"In corporations I trust" is not my personal motto.

if you wish to place your trust in them, feel free to do so.

So long as it isn't misleading, manufacturers should be able to slap on whatever label they like. The problem is when one group of "corporations" are driving the forced use of government regulation which has zero to do with the public's interest and everything to do with increasing market share.

Unlabeled items leave citizens uninformed.

Neither do you know if that "organic" piece of produce was created by bombarding seeds with gamma radiation in order to produce completely random genetic mutations, yet the anti-GMO crowd seems to sleep OK at night content in that ignorance. Very telling that.

Notifying me that corporate scientists have genetically modified what I am about to eat IS useful information.

I can then research the details on how that specific food is altered and what the implications are.

of the modifications to every conceivable GMO that could exist in the future.

I just want to know. Blind fath isn't my thing.

that all current and future GMO's are completely safe.

then I would back off on labeling.

Because varietals produced by non-GMO methods will never be able to meet that standard. In fact, no food ever produced by man or naturally occurring could ever meet that standard.

The question isn't whether GMOs can ever offer "irrefutable proof" of complete safety. The only rational question is whether they are as safe or safer than any alternative, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.

I'm in favor of accurate labeling of ALL food.

Think of a GMO label as a feature, not a bug.

Unlike GMO, that method actually manages to sicken and kill people with predictable regularity. At least in that instance there's something of a rational basis.

...this is your last response to actual content. Not that you have offered any content to actual content.

Yes, you should be very embarrassed, and only because you haven't been honest.

When I'm wrong, I admit it. And I say so.

Why is it that anti-GMOers refuse to do the same?

I support accurate labeling of GMO's.

I don't trust the giant corporations who produce them, and I dislike other things that these same corporations do that have nothing to do with GMO's, and
those things add to my suspicions of them. So forgive me if I don't want to add to their bottom line.


If I am buying food, I have the right to that information. I have the right to decide what I consume and who I buy it from.

Who do you think you are anyway, questioning my honesty?

You do not care about care about any of what you claim to care about. That has been made very clear.

You want something but you don't know even know why.

FFS. How f'd up is that?

FFS. How f'd up is that?

How ffd is it that you have yet to respond to the content of those who have shown your anti-GMO nonsense to be destructive to all humans?

You oppose labeling. You don't want me to have that information.

You don't know why you want labels. You don't care about honest labeling. You really don't care period. You just want a baseless label.

That's pretty f-d up.

I don't need to make a case for accurate labeling of food.
I hold that truth to be self evident.

you throw links and an abundance of ridicule at me, but not much more.

Some scientists do believe that GMO's are potentially dangerous.
Are you smarter than they are?

If nearly 90 percent of Americans want mandatory labeling on products fertilized with cow shit, then we should have that right.

But, that's not what they are asking.

Nearly 90 percent of Americans... Who's country is this?

It would ban the labeling of GMOs in our food supply.

That name is as Orwellian as any bill I've ever seen.

What are they?

your religious faith tells you that all current and future GMO's are safe.....and that there is no need for me to bother my pretty little head about this issue.....I must be crazy to even want that knowledge.

My position is that I would prefer to know if it is a GMO.

And you also make a baseless assertion that my decision to follow the science is based in "religion."

Your response explains a lot, as I think you know that there is nothing more dangerous about a GE bred plant than any other kind of plant, although GE plants are more predictable and tested far more, interestingly enough. You have no justification for a mandatory label. It is a preference for you, and that is not something that should be addressed via legal means.

The resistance to GMO labeling is about money, not science.

Organic companies have made hay by unethically demonizing GMOs. Now they bankroll the "labeling movement," which is just a brilliant way of conning a bunch of people into becoming free marketers for organic and non-GMO food. The lack of ethics is astounding.

If you start advocating for all types of seed development technology to be labeled, then at least you would be consistent. Asking for one to be labeled when there is no viable justification for it, is just simply anti-science, anti-logic, and ludicrous.

but I am not a corporation.....so I want it labeled. I am not a food activist, so I don't need to broadly advocate anything.

You could not possibly prove that all future GMO's are safe.

If corporations selling GMO products can't make their case to the public, then that is their problem. It is the equivalent to Bernie Sanders making a case for electing a Socialist.

Resisting GMO labeling makes their case look weak, BTW

That doesn't justify labeling them. In fact, that is just a distraction from the discussion, because...

You can't prove that all future plants developed using other methods are safe. No one can. Check out the Lenape potato, for example.

