[Retroit]

I think the key words are: "To permit states..."

In other words, this is an example of Washington, D.C. not wanting to give any power to the states. I have no problem with this bill. I'm all for consumer rights. I do not think that genetically engineered food is as bad as some people think, but I think that people have a right not to each such foods if they choose.

Once again, shame on Washington.

[YohnCarter]

The courts have already ruled that is illegal to force company's to label their products without a public safety reason. It is a violation of their free speech rights. The FDA has already ruled that genetic modification of Food (important distinction: as opposed to a specific modification) imposes no special risk. This is an obvious and inescapable conclusion. (The process is irrelevant, it is the product that matters) Therefore, they cannot be forced to label their food. To overcome this, the bills, at least the California version, rewrite the scientific conclusions of the Fda. These bills aren't about labeling, they are about overruling a scientific conclusion by legislation. Maybe the FDA is corrupt, but science by consensus instead of the scientific method is a VERY dangerous slippery slope. I don't want creation taught as science or lysenko genetics. Pi shouldn't be legislated to equal 3 because some legislators vote it so.

[YohnCarter]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I think the key words are: "To permit states..."

In other words, this is an example of Washington, D.C. not wanting to give any power to the states. I have no problem with this bill. I'm all for consumer rights. I do not think that genetically engineered food is as bad as some people think, but I think that people have a right not to each such foods if they choose.

Once again, shame on Washington.

Would you favor legislation requiring any food that was not Halal be labeled "Unclean"?

[YohnCarter]

A little clarification: Virtually ALL the food we eat is genetically modified. However, most of the Genetic Modification were done by selective breeding not recombinant techniques. Those favoring labeling are talking about process, not product. Consider this example Person A produces a purple and yellow stripped tomato by recombinant DNA techniques. He adds a striped bass gene to the tomato. Person B produces a genetically identical tomato created by a random mutation. Person C grows a genetically identical tomato from seeds given by a heavenly messenger. The FDA's position is that Labeling the tomato as GM, or GODLY is irrelavent to the food. Required labels are to inform the public about distinctions in the food, not political or religious beliefs. If you could show that the striped tomato causes allergies to people allergic to fish, the FDA could require a warning label, but the label would apply to all three because the identical food causes identical allergies.They would also not require a warning label about striped tomatoes on your Grapefruit. Whether GM as a process is in the public interest is a POLITICAL issue and labeling the food as GM is for POLITICAL identification. Without an actual evidence based justification, requiring food be labeled as GM is no different than requiring food processors put "Reelect President Obama" on their products. "You can identify your own party supporters, but making your enemies wear yellow stars is just so much easier." (Sorry, OTT I know, but the analogy was too obvious to resist) It is legal to label food as halal or kosher. It is Voluntary. Instead of voluntarily labeling food as kosher or halal, it would be wrong to require food that wasn't, to be labeled unclean.

[YohnCarter]

Originally Posted by tjay

Yeah there is, Monsanto. For example: There is no significant difference between cows treated with or not treated with rBST

If a company wanted to label their product "rBST Free", they also had to put the above. Why? Because Monsanto paid the FDA to enforce this false statement. Monsanto doesn't want anyone to think their chemicals are 'bad'. And the FDA does whatever Monsanto says.

Now that isn't the same as all GMO food, but its an example of how powerful Monsanto is. Right now, Monsanto wins. You all get to think their food is safe. And the sad part is, there really aren't many products in your local grocery store free of GMO's. Its a harsh reality most people don't want to face.

C'mon cosmicrwbar.....where did ya go? Did you check out the sources? Read the books? See the movies? Did YOU do YOUR research? Where's the proof that GMO's are safe?????????????

Actually, you probably don't want the facts researched, you have them wrong.

Monsanto doesn't make rBST. rBST is made by Eli Lilly. Monsanto sold off the rights to it about 5 years ago.

The FDA RECOMMENDS that milk labelled as rBST free have the following clarification : There is No significant difference in milk (emphisis added) from cows treated with rBST. Some states, do have similar labeling requirements based on the premise that "rBST free" labeling is an implied claim of nutritional superiority.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by YohnCarter

The courts have already ruled that is illegal to force company's to label their products without a public safety reason. It is a violation of their free speech rights...

So why are they required to have those nutrition labels showing the percentage of fat, protein, sodium, etc.?

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by YohnCarter

Would you favor legislation requiring any food that was not Halal be labeled "Unclean"?

If the majority of the elected representatives in my state want such a law, I would be in favor of it.

[YohnCarter]

Originally Posted by Retroit

So why are they required to have those nutrition labels showing the percentage of fat, protein, sodium, etc.?

Because my original statement should have read health and safety, not just safety.

[YohnCarter]

Originally Posted by Retroit

If the majority of the elected representatives in my state want such a law, I would be in favor of it.

Can't tell if this was a serious or sarcastic reply. Hoping for the latter.