RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

and a hearty fuck you, POTUS

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10746
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 12:31 pm    ::: and a hearty fuck you, POTUS Reply Reply with quote

http://livingmaxwell.com/obama-signs-gmo-labeling-bill-betrayal-organic

This bill is so discriminatory and so poorly written that it potentially violates several amendments of the Constitution. Additionally, it puts the integrity of the organic seal in real jeopardy.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57519
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 1:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm amazed he had the backbone to stand fast against anti-science fear mongering.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6354
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 1:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Interesting anger response. I agree that the bill is not perfect (which bills are?).

I'm also interested in GMO labeling, just so that people can have the choice.

Monsanto has a lot of questionable business practices and a history of burying the little guy with malice; that's why I don't like them. I'm not necessarily in the camp that demonizes GMO foods. Even Bill Nye, long anti-GMO, somewhat changed his tune after getting a tour from some big agri-business, talking to their scientists, etc.

I think it's laughable that the article points to the actions of other countries' banning of GMOs as somehow proof that they're dangerous. Fear doesn't have to be based on science.

I do think its reasonable to question the efficacy (and legality) of just providing the QR codes, versus a plainer, comprehensible form of labeling. Not everyone has access to something that can access and read the codes. And even those that do, may not know how to.

The article also brings up some salient points about definitions and how to define what qualifies in what category (e.g. organic or non-GMO).



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 1:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
I'm amazed he had the backbone to stand fast against anti-science fear mongering.


GMO's shouldn't be banned, but people have the right to know what is in their food, IMO.

That being said, we already know if there are GMOs. If it's labeled as "organic" it doesn't have them. If there is no organic label, the GMOs are there.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10746
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 1:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

norwester wrote:
Interesting anger response. I agree that the bill is not perfect (which bills are?).

I'm also interested in GMO labeling, just so that people can have the choice.

Monsanto has a lot of questionable business practices and a history of burying the little guy with malice; that's why I don't like them. I'm not necessarily in the camp that demonizes GMO foods. Even Bill Nye, long anti-GMO, somewhat changed his tune after getting a tour from some big agri-business, talking to their scientists, etc.

I think it's laughable that the article points to the actions of other countries' banning of GMOs as somehow proof that they're dangerous. Fear doesn't have to be based on science.

I do think its reasonable to question the efficacy (and legality) of just providing the QR codes, versus a plainer, comprehensible form of labeling. Not everyone has access to something that can access and read the codes. And even those that do, may not know how to.

The article also brings up some salient points about definitions and how to define what qualifies in what category (e.g. organic or non-GMO).




just wait until he signs the TPP. Evil or Very Mad



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10746
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 2:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What's next, Round Up is healthy?

US food production needs to be cleaned up.

GMOs should indeed be banned.

Consumers must get a clearly labelled product at the very least.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6354
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 2:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
US food production needs to be cleaned up.

Consumers must get a clearly labelled product at the very least.

Agreed. I'm just astonished that any bill made it through congress. Sometimes you've got to take the supremely flawed stuff and build from it.

I do have a question, though, does the wording of the bill specifically limit local regulations? Because in my experience (which, granted, is environmental law), the federal laws create a blanket, minimal level of protection, but States retain the authority to pass more stringent local regulations if they wish and are able to. However, this article talks about how this bill specifically targets Vermont-specific legislation regarding labeling.



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 4:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

While I am for transparency, it is also important to be honest about what impression labeling leaves with consumers. The moment the government steps in and mandates that GMOs be labeled it creates a perception that this is something people should be concerned about. Think about what the Anti-Vax crowd did when they freaked out about the contents of vaccines based upon "scary" sounding ingredients. If companies want to market their products as GMO free, so be it. Perhaps they can overcharge the science illiterate amongst us by convincing them to pay for it. But required labeling? Suddenly that sounds too much like a "Surgeon General's Warning".

And I love that it is the same party that is upset about how people can ignore the science of Climate Change that is ignoring the science of this issue.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6354
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 5:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
While I am for transparency, it is also important to be honest about what impression labeling leaves with consumers. The moment the government steps in and mandates that GMOs be labeled it creates a perception that this is something people should be concerned about. Think about what the Anti-Vax crowd did when they freaked out about the contents of vaccines based upon "scary" sounding ingredients. If companies want to market their products as GMO free, so be it. Perhaps they can overcharge the science illiterate amongst us by convincing them to pay for it. But required labeling? Suddenly that sounds too much like a "Surgeon General's Warning".

And I love that it is the same party that is upset about how people can ignore the science of Climate Change that is ignoring the science of this issue.

But it doesn't make total sense that people would freak out because of the labeling. Things are labeled all the time: ingredients, nutrition information, place and time of manufacture. It wouldn't need to be a big "GMO" blazoned in bold across the front. It could be something as small as an extra letter next to certain ingredients, etc. Big deal. People looking for it would notice it. People who don't care would probably not even be aware that it happened.



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 5:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

norwester wrote:
justintyme wrote:
While I am for transparency, it is also important to be honest about what impression labeling leaves with consumers. The moment the government steps in and mandates that GMOs be labeled it creates a perception that this is something people should be concerned about. Think about what the Anti-Vax crowd did when they freaked out about the contents of vaccines based upon "scary" sounding ingredients. If companies want to market their products as GMO free, so be it. Perhaps they can overcharge the science illiterate amongst us by convincing them to pay for it. But required labeling? Suddenly that sounds too much like a "Surgeon General's Warning".

And I love that it is the same party that is upset about how people can ignore the science of Climate Change that is ignoring the science of this issue.

But it doesn't make total sense that people would freak out because of the labeling. Things are labeled all the time: ingredients, nutrition information, place and time of manufacture. It wouldn't need to be a big "GMO" blazoned in bold across the front. It could be something as small as an extra letter next to certain ingredients, etc. Big deal. People looking for it would notice it. People who don't care would probably not even be aware that it happened.

But that is what this bill does. Which I am okay with. It allows for labeling so that people who are actually interested will be able to find out while stopping those bills that would have required in print "this product contains genetically modified organisms". The first is transparency, the second is anti-science fear-mongering. The first allows for people to know what types of ingredients are in their food, the second seems like a warning that people should be concerned about.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 5:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

For anyone interested:

What The Science Really Says About GMOs And Food Safety

Quote:
The scientific community agrees: GMOs are safe
When it comes to scientific consensus on GMO foods, its not even close.


Quote:
Human beings have been genetically modifying food for millennia
In their 2013 editorial against GMO labeling, the magazine Scientific American compares ancient agricultural methods like breeding to the genetic splicing that creates disease-resistant crops:


Quote:
Genetically engineered foods hold a great deal of promise for poor communities
Youve probably heard of golden rice, a genetically modified food enriched with Vitamin A. It was created for poor communities in Southeast Asia and Africa, where the primary food staple is rice, but children are going blind for lack of essential nutrients like vitamin A.


Quote:
Consumers already have a label for non-GMO foods
GMOs are in the majority of Americas food supply. An estimated 95 percent of sugar beets, 94 percent of soybeans, 90 percent of cotton and 88 percent of feed corn are genetically engineered, reports USA Today.

But foods that label themselves organic have to comply with non-GMO rules, and so anyone who is concerned about avoiding them need only to steer himself toward the organic sections of the supermarket.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA


Last edited by justintyme on 08/03/16 5:39 pm; edited 2 times in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12723



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 5:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

norwester wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
US food production needs to be cleaned up.

Consumers must get a clearly labelled product at the very least.

Agreed. I'm just astonished that any bill made it through congress. Sometimes you've got to take the supremely flawed stuff and build from it.

I do have a question, though, does the wording of the bill specifically limit local regulations? Because in my experience (which, granted, is environmental law), the federal laws create a blanket, minimal level of protection, but States retain the authority to pass more stringent local regulations if they wish and are able to. However, this article talks about how this bill specifically targets Vermont-specific legislation regarding labeling.


The whole thing is a sellout to industry and the pre-emption provision is the pice de rsistance. It bars states from better protecting their citizens. It was one of industry's biggest goals for the legislation and a travesty for consumers.

Obama hid his signing in the noise of the Democratic convention.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12723



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 5:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
The first allows for people to know what types of ingredients are in their food, the second seems like a warning that people should be concerned about.


Sure, if you want to call an 800 number for each and every item you buy during your trip to the grocery store, you can find out.

Better plan on 20 hours per week for shopping if you actually want to know something that should be right there in the ingredients label.

The bill is a total sellout.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57519
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 6:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
norwester wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
US food production needs to be cleaned up.

Consumers must get a clearly labelled product at the very least.

Agreed. I'm just astonished that any bill made it through congress. Sometimes you've got to take the supremely flawed stuff and build from it.

