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
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
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: 11392
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


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 might be waking up.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57920
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.



_________________
Marlene watches from the wall
Her mocking smile says it all
As she records the rise and fall
Of every soldier passing
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6355
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: 18394



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: 11392
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


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 might be waking up.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11392
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


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 might be waking up.
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6355
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: 7162
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: 6355
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: 7162
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: 7162
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: 13075



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: 13075



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: 57920
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.



_________________
Marlene watches from the wall
Her mocking smile says it all
As she records the rise and fall
Of every soldier passing
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11392
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


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

see below



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.


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



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13075



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: 11392
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


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 might be waking up.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18394



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: 7162
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: 7162
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: 7016



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: 57920
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.



_________________
Marlene watches from the wall
Her mocking smile says it all
As she records the rise and fall
Of every soldier passing
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18394



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: 7016



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: 18394



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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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