are pushing the line that there is.

Vaccines are thoroughly tested under the direction of the FDA before they are released. GMO's, since 1992, are considered safe by default, unless proven otherwise.

And major GMO's that might not be toxic in themselves allow for the heavy use of pesticides like Roundup, which has been labeled a probable carcinogen.

are pro-vaccine AND want labeling of GMO's.

But for those who are the most vocal and are pouring cash and influence into the effort, the connections aren't that hard to find.

so statistically anti-vaxxers = pro-GMOers. Both making up less than 7%.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, no matter how true believers might try to spin the numbers.

i want the right to know what i am buying.

Why must manufacturers be forced to damage their sales simply to maintain your right to make decisions based on ignorance and fear?

2. people have a right to know what they are buying. if that results in a company losing sales, then they should sell something more people want to buy.

remember the oprah beef case? the ranchers tried to stifle her free speech and lost, and so will the gmo.s. ....companies are not allowed to withhold information about their products because of THEIR fear that people making an informed choice will choose something else. it is called the free market in a democracy. they are free to sell other products.

Free speech also means you can't be compelled to say something you don't want to say.

if they are afraid of people knowing that, then i invite them to reconsider their frankenfood.

People have the option to know what is in their foods - Still doesn't seem to stop them from buying foods laced with artificial ingredients. Labeling is a placebo since the majority of people don't bother reading what's in their food. The solution is to get them to start reading the labels currently on it, not to give them another label to ignore.

Here's the funny thing that proves my point - People still buy unlabeled foods, despite organic labeled foods existing. If people were so intrested in whats in their food, you'd think they would buy the stuff that is actually labeled.

Still, if you can come up with a way to get consumers to read the labels, if you can come up with a way to make consumers intrested on educating themselves on what foods they eat, then I'd support labeling. But as it is, labeling as currently pushed is a placebo and I can't support such.

Still though, there are issues with organic labeling - Mainly that a number of things labeled as organic aren't completely organic like people are being tricked into believing.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/22/organic-food-eden

but it should be there for those of us who do want the info

...Just be sure to research the items first to be sure that it's really 'organic' since a lot of companies throw that label around on foods that are not wholly organic.

doesn't mean we don't try.

but yes everyone wants to jump on the "organic, humanely raised, etc" bandwagon

all the more reason we need those labels

When they aren't actually organic?

Seems odd to support labeling saying it informs consumers about what they are eating, but then admitting that the labeling can sometimes be incorrect.

Seems we are back to my original point, really - Consumers needing to research things for themselves, instead of falling for the labeling placebo.

I noticed it in the restaurants when they added the approx calories on food, the prices went up. I could care less cuz I can afford what ever they end up charging me. Heck I am exclusively Publix, but the increase in food cost will hurt a lot of working class. Many complain about the price increase the past few years already. Shoppers haven't seen anything yet.

the right to now what we are being exposed to via food, and monsanto wanting to overtake all global food production for profit.

i am in favor of total transparency in regards to food production. there's not much that is more important than what we put into our bodies on a daily basis.

Monsanto may be a corporate problem, but it's nowhere near as big as many other corporations. Also, it makes all types of seeds, including organic. The anti-GMO movement has worked to make it synonymous with GMOs, but that's simply not honest.

Knowing the seed development technology tells you nothing about the food in question. No other seed development technology is labeled, including Mutation Bred Organisms. The reality is that organic companies and the "non-GMO" followers have simply used GMO as a fear mongering point to market their foods and sell them at higher prices. We have choses to get angry at the wrong people on the GMO issue. It's really time to turn the tables if we are progressives who care about science, good information, food security, and the environment.

This covers some of the reasons labeling is not based in sound science.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/

A piece that covers mutation breeding.
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/atomic_gardening_ultimate_frankenfoods-91836

And a good piece that covers some of the issues with the anti-GMO movement.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmos-and-making-up-your-own-science/

This report will do nothing to shake their entrenched mythology.


Still, K&R!

GMO crops are designed to sprayed with pesticides. The consumer wants labels.

Keep insulting 93% of the population -- it's working really well.

The consumer wants labels for reasons that frankly boil down to bullshit.

If the consumer wants to require manufactures to label their products in a way that is 100% guaranteed to damage sales, then the consumer needs to provide more compelling justification than "I don't understand science."

One of the farther right voices at Slate. The starting right fielder is, of course, Mickey Kaus.

And, do you have an eidetic memory or something?!

Saletan shifts back and forth through different arguments without batting an eye. He switches between genetically modified organisms to genetic engineering, as though the two concepts are interchangeable, then scores the folks who raise concerns about GMOs for failing to appreciate those differences.

My concern, as it has been since this became a thing, is that Monsanto is a wholly untrustworthy entity. If a Monsanto representative told me the sun was coming up in the east, I'd be sure to look out the window before I drew any conclusion. Saletan's laundry list of health organizations don't say that long-term consumption of GMOs is safe, rather that there "no good evidence that they're unsafe." For those of us who remember the public relations machinations of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, there's a gap between the two concepts wide enough to drive through a generation of smokers dead from lung cancer. And while Saletan claims to have spent considerable time "digging into the evidence," he's pretty close-mouthed as to what that evidence is that he's dug into, as well as failing to identify the allegedly plentiful "errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations and lies." He's also noticeably short on any detail of Monsanto's corporate misconduct that has earned the company its dubious reputation.

I feel we're now at the point with GMO food that we were with tobacco-lung cancer "controversy" in 1965, the year after the Surgeon General's report. At that time, tobacco companies leaned heavily on the fact that there were millions of smokers in the country, but only thousands of deaths annually from lung cancer (a cause of death virtually unheard-of prior to the 20th Century). As the death rate climbed, however, Big Tobacco neatly pivoted to the question of whether all this lung cancer was actually "caused" by cigarette smoking. While they carefully guarded the chemicals involved in their curing processes as trade secrets, tobacco companies blamed everything except cigarettes for the fact that so many American smokers kept dropping dead. The profits were too good to let the industry go without a major fight.

Similarly, I'm not inclined to listen to the protestations of Monsanto against labeling. These exact same arguments were used in the late 1960s before warning labels were put on cigarettes. That didn't turn out very well for the public health. I would say it's too soon to say whether long-term consumption of GMO food is a net public health plus or minus, but you can bet on the fact that if it's a net minus, Monsanto will be fighting all the way down to keep their cash flow going.

The logic of Paschal's Wager mitigates against trusting Monsanto with the keys to our food supply.

Huge trend, Billions of dollars spent elsewhere and Big Food is desperate to find its footing in the new world of social media and transparency. The old school boardroom guys want to just keep changing the package and the message but not the product. And the results have been terrible -- the title of this article says there is a "War on Big Food" but IMHO the truth is closer to 'the consumer is slowly and peacefully walking away.' Really interesting and dense with info:

(in a nutshell for those who don't click links):

But Big Food is behind most of the 'organic' food out there, and probably trying to buy out as many of the smaller players as they can.

Companies pay to have their products labelled as "all natural" and people pay to buy them. Why don't the companies selling GMO products jump at the chance to label their products "Contains GMO"?

Why should manufacturers be required to damage their sales simply because of other people's ignorance and fear?

It likely WOULD impact market share, since if given a choice, consumers prefer non-GMO over GMO.

...if that were true?

Do you think that would have zero impact on sales?

Organics can label themselves "non-GMO". Simple.

Just thought I'd point that out. I'm sure you know.

but if the cow shit was from cows that were given antibiotics or hormones, i might want to know. they are likely to be unhealthier and have disease which could end up on the crops.

Or, it is not ignorance and fear but merely distaste for corporations and the results of corporate power.

Isn't it up to the companies to educate the buyers about the supposed benefits of their product? The "natural foods" industry seems to have no problem doing so and welcome the labeling of their products as "natural".

My heart bleeds for Monsanto.

Not enough money for advertising? Not enough money for labels? Not enough ideas from the "smart" scientists?

And, why do you insist that consumers are ignorant and fearful? Why not test your proposition by letting them decide what they eat?

Are you saying that Monsanto, et al, won't make a profit or aren't profitable like the Natural Foods industry?

You said:

GMO corporations must brand their products in a way that's guaranteed to damage sales for no good reason at all.

Are we supposed to give a flying fuck about corporate profits? If other companies can't make a profit and fold because of poor advertising are we supposed to give a rip because they can't compete?

If they won't sell because of what's in them, beneficial or not, that's their problem not the consumers. If they fear losing profits because they're adding no-sale items in their products the logical solution would be to take them out and advertise "No GMOs" on the label.

You're claiming the right to compel corporations to damage their sales for no reason other than the ignorance and fear of ill-informed consumers. No one is requiring you to care abput corporate profits, but you simply don't have the right to force them to hurt those profits simply because you say so.

One other point I did not see made is that the increase in concentration of gmo crops reduces, biodiversity, which I see as a bad thing.