I do have a question, though, does the wording of the bill specifically limit local regulations? Because in my experience (which, granted, is environmental law), the federal laws create a blanket, minimal level of protection, but States retain the authority to pass more stringent local regulations if they wish and are able to. However, this article talks about how this bill specifically targets Vermont-specific legislation regarding labeling.


The whole thing is a sellout to industry and the pre-emption provision is the pice de rsistance. It bars states from better protecting their citizens. It was one of industry's biggest goals for the legislation and a travesty for consumers.

Obama hid his signing in the noise of the Democratic convention.


Here's a perfect example of the anti-science hysteria. "Better protecting" is nonsense. Protection is unnecessary, as GMOs are not at all dangerous.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10746
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 6:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

see below



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.


Last edited by cthskzfn on 08/03/16 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12723



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 6:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
norwester wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
US food production needs to be cleaned up.

Consumers must get a clearly labelled product at the very least.

Agreed. I'm just astonished that any bill made it through congress. Sometimes you've got to take the supremely flawed stuff and build from it.

I do have a question, though, does the wording of the bill specifically limit local regulations? Because in my experience (which, granted, is environmental law), the federal laws create a blanket, minimal level of protection, but States retain the authority to pass more stringent local regulations if they wish and are able to. However, this article talks about how this bill specifically targets Vermont-specific legislation regarding labeling.


The whole thing is a sellout to industry and the pre-emption provision is the pice de rsistance. It bars states from better protecting their citizens. It was one of industry's biggest goals for the legislation and a travesty for consumers.

Obama hid his signing in the noise of the Democratic convention.


Here's a perfect example of the anti-science hysteria. "Better protecting" is nonsense. Protection is unnecessary, as GMOs are not at all dangerous.


Why fight so hard to hide it?

Vaccines are safe, fluoride is safe, lots of things are safe but nonetheless information is disclosed so individuals are free to make a personal choice.

Industry is going to great lengths to hide the truth about its products from consumers. And to keep states from requiring disclosure.

This isn't about banning them, it's about letting people know what they're feeding to their families. Seems like a no brainier. Unless you're taking millions in handouts from lobbyists, that is.

So they have to tell you how much sugar, fat, trans fat, protein and salt is in the food, but not if they're genetically engineered. Yeah, that makes sense. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10746
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 6:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
While I am for transparency, it is also important to be honest about what impression labeling leaves with consumers. The moment the government steps in and mandates that GMOs be labeled it creates a perception that this is something people should be concerned about. Think about what the Anti-Vax crowd did when they freaked out about the contents of vaccines based upon "scary" sounding ingredients. If companies want to market their products as GMO free, so be it. Perhaps they can overcharge the science illiterate amongst us by convincing them to pay for it. But required labeling? Suddenly that sounds too much like a "Surgeon General's Warning".


And the "GMOs are wonderful" folks sound too much like the tobacco industry.


And I love that it is the same party that is upset about how people can ignore the science of Climate Change that is ignoring the science of this issue.


Here's your science:

http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 6:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Although there is currently no evidence that GMOs are harmful, the studies that have been done proving that they are safe, are somewhat...shady.


For example, one study done was done on cows. They lived the normal life of a dairy cow (five years) without any differences shown.

Except the average lifespan of a cow, when they aren't living in poor conditions on factory dairy farms, is twenty years. So yes, that study showed no difference between the non gmo fed cows and the gmo fed cows..but they didn't actually get to live out their true life span. That was like a terminally ill patient smoking verses a terminally ill patient not smoking..the smoking didn't do anything. I would think the cause for concern would be long term damages. (Plus, let's not ignore that human and animal bodies are different, and you can't always correlate.)


Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

So, although I don't think it's fair to call GMOs unsafe, and to allow fear mongering to continue..I do think the jury is still out, and GMOs aren't completely safe. And because of that, people have a right to know.

But as I said, we do know..anything that isn't labeled as organic, has GMOs. (Or that's at least 99% accurate)


Generally speaking, Monsanto has made the government it's bitch, on both sides of the aisle. So this isn't exactly surprising. (Nor do I think it's a HUGE deal)



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
justintyme wrote:
While I am for transparency, it is also important to be honest about what impression labeling leaves with consumers. The moment the government steps in and mandates that GMOs be labeled it creates a perception that this is something people should be concerned about. Think about what the Anti-Vax crowd did when they freaked out about the contents of vaccines based upon "scary" sounding ingredients. If companies want to market their products as GMO free, so be it. Perhaps they can overcharge the science illiterate amongst us by convincing them to pay for it. But required labeling? Suddenly that sounds too much like a "Surgeon General's Warning".