That's why they are studied, and GMOs are studied more than plants developed using other methods, which is, actually odd, when it comes down to it, because, as noted, they are also more predictable, as far fewer genes are changed, and we actually know which genes are changed, unlike the reality with all other seed development technologies.

At the end of the day, you have a preference. Well, then you can buy non-GMO labeled products. It's the same as someone who wants Halal or Kosher food. It's a preference. And, as you can see, it's actually much closer to a religious preference than anything for which I have ever advocated.

PS: http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

Oh, and you might want to realize that non-GMO may not be better for you or the environment. It might just be corporate BS.

See: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

And that's not even getting to the reality of the lack of research, oversight and regulation when it comes to pesticide and herbicide use in organic production. Now, advocating that government change the reality in that area might actually be positive for the human race and the planet.

You need to realize that DUers who argue against the anti-GMO stuff are people who generally bought into the anti-GMO stuff originally, but then questioned themselves, and dug into the reality. It did not come easily for any of us, so making grand assertions about religious beliefs when talking to us or about us is truly inaccurate and disrespectful.

To require the labeling of one one breeding method and not others makes no sense.

Thanks.

Thanks for clarifying that your assertion was just the usual propaganda, and not actually true.

My "propaganda" is that I want labeling. End of story.

You are the only one with an agenda here.

Using science instead of hysterics and stuff pushed by those charging much more for the same food.

You still want to be suckered by the organic con artists, fine.

Just leave me out.

it is just a label.

And why are you so inconsistent with what you want to be labeled? And why can't you give us a science-based justification for your desired label?

That's why not one post goes unanswered. I've noticed that they will come back days, or even weeks, later to post some more.

I think pay-for-post members should be labeled.

and your response is consistent with that observation.

You want the "warning label" for a perfectly safe food that Big Organic wants you to want.

You've been conned by bad propaganda. (I know it sucks, but you have to admit it, and move forward.)

You want a label that is meaningless, but you only want it for one particular seed development technology.

You have shown us your agenda. How do you fail to see that?

Actually, the fact that you failed to respond to me above shows us all we need to know.

You can do better.

Methods which are far less precise and also involve changing the genome in a lab.

They can scramble thousands of genes with radiation in hopes of a creating the desired trait, and that's the okay, but precisely map the genome and stitch in one favorable gene and everyone loses their shit.

I'm in favor of labeling mutation breeding that involves chemicals or radiation as well.

This Orwellian "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act"
nullifies laws which require accurate labeling of GMO's.

I don't want any laws with misleading titles.....especially when they try to deny me information.

I don't see any other explanation. There really is no downside to consumers .

and depressing if they succeed

But they're trying REALLY hard, aren't they!

Smh..

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)

American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)

International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)

Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)

which isn't done.

So their position is self-contradictory.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/the-amas-strange-position-on-gm-foods-test-but-dont-label/258968/

... noted a post that shows that almost every legit scientific community says GMOs are safe.

And that's your response? To go off on a single odd issue, regarding, one organization?

This is why anti-GMOers do not get respect.

You are not honest in your responses.

Why don't you care about that?

In 1992, a Rethug administration decided that henceforth all GMO's would be considered safe by default. I don't agree with that position and I don't think a Democratic administration would have made that decision.

Hello?

And then prove that we get pre-market testing for all other seed development technology products.

Oh, whoops!!!

Those don't exist.

Yikes!

I'm willing to have organic foods labeled as the product of mutated organisms.

Why aren't you willing to have genetically-engineered foods labeled as such?

Let people make up their own minds which they'd rather eat.

You get me a list of organic companies ready to label their foods by the seed development technology, and get back to me.

We both know the reality.

At this point in time, I have to wonder about you. Why are you so apt to promote such unethical means?

Since the GMO producers were able to restrict the access of independent researchers to the seeds for so long, I don't feel confident that much of their research proves what they say it does.

Now you are simply changing the subject, as if that's going to fool anyone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7421782

From that radical group, the American Bar Association:

(P.S. Thanks for helping remind me how easy this was to find. Maybe I'll make an OP out of it soon.)

https://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

Labeling Controversy

The FDA position on labeling is consistent with its original 1992 policy that these foods are not materially different.37 The FDA did not believe that “the method of development of a new plant variety (including the use of new techniques including recombinant DNA techniques) is normally material information within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 321(n) and would not usually be required to be disclosed in labeling for the food.”38 Hence, FDA’s 2001 guidance to industry logically rejects any implication of inferior quality in GM foods: “Therefore, a label statement that expresses or implies that a food is superior (e.g., safer or of higher quality) because it is not bioengineered would be misleading.”39 The FDA made it clear the policy is unchanged: “FDA is therefore reaffirming its decision to not require special labeling of all bioengineered foods.”40 The FDA did recognize public concern by stating that “While the use of bioengineering is not a material fact, many consumers are interested in the information, and some manufacturers may want to respond to this consumer desire.”41 To that end, the FDA described a comprehensive set of examples as to what would constitute unfair or misleading labeling.42 However, if the overarching FDA concern is truth in labeling, it is difficult to reconcile the statement that GM foods are not materially different when there is so much scientific disagreement.43 The FDA stated further that the “certified organic” label assures consumers that the food product is not produced via bioengineering:

The national organic standards would provide for adequate segregation of the food throughout distribution to assure that non-organic foods do not become mixed with organic foods. The agency believes that the practices and record keeping that substantiate the "certified organic" statement would be sufficient to substantiate a claim that a food was not produced using bioengineering.44

However, this sidesteps the issue of direct labeling sought by consumers and restricts marketplace choice. It is possible that a product be GM free and not be certified organic, for example. Moreover, despite the FDA statement on “adequate segregation,” there exists a real issue of organic crop contamination by GM crops.45 Well publicized cases of conventionally grown crops that were contaminated by GM corn, not approved for human consumption, highlight the difficulty of containing a GM plant strain due to the ease of contamination.46 These cases were discussed in a 2008 GAO study which specifically addressed the problem of “unauthorized releases.”47

Your claim was, and I quote:

"We don't have the required premarket safety testing that the AMA calls for."

You were asked for proof that GMOs are not being tested. You have yet to provide this proof and it's obvious you can't because they most certainly are being tested.

I don't trust this "voluntary" testing, with "consultation." You do.

It is logically impossible for me to prove that these companies are not doing the testing that they are never required to submit. They are allowed, legally, to keep it all under wraps. You know this, so you keep asking me to do the impossible.

What I can do is prove that they are not REQUIRED to do any safety testing, or to submit it. It's all up to them.

And the major GMO producers haven't given me enough of a reason to trust them.

that they are doing safety testing -- since they are not required to submit it.

You just trust them. I don't.

Which I can only guess you pulled from a place that rarely sees the sun.

It's mandated by the USDA, but not the FDA. The AMA is simply saying the FDA should make it mandatory rather than voluntary, but no manufacturer is going to bring a GMO product to market without extensive testing regardless.

and they know that without labeling, no one will ever know if their product, among the thousands of others in the marketplace, is causing damage in the general population?

Surely you realize that epidemiological research is impossible without labeling?

Which is probably why the producers oppose it.

For two decades Monsanto purposely contaminated West Virginia with Agent Orange. Sorry, but I don't trust them to test the safety of their own GMO's.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146144078/monsanto-accused-in-suit-tied-to-agent-orange

Public confidence and potential product liability litigation is a powerful motivating factor.

if no one knows who has eaten it?

If someone gets sick from food poisoning, the CDC can figure out what they ate and trace it back to its food source.

How could long term or even short term damage from GMO's be traced if no one even knows when they're consuming it?

The comparison to appliances - which no one uses without knowing they're using them -- is ludicrous.

...without a sticker that says "contains GMO" on the outside?

Do you even realize how ridiculous this sounds?

with all the foods they've eaten, which GMO was in which food they ate over whatever period of time.

The CDC and state investigators do their own investigation.

You do realize there hasn't been a single health issue attributable to GMO, right?

Food poisoning? GMO? Really?

of GMO's in the population and have no labeling?

The producers have the perfect set up.

It's good to know what corporation has put what patented crapola into my chow.

Like cows bred and led to slaughter, it's not natural.

I prefer requiring the term "transgenic" in the ingredients portion of the labels. Far more descriptive and accurate and gets to the heart of what the anti-GMO crowd really wants.

There are all these organic producers, cranking out hysterics and innuendos.
"Frankenfoods!"
"Poison!"
"Cancer!"

Actual science, that is, CREDIBLE science, not "Natural News" or Mercola, says GMO's are safe.

But the big 3 have their propaganda out...

1. The genuinely crazy like this guy:
http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2015/12/1536-billy-demoss.html

2. The agenda at all costs people.
"Destroy Monsanto! They only deserve to be jailed!"
Etc...

3. The biggest group.
Those making big profits off the suckers in the anti-GMO crowd.
The ones that make "premium organic milk" that is no different at all from store brand, except it's 2, 3, even 4 times as expensive.
The GOP-supporting CEO of Whole Paycheck...I mean Whole Foods.