In any case, given that there are enough unanswered questions about gmo foods (presumed safe does not necessarily mean safety in fact), I see nothing wrong with consumers wanting the labels.

Consers have no right to dand that manufacturers label their products, however.

You may think they are misguided or stupid, but that is their right.

--imm

I'dhave thought you knew better. I'd have been wrong.

In fact, I do not support a fear-mongering agenda that preys upon ignorance and misinformation.

Why do you wish to foster ignorance? I'd have thought ypu knew better.

You wish to protect corporate profits by preventing consumers from knowing what their food is made of. You're the person who said this. You're also the person who then immediately denied saying it. Which of your opposite statements should I take as your actual opinion?

I couldn't care less about corporate profits. I benefit from them not at all.

However, the notion that an entity should be coerced into involuntary action due to others' ignorance and fear is abhorrent to me.

It is not relevant that, in this discussion, the "involuntary action" is the damaging of profits. I would argue the same point if someone's ignorance and fear were coercing you into involuntary action.

This is not a point of argument; I'm flatly stating the truth, and there's no room for margin, no room for your interpretation that I'm lying. If you wish to have a reputation as a vanguard of science, you're going to need to start making rational and defensible statements that aren't completely at odds with one another. Corporate-friendly paternalism and categorical statements that are diametrically opposite do not a scientist make. Logic is one of the foundations of science--use it or lose it.

Hmm.

who want to know.

meh.

Added ingredients on the side of the package aren't available for an apple or an ear of corn. As it is, I can't eat ocean fish and other seafood, and have to be careful of the country of origin of anything edible because of increased potential chemical or biological cross-contamination or additives through carelessness in handling.

I understand there's a difference between genetic modification of the produce and "gene splicing" or the addition of outside genetic material in produce. I don't have any problem with modifying internal genes through pollination or breeding but...

The facts for me comes down to this:
Why can I eat corn or corn products I grow myself from seed from a seed bank or purchased corn products that are certified non-GMO - and where I know where the product is sourced, but I can't eat the corn or corn products that are more commonly found at the local grocery store or in restaurants without serious physical issues that linger for days?

Even if there is a "Non-GMO" label on the corn product, I have found that depending on the corporation that processes the product, I often cannot eat corn or products made with corn without paying the physical price. While it doesn't kill me, why should I be put in the position that I'm in so much pain and distress that I miss work - or am forced into a position where in many cases, I am forced to cook or prepare my own food, but I'm going to have to grow it too if I don't want to experience three or four episodes a year because I can't risk that the formerly organic grower bought out by Kraft foods or Nestle or some other conglomerate decides costs need to be cut.

And I'm not the only person who has issues that are exacerbated by chemical or genetic additives.

I do understand the scientific studies and the issue of hysteria. I also understand I'm probably among the 1 or 2% outliers of the population that actually has an adverse reaction to certain chemicals or genetic modifications that can be present in food or food production.

Just one of those people who "experience side effects". Just as there are a few people who can't handle vaccinations.
That's why I would prefer - if, kind sir, it's not too much trouble to corporations and their bottom lines - if GMO food products are labeled.

It's not hysteria, it's just that I would like to be able to continue to be able to work after having a very tasty Korean fusion Taco at the gourmet food truck when it visits the job site every Thursday, and not spend the next 26 - 60 hours figuratively contemplating whether death would be preferable while I'm attempting to remain hydrated because they ran short on the normal locally made organic tortillas and picked up a couple dozen packs of generics at the local Sysco restaurant supplier on the way over.

Which happened to me last year.

Haele

GMO products are required to be tested for common allergens. Non-GMO is not.

allergenic than the other.

A new varietal produced by hybridization or any other non-transgenic method can and usually does contain proteins that are not present in any of the species used to create it. These new proteins can and sometimes do produce allergic and even toxic reactions in humans. While this is also true for varietals produced by transgenic methods, the difference is those varietals are required by the government to be tested for such things before they are ever approved for human consumption. To date, no GMO approved for human consumption has been found to have any new human allergen.

The other thing is there's plenty of data on both.

http://www.allergenonline.org/databasebrowse.shtml

Which pretty much destroys your maxim.

Not 'my' maxim btw -- Mad props to Aristotle for that one.

...when one is tested and rejected if it does and the other is not.

in fact, gmo products are being considered as a possible reason for MORE allergies


http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/Genetically-Modified-Foods-Toxins-and-Reproductive-Failures-July-2007

Jeffrey Smith is a woo nutbag of the first order.

One of his funniest endeavors was Yogic Flying as a member of the Maharishi cult which if you look it up is guaranteed to generate the biggest belly laugh from anyone this side of the twilight zone.

He also claimed Monsanto is involved in a conspiracy to produce chemicals used for chemtrails.

Thanks for the link. That guy is hilarious.

perhaps you prefer these

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25128445

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23471542

the best we can say is it is under study.

and we still have a right to know what we are buying

You have a right to know what you are buying. You don't have a right to know how it's produced.

especially since gmo crops could have unknown problems related to food allergies, etc. if they are so damn proud of it they should stamp their stuff with pride.

if not, then i guess there is a good reason people are wary.

Because I can't find it and I've read the food code pretty extensively.

it's pretty basic.

but it really isn't a problem. because the non adulterated food makers are free to tell us that their stuff is not gmo and we can buy that.

so even if they "win" on labeling, they will lose $

I agreed you have the right to know what's in your food.

I don't agree you have the right to know how it's produced.

It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

and genetically modified corn.

same but different

There's also white corn, yellow corn, bicolor corn, and multi-color corn, and within each of those there's all sorts of varietals.

All of which are the same species just like GMO corn.

Same, but different, except for content labeling which is just...corn.

you are not gonna change your mind and neither am i.


happy eating

I'm all for the status quo. It should be up to those who want to change that to present some sort of rational argument.

And the 8 "common allergens" (which doesn't include gluten, even though it's more common than some of the items on the list), ARE required to be labeled on all foods, not just GMO.

Aided by many of the same scientists who shill for Big Tobacco.

What do you think the AMA's financial motives were?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/gmo-labeling-ama-american-medical-association_n_1616716.html

with their position that there should be mandatory premarket testing with the FDA.

"Instead, the organization went on to recommend mandatory pre-market safety testing with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for any modified food."

If they are convinced pre-market testing insures a product that is safer than the alternative, why would they support labeling? They were also quite clear about why they didn't support labeling to begin with.

they should at least support labeling.

The FDA reviews all safety assessments of GMOs and if foreign proteins are introduced that have a potential for allergic or toxic affect, the FDA applies even more stringent requirements. It's pretty hard to create a safety assessment without testing. The USDA has their own requirements which are mandatory. The level of testing and scrutiny is higher than non-GMO, which has an even greater potential to introduce allergens and toxins due to an even greater extent of the genome which is being modified.

From the article YOU just posted:

But as far as pre-market testing goes, making it mandatory changes nothing as far as what is actually happening. Every single GMO producer does consult with the FDA because it would be stupid not do so. They already have mandatory requirements with the USDA.

and withhold whatever they want.

That needs to change.

Considering the USDA testing IS mandatory

because it is also charged with promoting the biotechnology industry.

From the American Bar Association

http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html

FDA Oversight

The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the “coordinated framework” of federal agencies that also includes the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).16 This framework, which has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign,17 is available online18 and contains a searchable database that covers “genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews.”19 The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23

The FDA approach can be understood as the result of having a dual mission. In addition to its mission to protect food safety, the FDA was charged with promotion of the biotech industry.24

Health Concerns Continue

However, some studies have called to question the safety of these foods. The chemical herbicides applied are poisons engineered specifically for the purpose of killing plant life, and their use is increasing.25 Crops which result from genetic modifications, resistant to the chemicals, are classified as safe with no long term studies available to provide an evidence base.26 The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (“AAEM”) released a position paper calling for a moratorium on GM foods pending independent long term studies to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.27 The authors asserted that “there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.”28 The paper also cited numerous animal studies showing adverse effects and posited that the biological plausibility, as defined by Hill’s criteria, in light of this data is that adverse health effects are also caused in humans.29 A 2011 study found maternal/fetal exposure associated with GM crops in Quebec.30 A well publicized study,31 sharply criticized by industry32 found that rats fed GM corn developed tumors and organ damage.33 Moreover, new questions continue to emerge.34 The nature of these concerns have manifested in repeated calls for new food labeling regulations containing GM ingredients.35 However, the FDA has expressed no interest in revisiting its policy. Moreover, a 2002 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office and referred to as “GAO”)) asserted that it is not feasible to assess long term effects of GMOs because it is so difficult to assemble a control group without labels on GM food.36

My issues are from years working shipyards and being around an assortment of very toxic chemicals. It's more of a case of poisoning, and I haven't been able to get it out of my system for ten years now.
The only "common" allergen I have is seasonal stuffy nose, and an allergy to shellfish. After that, it's "how much does my food carry heavy metals, enzymes, and acids hat will mess with my body chemistry..."

As for your comment, "Non-GMO" food already has recognized allergens that have been linked to them, barring the spraying and potential environmental factors in which they were grown.

Again, I've got no issues with tweaking the genome by through breeding, pollination, and common grafting/physical hybridizing processes that aren't chemically induced, but heck, even situations such as produce that has been grown around contaminated soil (the method by which e-coli often enters our food at the grocery stores), or forcing genetic coding that creates a "natural" pyrethrum-similar bug repellent capability in the food plant (which is commonly done with corn that is edible) causes issues in my system.
I can always wash off most of the effects of field spraying. I can't wash off an induced genetic chemical to make that plant "round-up ready".

I'm not common, but I'm also not that unique a case. So again.
I would prefer that GMO products are labeled GMO. I can always check the produce information at the stores to winnow out potential soil localization effects that may occur, but because I want to lower the risk of discomfort due to a reaction to something I wouldn't normally expect in that particular bit of produce.

Haele

They alter far more genes, and we don't know which ones. The fear mongering about allergies regarding GMOs is just ugly, unethical anti-GMO/pro-organic nonsense.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

For 'safer', I grow a lot of my own in my garden.

I'm looking to put poison-monger Monsanto out of business. It's a long road.

WHO position on GMO

politifacts for all this.

People don't have the time or energy to research all these issues on their own. We need a third party financially independent organization to sort out all this crap.

should keep acting like they have something to hide, and continue pouring cash into the anti-labeling effort.

If GMO's are NOT harmful, then producers should freely allow their seeds to be used by independent researchers. Instead, they pay scientists to conduct research, and then only publish the studies they wish the public to see.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/08/paul_ryan_for_vice_president_he_s_the_fiscal_conservative_a_republican_should_be_.html

Ryan is a real fiscal conservative. He isn’t just another Tea-Party ideologue spouting dogma about less government and the magic of free enterprise. He has actually crunched the numbers and laid out long-term budget proposals. My liberal friends point out that Ryan’s plan leaves many details unclear. That’s true. But show me another Republican who has addressed the nation’s fiscal problems as candidly and precisely as Ryan has. He’s got the least detailed budget proposal out there, except for all the others.

Ryan refutes the Democratic Party’s bogus arguments. He knows that our domestic spending trajectory is unsustainable and that liberals who fail to get it under control are leading their constituents over a cliff, just like in Europe. Eventually, you can’t borrow enough money to make good on your promises, and everyone’s screwed. Ryan understands that the longer we ignore the debt crisis and postpone serious budget cuts—the liberal equivalent of denying global warming—the more painful the reckoning will be. There’s nothing compassionate about that kind of irresponsibility.

Maybe, like me, you were raised in a liberal household. You don’t agree with conservative ideas on social or foreign policy. But this is why God made Republicans: to force a reality check when Democrats overpromise and overspend.

since he had made an anti-GMO video. Here's the new one:

for people's health, why are the people behind the development of these foods also eating them?

You would be hard pressed to find any non-GMO processed food in the United States. I doubt that the CEO of Monsanto, or the researchers, lab techs, etc. only eat all organic, all the time. Same goes for the FDA regulating them, politicians and other powerful people. If GMOs are literal poison that are so much worse than non-GMO food, then you would think we would have, first off, more and better studies on these negative effects, and an Anti-GMO movement that isn't almost solely composed of anti-science nutbags and those who fell for their rhetoric.

I know it's uncommon, but it's possible. For example, I wouldn't find labeling to be such a bad idea, but the anti-GMO movement is mostly bunk and hysteria generated from unqualified bloggers. Suddenly everyone is an expert. Somehow I don't think Alex Jones is qualified to talk about the safety of GMOs.

I have more to learn about GMOs. Also, being for or against GMOs is ridiculous, as if there's only one way of genetically engineering food. Most of these know-it-alls never actually read any GMO research - they trust people who think that they're GMO "experts." Remember, everybody on the internet is an expert.

really need to keep their filthy money out of my choice of what I eat.

But you know what? Inserting the human insulin gene is not all they do to the little critters. They also slice out genes for the synthesis of a half a dozen critical metabolites so that they cannot survive outside of a nutrient bath that must be constantly replenished with those nutrients.

Those who think that GMOs are harmless to the environment are invited to explain why they go to all this trouble.

Thank you for sharing.