Author Topic: Episode #626  (Read 2140 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5673
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #60 on: July 14, 2017, 02:20:44 PM »
I've never seen that label, but, I'm wondering if it's possible that it's packaging designed to be sold in the US and in countries that require GMO labeling. (Could be easy to tell, if the ingredient listings meet both EU and US requirements).

Here is one example:



That's very interesting. Here's what you get if you follow the link on the food label.

General Mills: One of the World's largest food Companies


General Mills: Genetically-modified (GM) ingredients

So it's not for marketing in overseas, but just in the US.

So, what's the problem with adding labels like that?
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #61 on: July 14, 2017, 02:54:12 PM »
So, what's the problem with adding labels like that?

Personally I don't have a problem with it. The label also says gluten free which is important to part of the population, and not to the rest. I'm fine with that too.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10278
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #62 on: July 14, 2017, 03:45:43 PM »
So, what's the problem with adding labels like that?

Personally I don't have a problem with it. The label also says gluten free which is important to part of the population, and not to the rest. I'm fine with that too.
No problem with adding it.
There is a problem with requiring it to be added though.
Which is that it creates a false impression to the lay public that it is something to be avoided and there is no scientific or medical reason why it should be required.
Wana buy gmo free? Have at it! Theres loads of companies pandering to you. There is literally no good reason to legislate for labeling other than to pander to ignorance.

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5673
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #63 on: July 14, 2017, 04:09:11 PM »
So, what's the problem with adding labels like that?

Personally I don't have a problem with it. The label also says gluten free which is important to part of the population, and not to the rest. I'm fine with that too.
No problem with adding it.
There is a problem with requiring it to be added though.
Which is that it creates a false impression to the lay public that it is something to be avoided and there is no scientific or medical reason why it should be required.
Wana buy gmo free? Have at it! Theres loads of companies pandering to you. There is literally no good reason to legislate for labeling other than to pander to ignorance.

The reason for concern is that new GMO variations of existing foods are not subjected to the same standards of testing that new foods are. A new, genetically engineered, version of a food considered safe is considered safe and there is no safety testing requirements whatsoever.

It's clear that Genetic Engineering of food per se, is not harmful. What is not clear is whether it is not possible for an existing food to be made harmful inadvertently through genetic engineering.

We should either have a labeling requirement (as they do in the EU and much of the rest of the world) or more stringent regulation and testing requirements.

Instead, in the US, we have neither.

It's not ignorance, it's the precautionary principle.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #64 on: July 14, 2017, 04:22:30 PM »
So, what's the problem with adding labels like that?

Personally I don't have a problem with it. The label also says gluten free which is important to part of the population, and not to the rest. I'm fine with that too.
No problem with adding it.
There is a problem with requiring it to be added though.
Which is that it creates a false impression to the lay public that it is something to be avoided and there is no scientific or medical reason why it should be required.
Wana buy gmo free? Have at it! Theres loads of companies pandering to you. There is literally no good reason to legislate for labeling other than to pander to ignorance.

I know what you're saying but don't agree that stating it plainly conveys something negative. I thought the Produced with Genetic Engineering statement was rather beautiful and brought the taco shells home with me. There are some GE apple and potato varieties coming to market in North America -- if they are met with wide acceptance perhaps it's game over for mass avoidance of genetic engineering. The boutique food purveyors can still have their GMO-FREE labeled cake and eat it too.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10278
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #65 on: July 14, 2017, 04:34:53 PM »
It seems quite simple to me-
Labeling should not be mandatory unless it is relevant to potential health effects.
An exception I would make would be country of origin but I would rather lose that than gain mandatory GMO labeling or whatever other bs people want to push by popular demand.
Currently people who want non GMO are not without choice.

The only other reason to want labeling is to muddy the waters in pushing an agenda.

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5673
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #66 on: July 14, 2017, 05:27:29 PM »
Vermont passed a GMO labelling law in 2014, which went into effect in 2016, so most food that could be sold in Vermont is now labelled.

ETA: Also, it looks like federal law has preempted it, and the USDA will be developing GE labelling regulations by 2018, so it will soon become a national standard.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/764

Here's a good summary...

GMO Labeling Bill Has Been Signed By President Obama | Fortune.com

This didn't win over all food-labeling advocates, however. One criticism is that the bill allowed companies to use QR codes or 1-800 numbers as a form of GMO labeling, forcing consumers to scan the code or make a call to get more information. That's why some opponents are calling the bill the DARK Act, short for "Denying Americans the Right to Know," and argue these alternative labels discriminate against low-income consumers who lack the technology to access off-label info. Others have criticized the bill because it isn't as stringent as a piece of Vermont legislation that will now be superseded by the federal law. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was among the federal bill's critics, and urged his Twitter followers to contact their senators about the bill earlier this month.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline amysrevenge

  • Baseball-Cap-Beard-Baby Guy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4978
  • The Warhammeriest
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #67 on: July 14, 2017, 08:07:23 PM »
As long as I can get my exactly as relevant, totally not arbitrary, "This product was harvested on a Tuesday" mandatory labeling I'm golden.
Big Mike
Calgary AB Canada

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5673
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #68 on: July 14, 2017, 09:13:24 PM »
As long as I can get my exactly as relevant, totally not arbitrary, "This product was harvested on a Tuesday" mandatory labeling I'm golden.

You may need a smart phone with QR Code reader to get that
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline Zec

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #69 on: July 16, 2017, 08:02:19 AM »
It seems quite simple to me-
Labeling should not be mandatory unless it is relevant to potential health effects.

It is relevant if it's relevant for the buyers. Some people want kosher food: for me it's irrelevant, for them is relevant.
It is called "freedom"

Online 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 960
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #70 on: July 16, 2017, 02:43:01 PM »
It is relevant if it's relevant for the buyers. Some people want kosher food: for me it's irrelevant, for them is relevant.
It is called "freedom"

But that's the kind of labeling that should be voluntary, for those who want to produce products specifically for certain markets. The authorities should only worry about whether such labels are fraudulent or significantly misleading.

Online SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5580
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #71 on: July 17, 2017, 09:20:55 AM »
It seems quite simple to me-
Labeling should not be mandatory unless it is relevant to potential health effects.

It is relevant if it's relevant for the buyers. Some people want kosher food: for me it's irrelevant, for them is relevant.
It is called "freedom"
But we don't require that non-sequitur foods be labelled, instead we allow producers of kosher food to self-identity. 
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Zec

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #72 on: July 17, 2017, 12:34:15 PM »
Fair enough, my analogy wasn't very good.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10878
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #73 on: July 17, 2017, 12:41:22 PM »
I would be on board for voluntary "contains no gmo" labels.   Mandatory "contains GMO" labels are just propaganda enforced by the government. 

Offline thought quantum

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 4
Re: Episode #626
« Reply #74 on: July 19, 2017, 02:41:02 AM »

The reason for concern is that new GMO variations of existing foods are not subjected to the same standards of testing that new foods are. A new, genetically engineered, version of a food considered safe is considered safe and there is no safety testing requirements whatsoever.


I find that hard to believe.  Can you prove that?