And the "GMOs are wonderful" folks sound too much like the tobacco industry.


And I love that it is the same party that is upset about how people can ignore the science of Climate Change that is ignoring the science of this issue.


Here's your science:

http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

This is remarkably similar to the types of papers written by the people who deny climate change. And even then their conclusion is not that they have shown GMOs to be unsafe, just that they disagreed with the idea that there was a scientific concensus as to whether or not they could conclusively say GMOs are safe. On the other side, in the poll of scientists listed earlier 88% were saying that they considered GMOs safe. Compared to 87% who said climate change was happening....

If you want the most recent and comprehensive study, you can find it here:

http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/1#ix



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 7:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:

Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

Actually, you have that backwards. GMOs reduce the need for pesticides as they can create naturally pest resistant crops. Also drought resistant, and disease resistant crops. Crops that can survive with ltitle to no ferilizer are another one, which can help stop the pollution of our waterways.

The one place that we do have to be careful, however, is that we are reducing the diversity of our agriculture, which has some potential problems (if something happens it could wipe out a lot of crops at once). But that is a separate problem from using it as food.

As for the studies, the one I linked above took into consideration that some of those studies are flawed, but still concluded, based upon the many other on depth ones conducted, that their is no concern in eating GMOs.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 8:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'm amazed he had the backbone to stand fast against anti-science fear mongering.


GMO's shouldn't be banned, but people have the right to know what is in their food, IMO.

That being said, we already know if there are GMOs. If it's labeled as "organic" it doesn't have them. If there is no organic label, the GMOs are there.


That's not true. There are products that have the non-GMO seal that are not organic.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57519
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 8:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
So they have to tell you how much sugar, fat, trans fat, protein and salt is in the food, but not if they're genetically engineered. Yeah, that makes sense. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


False Equivalence Alert!

GMO labeling would be more akin to requiring labels telling what kind of fertilizer was used to grow the food. Actually, that's not even right since the label isn't going to tell what genes were modified or how. GMO labeling is like a label telling customers that the grower used fertilizer.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 8:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

Actually, you have that backwards. GMOs reduce the need for pesticides as they can create naturally pest resistant crops. Also drought resistant, and disease resistant crops. Crops that can survive with ltitle to no ferilizer are another one, which can help stop the pollution of our waterways.

The one place that we do have to be careful, however, is that we are reducing the diversity of our agriculture, which has some potential problems (if something happens it could wipe out a lot of crops at once). But that is a separate problem from using it as food.

As for the studies, the one I linked above took into consideration that some of those studies are flawed, but still concluded, based upon the many other on depth ones conducted, that their is no concern in eating GMOs.


No I don't. There are pesticide resistant GMOs as well. That's an actual concern to GMOs that aren't addressed properly (instead sticking to the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GROW A 3rd ARM" mantra..)

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 8:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:

just wait until he signs the TPP. Evil or Very Mad


He is gonna really try and rush that so he can give the corporations what they want. He can't count on Clinton signing an unfettered version since Sanders made her flip on it.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 8:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'm amazed he had the backbone to stand fast against anti-science fear mongering.


GMO's shouldn't be banned, but people have the right to know what is in their food, IMO.

That being said, we already know if there are GMOs. If it's labeled as "organic" it doesn't have them. If there is no organic label, the GMOs are there.


That's not true. There are products that have the non-GMO seal that are not organic.


Kind of. There aren't standards applied to that label. However, if a product makes a specific statement ("Did not use biochemically engineered seeds), then that's honest. Products have to be truthful, and a product can have no GMO and still be genetically modified.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/business/fda-takes-issue-with-the-term-non-gmo.html

The USDA has a specific set of standards that is applied to the term "Certified organic"



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 8:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
tfan wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'm amazed he had the backbone to stand fast against anti-science fear mongering.


GMO's shouldn't be banned, but people have the right to know what is in their food, IMO.

That being said, we already know if there are GMOs. If it's labeled as "organic" it doesn't have them. If there is no organic label, the GMOs are there.


That's not true. There are products that have the non-GMO seal that are not organic.


Kind of. There aren't standards applied to that label.


The non-GMO Project has a standard, at least as of February 2, 2016: Non-GMO Project Standard.

Quote:

However, if a product makes a specific statement ("Did not use biochemically engineered seeds), then that's honest. Products have to be truthful, and a product can have no GMO and still be genetically modified.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/business/fda-takes-issue-with-the-term-non-gmo.html


There should be a term that distinguishes combining the DNA of a bacteria or fungus with a crop so they repel insects or can be sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate (Round Up) from cross-breeding. I don't know why they chose "modified", but they should change the term to non-GEO Project, for non-Genetically Engineered Organisms since the engineering appears to be the accurate term for what they do in a lab with DNA.

Frito-Lay added a few words on the label of their Tostitos cheese dip in response to the Vermont labeling law and it refers to genetic engineering, not genetic modification:

"Partially produced with genetic engineering."

I was surprised that that phrase, which seems pretty vague and benign, is what manufacturers are fighting so hard against. I thought every ingredient in the list of ingredients would have to be labeled: "... GMO corn, GMO canola oil, GMO sugar, GMO soy protein isolate, ..."


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 9:04 pm    ::: Re: and a hearty fuck you, POTUS Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
http://livingmaxwell.com/obama-signs-gmo-labeling-bill-betrayal-organic

This bill is so discriminatory and so poorly written that it potentially violates several amendments of the Constitution. Additionally, it puts the integrity of the organic seal in real jeopardy.


Quote:
What is arguably the most troubling aspect of this bill is that while almost every single organic consumer organization fought this bill, the organic industrys leading trade organization praised the bill and lobbied for it to pass.


That praise was probably because some people don't realize that organic foods cannot contain genetically engineered ingredients, and have been choosing foods labeled "non-GMO" over organic foods. Although some food manufacturers have begun responding to that by adding a non-GMO seal along with their USDA Organic seal.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12723



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 9:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
So they have to tell you how much sugar, fat, trans fat, protein and salt is in the food, but not if they're genetically engineered. Yeah, that makes sense. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


False Equivalence Alert!

GMO labeling would be more akin to requiring labels telling what kind of fertilizer was used to grow the food. Actually, that's not even right since the label isn't going to tell what genes were modified or how. GMO labeling is like a label telling customers that the grower used fertilizer.


Speaking of false equivalents. You just set a new record.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 9:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

Actually, you have that backwards. GMOs reduce the need for pesticides as they can create naturally pest resistant crops. Also drought resistant, and disease resistant crops. Crops that can survive with ltitle to no ferilizer are another one, which can help stop the pollution of our waterways.

The one place that we do have to be careful, however, is that we are reducing the diversity of our agriculture, which has some potential problems (if something happens it could wipe out a lot of crops at once). But that is a separate problem from using it as food.

As for the studies, the one I linked above took into consideration that some of those studies are flawed, but still concluded, based upon the many other on depth ones conducted, that their is no concern in eating GMOs.


No I don't. There are pesticide resistant GMOs as well. That's an actual concern to GMOs that aren't addressed properly (instead sticking to the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GROW A 3rd ARM" mantra..)

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24

This study was directed at herbicide-resistant crops. It found that pest-resistant crops have reduced pesticide usage. The need for higher amounts of herbicide is an issue that should be watched and if necessary, dealt with. But that has nothing to do with food safety, nor should it have anything to do with labeling.

But pilight highlighted the issue with this quite well in his post. These GMO labeling bills are not informing people about how it has been modified, just that it has been. While some shady farmer could theoretically use too much pesticide, just because they can, if someone sees a label it doesn't tell them that. The label could be for some item that used pest-resistant crops so they actually used less. Or drought resistant, or nutrient enhanced....



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12723



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 9:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

Actually, you have that backwards. GMOs reduce the need for pesticides as they can create naturally pest resistant crops. Also drought resistant, and disease resistant crops. Crops that can survive with ltitle to no ferilizer are another one, which can help stop the pollution of our waterways.

The one place that we do have to be careful, however, is that we are reducing the diversity of our agriculture, which has some potential problems (if something happens it could wipe out a lot of crops at once). But that is a separate problem from using it as food.

As for the studies, the one I linked above took into consideration that some of those studies are flawed, but still concluded, based upon the many other on depth ones conducted, that their is no concern in eating GMOs.


No I don't. There are pesticide resistant GMOs as well. That's an actual concern to GMOs that aren't addressed properly (instead sticking to the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GROW A 3rd ARM" mantra..)

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24


Moreso herbicide resistant plants, and especially today Roundup resistant corn and soybeans. So farmers are free to dump more and more Roundup on their fields. And then weeds become more Roundup resistant, so then the farmers use even more Roundup. (And Monsanto cheers since they sell both the Roundup and the Roundup ready GMO crops.)

Not all objections to GMO crops are as simplistic as "I'll die if I eat them". I have no reason to think that "Roundup ready" corn is unsafe to eat. There is, on the other hand, good reason to think the widespread cultivation of herbicide resistant crops and the dramatic resultant increase in the spraying and runoff of those herbicides, is bad for the environment. I should have the opportunity to choose not to support that practice. Why are some people so afraid of the the public having access to true information? Why do some people object to the public having the information necessary to make their own decisions?

"They're safe to eat", even if we assume it's true, is only part of the issue.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 12:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ahhhh, yes. The ol' "GMO" debate.

I see this as a tempest in a teapot when considered in the context of time, really. Not that there isn't any merit to the debate, but....it all seems a bit moot: YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANNA KNOW WHAT YOU'VE BEEN EATING ALL YOUR LIFE, is my point.

And we could start with fast food, and work our way down. Madison Avenue and Medical Moguls have this dizzying contest going on, for the hearts and minds [read: Dollars] of Americans.

MY biggest gripe with it all is that Obama HAS 'sold out', basically, to corporate giants and bullies. And all this in view of his wife's advocacy of healthier nutrition makes it all a bit more ironic. Evil or Very Mad



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 12:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
I'm amazed he had the backbone to stand fast against anti-science fear mongering.


I don't see it as an issue that is so critical it justifies keeping people in the dark, just in case they don't like it. We had plenty of food and at decent prices in the 1980's before GMOs. "Let's not tell them about it in case they don't like it." is not a good precedent for food manufacturers, or manufacturers , or the government.

And according to the Right-to-Know Network, we already have the head-shaking situation in which the FDA does not test GMOs and does not fund or require third party testing of GMOs. They only require that the manufacturer ensures that the food is safe and wholesome.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 2:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:


I don't see it as an issue that is so critical it justifies keeping people in the dark, just in case they don't like it. We had plenty of food and at decent prices in the 1980's before GMOs. "Let's not tell them about it in case they don't like it." is not a good precedent for food manufacturers, or manufacturers , or the government.

The world's population in 1980 was 4.4 billion. It is now 7.4 billion and projected to be nearing 10 billion by 2050. We also face some major complications due to climate change. I would not use 1980 as a good example of what we can handle. And even in 1980 there were places on this planet that could have benefited from GMOs.

And who is keeping people in the dark? Anyone who is interested can learn about what GMOs are and how they are used. Putting some label on a package is ultimately meaningless since it doesnt actually tell the consumer anything. Something in the product used a GMO. So? Science tells us there is no danger, so what exactly are these labels going to help inform us about? There are GMOs that actually make foods more nutritious for us, but those would be labeled exactly the same as products made using drought resistant crops.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 3:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:


I don't see it as an issue that is so critical it justifies keeping people in the dark, just in case they don't like it. We had plenty of food and at decent prices in the 1980's before GMOs. "Let's not tell them about it in case they don't like it." is not a good precedent for food manufacturers, or manufacturers , or the government.

The world's population in 1980 was 4.4 billion. It is now 7.4 billion and projected to be nearing 10 billion by 2050. We also face some major complications due to climate change. I would not use 1980 as a good example of what we can handle. And even in 1980 there were places on this planet that could have benefited from GMOs.


"Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato. Other genetically modified crops receiving marketing approval in 1995 were: canola with modified oil composition, Bt maize, cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, Bt cotton, glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, virus-resistant squash, and another delayed ripening tomato."

Most of the crops grown in the world are not genetically modified, including the big grain crops of rice and wheat. GMO corn, soybeans, canola and sugar beets is not keeping an over-populated and over-populating world from starving. Even if the entire world was primarily living off of corn, sugar beets, soybeans and canola oil, the yield increases, if any, don't compensate for exponential growth in population. A German study estimates crop yield increases from GMO corn is 20% but there is evidence to dispute that in that corn crop yields in the US (which were increasing prior to GMOs in 1995) haven't increased more than in Europe where there is little GMO usage:



Although there must be a savings with regard to insecticide costs for crops made insect resistant, and on fertilizer costs on crops made herbicide resistant. And they make crops like corn with both characteristics. I believe drought resistant versions are in their early days right now, but could not only increase yield in droughts, but also allow farming in areas that are too dry now.

I think most important thing with regard to over-population is to make population growth a non-taboo topic. Or maybe that should be - step 1 is to realize and acknowledge there is a problem.

Quote:
And who is keeping people in the dark? Anyone who is interested can learn about what GMOs are and how they are used. Putting some label on a package is ultimately meaningless since it doesnt actually tell the consumer anything. Something in the product used a GMO. So? Science tells us there is no danger, so what exactly are these labels going to help inform us about? There are GMOs that actually make foods more nutritious for us, but those would be labeled exactly the same as products made using drought resistant crops.


The Vitamin A rice that you mentioned has never been commercially produced. If GMOs are good and have no harm then put it on the label. Brag about it. Brag that it lowers the price and increases profits. The label can tell the consumer everything, if the manufacturer chooses too. They can say what is GMO in the product and state that they have tested it and the FDA approved their test. And if they want to get really honest they can say "the corn, soybean and canola oil in this product were sprayed with herbicide, but our tests say that the herbicide (trade name Round Up) is safe for humans to consume".




Last edited by tfan on 08/04/16 10:01 am; edited 3 times in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57519
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 7:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

Actually, you have that backwards. GMOs reduce the need for pesticides as they can create naturally pest resistant crops. Also drought resistant, and disease resistant crops. Crops that can survive with ltitle to no ferilizer are another one, which can help stop the pollution of our waterways.

The one place that we do have to be careful, however, is that we are reducing the diversity of our agriculture, which has some potential problems (if something happens it could wipe out a lot of crops at once). But that is a separate problem from using it as food.

As for the studies, the one I linked above took into consideration that some of those studies are flawed, but still concluded, based upon the many other on depth ones conducted, that their is no concern in eating GMOs.


No I don't. There are pesticide resistant GMOs as well. That's an actual concern to GMOs that aren't addressed properly (instead sticking to the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GROW A 3rd ARM" mantra..)

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24


Moreso herbicide resistant plants, and especially today Roundup resistant corn and soybeans. So farmers are free to dump more and more Roundup on their fields. And then weeds become more Roundup resistant, so then the farmers use even more Roundup. (And Monsanto cheers since they sell both the Roundup and the Roundup ready GMO crops.)

Not all objections to GMO crops are as simplistic as "I'll die if I eat them". I have no reason to think that "Roundup ready" corn is unsafe to eat. There is, on the other hand, good reason to think the widespread cultivation of herbicide resistant crops and the dramatic resultant increase in the spraying and runoff of those herbicides, is bad for the environment. I should have the opportunity to choose not to support that practice. Why are some people so afraid of the the public having access to true information? Why do some people object to the public having the information necessary to make their own decisions?

"They're safe to eat", even if we assume it's true, is only part of the issue.


A generic label on all GMO food will not tell you any of that. The only purpose of such a label is to scare people.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10746
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 2:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

i believe in organic, sustainable food production practices that enrich the earth and move us away from petroleum-based chemical controls and drugs.

this should be the direction in which we on this planet move.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 3:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
i believe in organic, sustainable food production practices that enrich the earth and move us away from petroleum-based chemical controls and drugs.

this should be the direction in which we on this planet move.


I agree, but more than labeling will have to be done for that to happen.

America (and the rest of the first world) will have to change it's entire diet. It's currently not sustainable without GMOs.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/05/16 12:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
i believe in organic, sustainable food production practices that enrich the earth and move us away from petroleum-based chemical controls and drugs.

this should be the direction in which we on this planet move.


A noble goal, but....considering how quickly our 'planet' moves on things that COULD be fixed quickly (correcting racism, equitable wealth distribution, etc.), why would amending food sources (and the power/wealth shift that entails) happen in our lifetime?

Nat Geo has recently published several REALLY good articles featuring a World perspective on food production, the latest science on such things, and....the reasons to NOT fret over GMOs. This has been a series of articles in their magazine. I know one is March of 2016, but I can't remember the rest.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57519
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 9:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaaq1413

Quote:
Difference-in-difference estimates of opposition to GE food before and after mandatory labeling show that the labeling policy led to a 19% reduction in opposition to GE food.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10746
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/18 10:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

oh, those halcyon days...



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin