Over 80 percent of Americans support mandatory labels on foods containing DNA

[Badger]

I briefly supported the bid to label.Food containing GMO's. not because i had any concerns about the "Frankenfood" scare nonsense, but rather on the basis of letting the market and educated consumers decide. as Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations that an informed consumer is the basis of a strong free market economy, and it would be a less than nominal cost to add a notice to package labeling, label foods and let the GMO panickers spend their money (foolishly, imo, and our family consumes a lot of organic groceries) on more expensive alternatives.

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense. i'm all for mandating labeling on products with scientifically proven detrimental effects that warrant such expense , but as the health "risks" of GMO food is about as scientifically tenuous as vaccinations causing autism , it doesn't begin justifying the not insignificant costs of labeling .

[SillyAmerican]

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense. i'm all for mandating labeling on products with scientifically proven detrimental effects that warrant such expense , but as the health "risks" of GMO food is about as scientifically tenuous as vaccinations causing autism , it doesn't begin justifying the not insignificant costs of labeling .

You make a very good point. And mind you, I'm not one of those who is trying to vilify GMO foods or the companies responsible for their production. But I would like to see more independent science done on the matter, remembering all the reassurances put out by Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds in the '60s regarding the smoking of cigarettes. (It's never a bright idea to rely on those whose profits are derived from a product or process to report on the safety / efficacy of that product / process).

One solution might be to flip the whole labeling requirement on its head: figure out what specifically would be needed for something to be considered "non-GMO", and allow an appropriate label on only those products that meet the criteria. So the costs associated with the production, monitoring, and labeling of such food items ends up being covered by those working to produce these food items for that portion of the population that want them, for whatever reason (be it extreme paranoia, sensitivity to food allergies, or whatever). This would seem to be a reasonable approach that serves all of the various parties involved, as well as helping to bolster Adam Smith's informed consumer, yes?

[Alcon]

You think it would be a good idea to not label GMO foods? I completely disagree, for the following simple reason. If you look at some of the old commercials put out by the cigarette companies, you'll see all kinds of claims being made. (Check out the one showing the brand smoked by most doctors, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE). So what has changed? Well, we began seeing claims that smoking tobacco causes cancer, so we decided to do the science: the studies were run by looking at people that smoke vs. those that don't, results began to be compiled, and attitudes began to change. Ok, so fast forward to GMOs. Certain people are making one set of claims, others are making opposite claims. Which group is correct?  Well, to do the science like we did with cigarettes, you need to run studies on two groups of people, those that consume GMOs and those that don't. Then you look to see if correlations exist between diseases and consumption of GMO foods. But how can you do this when people don't know whether or not they've consumed foods with GMOs in them? Use of GMOs in our food system is so wide spread and so downplayed that it's going to be near impossible to get any clear answers on the subject, and I suspect that's by design.

There are very, very few scientists, including independent ones, who think this is a legitimate concern.  It's not like we don't understand the basic processes underlying genetic engineering.  If anything, genetic engineering is more precise than the process used in natural hybridization.  I don't think cigarettes and cancer is a good analogy, because we never had consistent medical or scientific consensus that there was no conceptual or empirical reason for concern, like we do with GMOs.  We can't just mandate governmentally-enforced labeling entirely based on what technologies give people the heeby-geebies, which is effectively what this is.

The analogy regarding vaccines is a bit more extreme (since obviously scaring people away from vaccines is more consequential), but otherwise pretty apt.  There are plenty of people who argue we should exercise the same logic when it comes to thimerosal, and demand that we observe control populations over their entire lifetime, and until then apply labeling.  The rationale is the same, as is the lack of empirical or conceptual evidence, and the hyper-extension of the precaution principle.

One solution might be to flip the whole labeling requirement on its head: figure out what specifically would be needed for something to be considered "non-GMO", and allow an appropriate label on only those products that meet the criteria. So the costs associated with the production, monitoring, and labeling of such food items ends up being covered by those working to produce these food items for that portion of the population that want them, for whatever reason (be it extreme paranoia, sensitivity to food allergies, or whatever). This would seem to be a reasonable approach that serves all of the various parties involved, as well as helping to bolster Adam Smith's informed consumer, yes?

I'm definitely totally fine with voluntary labeling regimes.  I think it's a silly personal preference, but I guess I have no problem with the government regulating claims to fact like this, even if I personally think the facts aren't materially relevant.

For what it's worth, "certified organic" labels actually require products to be GMO-free.  That doesn't really make sense, but hey, it's an existing option I guess.

[bedstuy]

I think in medicine you expect evidence or at least a plausible hypothesis.  There is no evidence that GMOs are the least bit unhealthy.  There's no plausible hypothesis as to how they would be unhealthy.  Thus, there's no reason to label them.

It's like when you're trying to get a drug approved by the FDA.  You have to show a "mechanism of action," how this chemical compound will interact with some part of a disease or a person's body to create the desired result.  Nobody has even offered a guess as to the mechanism for how GMOs could pose a risk.

The fact is, your digestive system doesn't interact with your food at the level of genes.  You're eating it, not having sex with it.  Genes are one level removed from the digestive process.  You need to be talking about, what is in the food, not what is in the food's genes.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense.

Oh, brother.  I was hoping this ridiculous thread wouldn't bring up the "ink costs to much" argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I think in medicine you expect evidence or at least a plausible hypothesis.  There is no evidence that GMOs are the least bit unhealthy.  There's no plausible hypothesis as to how they would be unhealthy.  Thus, there's no reason to label them.

It's like when you're trying to get a drug approved by the FDA.  You have to show a "mechanism of action," how this chemical compound will interact with some part of a disease or a person's body to create the desired result.  Nobody has even offered a guess as to the mechanism for how GMOs could pose a risk.

The fact is, your digestive system doesn't interact with your food at the level of genes.  You're eating it, not having sex with it.  Genes are one level removed from the digestive process.  You need to be talking about, what is in the food, not what is in the food's genes.

And Zombie wheat?

[Badger]

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense.

Oh, brother.  I was hoping this ridiculous thread wouldn't bring up the "ink costs to much" argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Re-read my thread. Discovering the expense was vastly more than the ink to print labels is what convinced me GMO labeling is a bad idea.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense.

Oh, brother.  I was hoping this ridiculous thread wouldn't bring up the "ink costs to much" argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Re-read my thread. Discovering the expense was vastly more than the ink to print labels is what convinced me GMO labeling is a bad idea.

Read peer reviewed research... no it doesn't.

[Badger]

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense.

Oh, brother.  I was hoping this ridiculous thread wouldn't bring up the "ink costs to much" argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Re-read my thread. Discovering the expense was vastly more than the ink to print labels is what convinced me GMO labeling is a bad idea.

Read peer reviewed research... no it doesn't.

Two points: First, 5-20% is a substanial price upgrade. Ben & Jerry is an odd company that can afford to absorb such a hike and have a customer base that would punish them worse for GMO use. Most companies , and certainly most consumers, can't adapt to such an increase.

Second , you are mixing apples and oranges. The ability of indivdual companies to adopt solely non-GMO sources of ingrediants fro wholesale organic suppliers who serve a relatively niche sector of the food economy is light years from the whole agricultural sector of the entire economy, but domestically produced and imported , having to separate and monitor non cross "contamination" of GMO vs non-GMO crops and agricultural byproducts.

even if one thinks a 5-20% increase isn't substantial (though it is), the costs here don't warrant labeling over a "threat" that literally 99+% of peer reviewed studies say is at most theoretical, if not phantasmal.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense.

Oh, brother.  I was hoping this ridiculous thread wouldn't bring up the "ink costs to much" argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Re-read my thread. Discovering the expense was vastly more than the ink to print labels is what convinced me GMO labeling is a bad idea.

Read peer reviewed research... no it doesn't.

Two points: First, 5-20% is a substanial price upgrade. Ben & Jerry is an odd company that can afford to absorb such a hike and have a customer base that would punish them worse for GMO use. Most companies , and certainly most consumers, can't adapt to such an increase.

Second , you are mixing apples and oranges. The ability of indivdual companies to adopt solely non-GMO sources of ingrediants fro wholesale organic suppliers who serve a relatively niche sector of the food economy is light years from the whole agricultural sector of the entire economy, but domestically produced and imported , having to separate and monitor non cross "contamination" of GMO vs non-GMO crops and agricultural byproducts.

even if one thinks a 5-20% increase isn't substantial (though it is), the costs here don't warrant labeling over a "threat" that literally 99+% of peer reviewed studies say is at most theoretical, if not phantasmal.

Okay this doesn't seem to be getting through to you.  I will try again...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I simply don't know how it can be made any clearer.

[Badger]

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense.

Oh, brother.  I was hoping this ridiculous thread wouldn't bring up the "ink costs to much" argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Re-read my thread. Discovering the expense was vastly more than the ink to print labels is what convinced me GMO labeling is a bad idea.

Read peer reviewed research... no it doesn't.

Two points: First, 5-20% is a substanial price upgrade. Ben & Jerry is an odd company that can afford to absorb such a hike and have a customer base that would punish them worse for GMO use. Most companies , and certainly most consumers, can't adapt to such an increase.

Second , you are mixing apples and oranges. The ability of indivdual companies to adopt solely non-GMO sources of ingrediants fro wholesale organic suppliers who serve a relatively niche sector of the food economy is light years from the whole agricultural sector of the entire economy, but domestically produced and imported , having to separate and monitor non cross "contamination" of GMO vs non-GMO crops and agricultural byproducts.

even if one thinks a 5-20% increase isn't substantial (though it is), the costs here don't warrant labeling over a "threat" that literally 99+% of peer reviewed studies say is at most theoretical, if not phantasmal.

Okay this doesn't seem to be getting through to you.  I will try again...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I simply don't know how it can be made any clearer.

Define "Significant "

[Alcon]

Or, alternatively, what was the study's threshold for significance?  Statistical significance?  Some unspecified percentage?  A price increase of 5-20%, even absorbed by the company, is "significant" to me.  And you inexplicably neglected to respond to my criticisms of why this is reasonable no matter how slight the increased cost is...kind of defeats the purpose of a debate/exchange of ideas.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

You think it would be a good idea to not label GMO foods? I completely disagree, for the following simple reason. If you look at some of the old commercials put out by the cigarette companies, you'll see all kinds of claims being made. (Check out the one showing the brand smoked by most doctors, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE). So what has changed? Well, we began seeing claims that smoking tobacco causes cancer, so we decided to do the science: the studies were run by looking at people that smoke vs. those that don't, results began to be compiled, and attitudes began to change. Ok, so fast forward to GMOs. Certain people are making one set of claims, others are making opposite claims. Which group is correct?  Well, to do the science like we did with cigarettes, you need to run studies on two groups of people, those that consume GMOs and those that don't. Then you look to see if correlations exist between diseases and consumption of GMO foods. But how can you do this when people don't know whether or not they've consumed foods with GMOs in them? Use of GMOs in our food system is so wide spread and so downplayed that it's going to be near impossible to get any clear answers on the subject, and I suspect that's by design.

     The way to get answers would be through controlled experiments. The effects GMO labelling would have on influencing consumer choices wouldn't make things any clearer. The people in the study certainly don't have to know what they're consuming, hence blind trials.

[SillyAmerican]

I think in medicine you expect evidence or at least a plausible hypothesis.  There is no evidence that GMOs are the least bit unhealthy.  There's no plausible hypothesis as to how they would be unhealthy.  Thus, there's no reason to label them.

