People, on average, are dumb. They will refuse to buy a thing even if there is no evidence that it poses a risk, simply because they think it might.

Anyone who wants to promote their product as GMO free is welcome to do so if they consider it a beneficial trait. There is no logical reason to force others to label their competing product with something that means nothing more than "this contains stuff you don't understand and may be scared of for no reason".

What you're promoting is basically a food version of affirmative-action. If the all-natural, organic, free range, GMO free products can't sell them selves on their own merits, there is no reason to punish the less expensive competition by scaring the consumer.

 

You have the right to ask the companies, they have the right to deny you an answer, you have the right to produce your own food. They have the right not to sell food to you. :thumb:

It's funny how those rights work, isn't it?

 

The interstate commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate such things. And they have acted on that power with nutrition and content label requirements.

Why are companies not fighting this, say, with sugar? Why are they fighting the proper labeling of their product?

GMO should be labelled as such. Just like other nutritional information.
people have a right to know what they are eating or choosing not to eat.

I have to say, unlike AGW where I am an expert, I know nothing about the science of GMO's. But like AGW, this is not about the science. It is about politics.

As a general public policy matter, I do not understand how any reasonable person can argue it is best if information is held from the public. All arguments seem extremely weak & tyrannical to that end.

 

GMO should be labelled as such. Just like other nutritional information.
people have a right to know what they are eating or choosing not to eat.

 

Unless stated otherwise, or if not labeled organic, I automatically assume it contains GMO's.

At the root of it I prefer not to support those companies which benefit so much from agricultural subsidies.

Less government intervention into our food supply not more.

 

Soylent Green? Ignorance is bliss?

It wasn't the term 'pink slime' that disgusted me; it was what it is made of and the process to turn it into 'food'.

The fact that people won't buy something when they know what is in it is the very reason we should know.

 

But being GMO does not mean something is in it or it is unhealthy. Just as much labeling something "Organic" means that it is healthy. But superstitions around food are as old as mankind.

The movement to label is simply a movement to ban.

Magic thinking is becoming a endemic problem.

 

I'd like to see GMO's labeled and give consumers the choice on what they'd like to purchase.

 

Why not just assume it is GMO unless you grow it yourself or it is labeled certified organic? Why place your values on a product? That is all it is, a misguided "save the children" concept. It is not about choice. It is about promoting a false concept.

 

Here in the UK and most of Europe, there is an almost total rejection of GMO foods. We have strict labeling laws here and consumers DO have the right to know what is being offered.
When various companies tried to promote GMO food they were asked to guarantee that it was safe and that there could not be any side effects. None were able or prepared to do so. One grocery chain received permission to market a tomato paste that had GM content. It was promoted at half the normal price and sold very few while there was a huge outcry from the public. The idea that a company could add or use GM products in their food and NOT inform their customers would be something that would ring alarm bells as well as have all their products removed from the shelves.
The BSE, mad cow debacle caused the laws, regulations and inspections tightened across all foods.

 

So here is the deal, every single plant we consume is gmo, even if it says non-gmo. Why? Because every plant we grow has been selectively bred, cross pollinated, spliced, etc, until the plant is the way we want it. This process occurred long before laboratories were a thing. There are some people who claim even that much change is unhealthy for us, in which case we're pretty much boned because that would make all food unsafe except wild varieties that have never ever been cultivated at any point in human history. The only difference between oldschool gmo's and and current gmo's, is the way in which the genes are influenced. That's about it.

When it comes down to it, it's not a matter of all gmo's being bad, or all gmo's being good. It should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If they modify a grain to have a thicker husk so the bugs can't eat it, that might not produce a negative effect in a person, but the grains that produce their own pesticide to repel bugs, might be harmful. A specific study showing what specific chemical chains are different between the two, and what effects those have on the diet of people who consume them are the only way to tell if they are harmful.

Putting gmo or non-gmo on a label is in and of itself highly misleading because all our crops are genetically modified, gmo only refers to ones done in a lab, using a more advanced method, and telling you it is gmo or non-gmo doesn't in any way tell you how safe it is for you. Something listed as non-gmo could easily be worse for you than a gmo item, and a gmo item could easily be worse for you than a non-gmo item, again it's case by case.

I have yet to met one person who is on the non-gmo band wagon that can explain why, that can cite even one example of a particular gmo crop that now contains a protein or carbohydrate chain it didn't used to have, and why that is in some way worse for you. They wouldn't even be able to tell you if there are particular gmo crops that they don't think are bad, and ones they think should be avoided, they just think non-gmo = good, and gmo = bad.

Companies stand to lose a lot of money if they're forced to put a label on their products that the ignorance masses have come to associate with evil for no valid reason, and as I've already said, the term is in and of itself not a very clear or useful designation. How was it genetically modified, is the result of the modification in any way bad for a person? That is more information than a food label is usually going to contain. Do most people realize the thousands of actual chemicals chains that make up the food we eat, and that it's all boiled down to a hand full of categories on a nutrition facts sheet? Probably not. A company only has to list protein as a whole category, even though the specific proteins and their amino acid contents is extremely important to nutrition. Most food labels only list a handful of fat types, even though there are more. Most food labels only list total carbohydrates, dietary fiber(soluble and insoluble) and sugars, even though there are thousands of overall carbohydrates, and dozens of even what we would consider sugar. Is it glucose? fructose? sucrose? galactose? lactose? maltose? lactose? Is it any one of many oligosaccharides? The same pretty much goes for fats, below their sub categories there are thousands. If you approach the fatty acids as a group, below the omega groupings there are usually several groupings below that. There are 3 types of omega-3's for instance.

In general I think most people are so ignorant of nutrition and biological chemistry that adding something as generic and obscure as gmo or non-gmo to food labels does nothing for the average consumer. I kind of chuckle to myself when i see fat free on a pretzel bag. They didn't put fat free on pretzel bags until fat free became a catch phrase in the food industry, even though pretzels were always fat free, and eventually studies have shown fat isn't the boogie man it was once thought to be, but that is how susceptible people are to manipulation. As far as I'm concerned the whole campaign is an effort to drive up sales of products labeled non-gmo, which the "organic natural cage-free" market has turned into a juggernaut being both high profit and a growing segment of the market, they actually have more clout than some would imagine, when compared to "big agriculture" or however people choose to imagine corporate conglomerates.

It reminds me a bit of something i was reading recently about chiropractors. The reason most insurance companies allow chiropractor visits at all, is that chiropractors as a group lobby to make it mandatory for insurance companies to allow people the alternative. Would most people imagine chiropractors being influential lobbyists in a world as high dollar as the world of medicine? Meanwhile you have chiropractors waving crystals over people, doing colonic irrigation treatments, and other similarly hoaky things, and insurance companies have to pay for a lot of it, whether they want to or not. Most people would imagine the chiropractors as being the alternative to big medicine, not themselves being "big homeopathic".

 

So here is the deal, every single plant we consume is gmo, even if it says non-gmo.

What an incredible supposition. A is not A. Aristotle was wrong eh?

 

I would pay extra to purchase and feed my children non GMO food items.

 

I would be very surprised if there was much difference in most peoples shopping habits. The average person shops for convenience, cost and taste first. Those who pay attention will be like myself in already actively shopping for or raising our own organic, non-gmo foods.

For those so vehemently against labeling, just imagine all the millions those companies can stop spending to fight the legislation.

 

Those who pay attention will be like myself in already actively shopping for or raising our own organic, non-gmo foods.

Growing it yourself does not necessarily mean either organic or non-gmo. Especially the gmo part, if it's ever been cultivated by the human race, chances are it's genetically modified to some extent. There are a lot of people with gardens that are far from certified organic, and the seed packets you buy probably do not reflect whether or not they are genetically modified.

 

It's clearly about politics and not information. People really don't want to know everything about the food they eat. They really don't. I guarantee that each and every one of you deliberately and intentionally consumed a product in the last 24 hours that was intentionally allowed to rot due to bacteria, fungus or both. And you loved it. It wouldn't taste right if it didn't.

Don't pretend you want to know. You just want a cause.

 

It's clearly about politics and not information.

The two are related.

Don't pretend you want to know.

It is not a question of wanting to know. It is a question of having a right to know. Sure, there is nutritional facts and ingredient list on my Coke can. This does not mean I diligently read it. But I know it is there and I can know about it whenever it is convenient for me.

 

Don't like GMO? Too bad, eat it says Congress

Want to ensure you aren't eating GMO? Too bad...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/248974-house-passes-gmo-labeling-reform-bill

Congress has prohibited states from requiring manufacturers from disclosing GMO in their food.

We can't know where our meat comes from, now we can't know if its GMO.

 

Want to ensure you aren't eating GMO? Too bad...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/248974-house-passes-gmo-labeling-reform-bill

Congress has prohibited states from requiring manufacturers from disclosing GMO in their food.

We can't know where our meat comes from, now we can't know if its GMO.

But Congress can't prohibit good, quality growers from advertising that they AREN'T GMO. So there are at least two avenues health-conscious Americans can take: 1) