GMO labeling

[bluecoconuts]

The panel at the subcommittee hearing is in favor of a "non-judgemental" label, so that's covered.
Hell, it can even read, "MAY contain GMO's" for all I care.

Then I'm all for it, if they want to lump it in with the nutritional facts then that's cool. I just hope it's not just a simple "contains GMO's" but rather a "Genetically modified to add X and X so it's does X" so people know exactly what it is.

 

[RamFan503]

Hell, it can even read, "MAY contain GMO's" for all I care.

Like they do for nuts? Not that I'm calling you one. Seriously though, talk about one with very little science behind it. Yeah - some are allergic to nuts. Should we put up signage at all gardens that they may contain bees? Peanuts were offered on virtually every flight for 50 years and I NEVER recall hearing a word about someone dying because of it.

And all that aside, I still agree with you. Some simple wording would be appropriate.

 

[RamFan503]

Then I'm all for it, if they want to lump it in with the nutritional facts then that's cool. I just hope it's not just a simple "contains GMO's" but rather a "Genetically modified to add X and X so it's does X" so people know exactly what it is.

I like that idea. Of course they'd have to word it so that it doesn't make claims they can't prove. But something that explains the modified item(s) and their purported purpose?

 

[Mackeyser]

I agree that the term GMO is too broad.

Cross pollination occurs in nature and doesn't need to happen on the DNA level. The plants work out if compatibility is sustainable.

Where I have an issue is putting toxic substances like Roundup into crops via viral manipulation of the DNA. We just don't know the long term hazards of DNA manipulation.

Secondly, there are sustainable answers that Agribusiness simply doesn't want to listen to. Rather than embrace biodiversity, they actually WANT monocrops or as close to it as possible which couldn't be worse for farmers, big and small. Ask French grape farmers in the 1850s-1870s... the aphid wiped out their crops and they had to "reconstitute" using the CA grape. Without it, we wouldn't have French wine.

Lastly, Monsanto has abused the legal process and been careless with their seeds. Seems they want their seeds to scatter to the winds... And if any of their patented DNA ends up in another seed, even part, they swoop in and not only confiscate all of that Farmer's seed stock, but because Monsanto in several instances is the ONLY seed vendor, that farmer now must buy his seeds from the very company that hijacked the farmer's field in the first place.

And they didn't need to use anything more than the wind and a complete lack of a moral compass.

My ears always perk when someone makes the argument for why they should HAVE to keep a secret. Rarely, short of state secrets, Christmas presents or Wedding proposals are there good reasons for secrets. And corporations? If they want to protect their trade secrets as they should be allowed, they should have to bear the responsibility for containment.

I LIKE knowing that the milk my family drinks has no rBST. I mean, the meat in most fast food does and so we don't eat fast food. As a result, my daughters didn't enter puberty early, like SO MANY of their classmates. Some were very far along as young as 8 years old. That used to be extremely rare, but a recent book talked about on NPR pointed to the fact that early puberty rates used to be 5%. Now it's around 18%. And adjusting for income levels, it got worse the farther down the ladder one went.

So, I have a real problem with Agri-business in this country that only wants to improve year over year and quarter to quarter and doesn't really care if the product they sell is quality or kills us. There are ways to make quality products that are attractive. Heck, the numbers bear that out. When people climb the economic ladder, they avail themselves of those opportunities to eat better...because they CAN.

What I find problematic is that there are tremendous economic opportunities being left in the market place because of entrenched bias against poor people. There are folks who truly believe that poor people shouldn't be ABLE to eat well as if that doesn't cost us all at some point.

I tend to take a more organic approach to problem solving. People have to make better choices. That's for certain. And when they don't, it's on them. That said, in many situations, there's just a dearth of choices and that's not okay, either.

Like so many issues, GMO labeling is just a part of a much larger "how we feed ourselves as a nation" issue. It's endemic of how Agri-business is clear that they want to make as much profit as possible and take the risk. If they lose ALL of the alfalfa seed (which would kill the beef industry in this country in about a minute), what are they going to say? Ooops?

Heck, the reason the Human Genome Project had to be finished by donations was that all the big sponsors found out that they couldn't patent human DNA and they pulled out. Any cures could be replicated in other countries, for maybe pennies a dose and they couldn't sue. So F curing cancer, Alzheimer's, ALS or the hundreds of other genetic disorders. But animal DNA CAN be patented which is why every strand of every DNA of just about every animal on the planet is patented or folks are racing TO patent it.

I don't need an 8 page label on every can of soup, but labeling is important. Ask anyone with allergies or someone like me who gets sick from MSG.

A free market is one where the buyers and sellers have low barriers to entry and both have full understanding of the transaction prior to completion and there is no coercion on either part to engage in commerce.

I don't understand why these corporations are so danged opposed to a free and open market...

 

[Mackeyser]

Like they do for nuts? Not that I'm calling you one. Seriously though, talk about one with very little science behind it. Yeah - some are allergic to nuts. Should we put up signage at all gardens that they may contain bees? Peanuts were offered on virtually every flight for 50 years and I NEVER recall hearing a word about someone dying because of it.

And all that aside, I still agree with you. Some simple wording would be appropriate.

Well, the explosion of allergies that lead to anaphylactic shock is a rather recent phenomenon. So, of course, you wouldn't have seen it 30 or more years ago.

If we had pure science being done in our universities, we might be able to get to the bottom of it, but something like 97% of research done now is "sponsored" at universities in conjunction with corporate sponsors. It's why we lag in space science, food science, material science... every lab science...

My kids have gone to school with a kid who had to carry an Epipen for peanut allergies. Let's just say that we had to handle the lunch bags carefully. It's a real thing. I felt bad for the kid and his parents. In a different school district, they may have insisted he just be home-schooled.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't understand why these corporations are so danged opposed to a free and open market...

I do and some of it is good and some of it is bad. But it is the nature of things. That is why I am not totally anti-government.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Yeah - the whole expensive labeling thing is bullcrap - especially if the requirement was on a national scale. Having each state come up with their own wording and rules could potentially be expensive.

Unfortunately for many restaurants and the poorer people who can't afford to go the local farm and organic route, they generally have no choice in the matter. They can't decide to go organic or local so it puts the restaurant in a bind and if there are adverse health effects, it just makes the unhealthiest of the population that much less healthy because they are the ones who can't afford the healthier foods. I wish I could agree that it's a matter of choice. It really isn't for many people.

I understand that many people and scientists say that there are no health risks with GMO foods. Maybe I'm being paranoid and I definitely haven't done enough research to really know. But I really don't like them screwing with our foods or the feeds for our animals like this.

So yeah - I'd like to know so that I could make a choice. But I would rather they simply quit modifying our food on such a basic level.

On a reach here but they are working on modifying foods that will lessen obesity and some other ailments of society. What is the next thing about you they will want to modify for your own good? :eek: Sounds like a movie script.

Wasn't long ago that saccharine was better for you than sugar.
It's hard to get a real gauge on government intentions. Anything that passes usually has a dollar figure attached to it.
Hell. I would be happy if I could get a tomato at the store that actually tasted like a tomato.

 

[RamFan503]

Well, the explosion of allergies that lead to anaphylactic shock is a rather recent phenomenon. So, of course, you wouldn't have seen it 30 or more years ago.

Here again is an example lacking empirical evidence. While most would agree that there is an increase in allergies in general, it is not really an explosion by any means. But that might be just interpretation. The one thing that really lends to the topic at hand though is that most increases in allergic reactions are food based. Just as the rise in things like MS, autism, and several other illnesses corresponded extremely close to the increased use of Aspartame, so many claim this new allergy problem coincided with the increase in use of genetically modified foods. Coincidence? I don't think so. And that alone is enough for me to want to know that genetically modified ingredients are in my foods. Aspartame is an approved poison that turns to formaldehyde in your body. I for one am damn glad they identify it in the ingredients list. I look for it and don't ingest it.

 

[Mackeyser]

Well, I totally agree with you on that.

And... it's why the FDA should be sponsoring pure science at Ag colleges rather than taking corporate sponsored science as gospel.

The lack of empirical evidence is more a function of a lack of research opportunities than the lack of truth on the subject... kinda like a politician buying all of the air time. If corporations buy all of the research time, then come back and say "there's no research that goes against our research", well that's pretty disingenuous and they know it.

If I sweeten, I tend to use Truvia (stevia), honey or sugar. The body knows what to do with that and it's natural. Oh, and sugar is brain food... in that the brain can only process carbohydrates. It's why marathon runners started carboloading... they'd eat a big pasta meal the night before the race and it turns out the liver would store a bit of extra of those carbs to extend the time before the runner would "hit the wall".

Better training, including eating and hydrating and recovery regimens have pretty much obviated the need for that and it puts the athlete in a water imbalance which isn't desirable.

But, yeah. As someone who has migraines on a daily basis... mostly at night... even a little aspartame will jack me up... badly.

What sucks is...try finding a breath freshening gum WITHOUT aspartame... I went to my local Raceway gas station and to the Walgreens and couldn't find ONE.

 

[RamFan503]

What sucks is...try finding a breath freshening gum WITHOUT aspartame... I went to my local Raceway gas station and to the Walgreens and couldn't find ONE.

We sell an aspartame free gum at our restaurant called Pur but it isn't readily available. Almost all gum now contains that shit. If you remember when they started making claims of long lasting flavor, that is when they started using it. Unfortunately, gum without aspartame does lose its flavor quickly but it beats chewing on poison. A few like Fruit Stripe are out there but still pretty few and far between.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Well, the explosion of allergies that lead to anaphylactic shock is a rather recent phenomenon. So, of course, you wouldn't have seen it 30 or more years ago.

If we had pure science being done in our universities, we might be able to get to the bottom of it, but something like 97% of research done now is "sponsored" at universities in conjunction with corporate sponsors. It's why we lag in space science, food science, material science... every lab science...

My kids have gone to school with a kid who had to carry an Epipen for peanut allergies. Let's just say that we had to handle the lunch bags carefully. It's a real thing. I felt bad for the kid and his parents. In a different school district, they may have insisted he just be home-schooled.

Government doesn't want to sponsor real good science, congress wants to cut even more funding, the scientific committee is a bunch of people who don't believe in science, it's pretty lame to be honest. I'm working on research projects, but since I'm the low graduate student they send me to do a lot of the ass kissing for grants. A lot of sponsors want far more than is capable and when I can't promise them I'll get them a new planet that they can claim as their own filled with potential life in 3 years they don't want to hear it anymore. It blows whale dong, straight up. There's very few in it for the science and discoveries, most just want something they can make more money on. When I read about the GOP wanting to slash funding for space research so private companies can do it instead I want to throttle them.

 

[fearsomefour]

Good topic and good discussion.
As usual it seems to be about definitions. Lobbyists are writing the proposed laws it sounds like, nothing new there, but, also nothing good.
Science should be separate from corporate money and political agenda....the way business is done in Washington now I hold almost no hope for this. At some point if I get back a place with a better climate I would like to grow a lot of my own greens. I usually shop farmer markets now from local farmers....they all swear organic, whatever that means at this point. Are they using modified seeds? Who knows.
I like the idea of the information being there and let the consumer decided....but, back to how it is to be defined.

 

[fearsomefour]

We sell an aspartame free gum at our restaurant called Pur but it isn't readily available. Almost all gum now contains that crap. If you remember when they started making claims of long lasting flavor, that is when they started using it. Unfortunately, gum without aspartame does lose its flavor quickly but it beats chewing on poison. A few like Fruit Stripe are out there but still pretty few and far between.

RamFan....is your place an "organic" place?
I have been to plenty of places that claim this, just wondering how that would be defined by a restaurant owner.

 

[RamFan503]

RamFan....is your place an "organic" place?
I have been to plenty of places that claim this, just wondering how that would be defined by a restaurant owner.

Not hardly. We try to source locally whenever we can but there is not much available here that works for a BBQ restaurant. We do, however, try to keep from poisoning people. So you won't find any products containing things like aspartame in our restaurant or pub.

The whole natural/organic thing is severely abused IMO. I like to eat organic veggies hoping that honesty is the policy of the supplier. But the whole natural thing is a bunch of BS. What is natural? HFCS is natural. So I don't really pay much attention to those kinds of labels. I hope I have some assurance when something is "certified organic" but even then I'm not 100% sure of anything. We offer an organic vegan burger. That's about as organic as our place gets. But we try to do things with health in mind. We don't use additives, our rubs and sauces are made mostly with base ingredients, we use rice bran oil to fry our hand cut fries, we grind our own burgers, stuff like that.

I don't subscribe to the thought that science should be separate from corporate money and I'm going to guess you don't mean all science. I would agree though that the science responsible for making the ultimate decision on what is a health risk needs to be at minimum independent of the products they are testing and should have a mechanism that puts them somehow out of reach of politicians that want to tell them how to conduct testing and what to look for.

 

[fearsomefour]

Not hardly. We try to source locally whenever we can but there is not much available here that works for a BBQ restaurant. We do, however, try to keep from poisoning people. So you won't find any products containing things like aspartame in our restaurant or pub.

The whole natural/organic thing is severely abused IMO. I like to eat organic veggies hoping that honesty is the policy of the supplier. But the whole natural thing is a bunch of BS. What is natural? HFCS is natural. So I don't really pay much attention to those kinds of labels. I hope I have some assurance when something is "certified organic" but even then I'm not 100% sure of anything. We offer an organic vegan burger. That's about as organic as our place gets. But we try to do things with health in mind. We don't use additives, our rubs and sauces are made mostly with base ingredients, we use rice bran oil to fry our hand cut fries, we grind our own burgers, stuff like that.

I don't subscribe to the thought that science should be separate from corporate money and I'm going to guess you don't mean all science. I would agree though that the science responsible for making the ultimate decision on what is a health risk needs to be at minimum independent of the products they are testing and should have a mechanism that puts them somehow out of reach of politicians that want to tell them how to conduct testing and what to look for.

Yeah exactly. Just don't want a direct conflict of interest.
I agree the "natural/organic" thing is a bit of a joke at this point. Just curious as to your take dealing with this stuff.
As for aspartame I believe it be addictive. Many people including have a terribly hard time quitting diet soda....harder than hell.
That stuff getting a green light with limited or non existent testing (as far as I understand) is an example of corporate interests overriding public health, just my opinion.

 

[ChrisW]

Have you read (or heard) about this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-bell/haitian-farmers-commit-to_b_578807.html

There are also a lot of Countries that prohibit GMO foods because there isn't enough information to determine if it is or isn't safe for consumers.

Right, but they were quick to regulate electronic cigs.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Almost everything we eat is made of corn. Have you seen Food, inc.?

 

[-X-]

Almost everything we eat is made of corn. Have you seen Food, inc.?

Corn isn't even made of corn anymore.

It's like @Mackeyser said. The core issue isn't about the safety of GMOs in as much as it's about Corporatocracy forcing us into a monoculture society. It's pretty messed up when a Corporation can create a need, dominate it through patent law, and then corner the market on it at the expense of an agroecologically based farming system. All the while, throwing a few duckets at a Senator or two to advance their agendas without opposition.

Yay corporations! :cheers:

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Corn isn't even made of corn anymore.

It's like @Mackeyser said. The core issue isn't about the safety of GMOs in as much as it's about Corporatocracy forcing us into a monoculture society. It's pretty messed up when a Corporation can create a need, dominate it through patent law, and then corner the market on it at the expense of an agroecologically based farming system. All the while, throwing a few duckets at a Senator or two to advance their agendas without opposition.

Yay corporations! :cheers:

Lol so true

 

[RamFan503]

Corn isn't even made of corn anymore.

All the while, throwing a few duckets at a Senator or two to advance their agendas without opposition.

???

View: http://youtu.be/km0_vOE_2XE