Yes, just a point of clarification: modification of the genetics of a plant do not pose a health issue in and of themselves. The problem is that many of the genetic modifications being done target a plant's response to the use of certain chemicals, either for fertilization or for weed/pest control. It is the widespread use of these chemicals that people object to. People tend to want to over simplify things, getting all agitated about GMO products, when in fact, as you correctly point out, the genetic modifications themselves have no direct involvement in the health issues associated with produce coming from GMO plants. It's the use of chemicals that pose the real threat. I know that if I'm eating a fruit or vegetable off a plant that has not been modified to respond appropriately to the use of these chemicals, that the chances of these fruits or veggies containing residual amounts of these chemicals is quite a bit lower. That's the rational for wanting to draw the distinction between GMO and non-GMO.

[Alcon]

Yes, just a point of clarification: modification of the genetics of a plant do not pose a health issue in and of themselves. The problem is that many of the genetic modifications being done target a plant's response to the use of certain chemicals, either for fertilization or for weed/pest control. It is the widespread use of these chemicals that people object to. People tend to want to over simplify things, getting all agitated about GMO products, when in fact, as you correctly point out, the genetic modifications themselves have no direct involvement in the health issues associated with produce coming from GMO plants. It's the use of chemicals that pose the real threat. I know that if I'm eating a fruit or vegetable off a plant that has not been modified to respond appropriately to the use of these chemicals, that the chances of these fruits or veggies containing residual amounts of these chemicals is quite a bit lower. That's the rational for wanting to draw the distinction between GMO and non-GMO.

Do you have some sort of citation that indicates that the synthetic pesticides that GMOs allow for (such as glyphosate) are more dangerous on average?  This contradicts what I've read.  Even if it were true, why is mandatory labeling of something that indirectly correlates (not even that strongly) with the presence of those chemicals a reasonable solution, especially when people will mistakenly infer they should be concerned about GMOs themselves?  These seems like a strained rationalization for supporting GMO labeling.

Also, any responses to the points made in my last post?

[SillyAmerican]

Do you have some sort of citation that indicates that the synthetic pesticides that GMOs allow for (such as glyphosate) are more dangerous on average?  This contradicts what I've read.  Even if it were true, why is mandatory labeling of something that indirectly correlates (not even that strongly) with the presence of those chemicals a reasonable solution, especially when people will mistakenly infer they should be concerned about GMOs themselves?  These seems like a strained rationalization for supporting GMO labeling.

Also, any responses to the points made in my last post?

Here's one recent article that raises the question: http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181

I'd like to see more science done on the subject; I believe there's enough evidence to justify looking further into the issue. In the meantime, I'd be willing to cover some additional cost associated with having labels on non-GMO products, as I mentioned in a previous post.

[Alcon]

Do you have some sort of citation that indicates that the synthetic pesticides that GMOs allow for (such as glyphosate) are more dangerous on average?  This contradicts what I've read.  Even if it were true, why is mandatory labeling of something that indirectly correlates (not even that strongly) with the presence of those chemicals a reasonable solution, especially when people will mistakenly infer they should be concerned about GMOs themselves?  These seems like a strained rationalization for supporting GMO labeling.

Also, any responses to the points made in my last post?

Here's one recent article that raises the question: http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181

I'd like to see more science done on the subject; I believe there's enough evidence to justify looking further into the issue. In the meantime, I'd be willing to cover some additional cost associated with having labels on non-GMO products, as I mentioned in a previous post.

Oh, right, sorry, I forgot you were the one who indicated support for non-mandatory labeling.

The IARC ratings Nature refers to address the potential for an entity to be a carcinogen at some dose.  It does not indicate to what extent the entity is a carcinogen, or at what dose.  The IARC uses the same classification for glyphosate as it does for cooked meat and fish, bacon, grapefruit juice, and working a night shift.  It's also at a lower warning level than some other things, including sunlight, oral contraceptives, and alcohol.

After this categorization, numerous independent regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Europe reviewed the standing evidence and declared glyphosate wasn't a concern for human consumption (here, for instance).

Like a lot of stuff that even vaguely touches on GMO-related topics, it got picked up and heavily decontextualized.

[tschandler]

It is worth it to point out that some of the anti GMO rhetoric is because of small scale farmers in the UK and other locations that simply don't want to compete or become what they consider modern American monoculture.   But we will need modern agriscience to feed an increasingly populated planet.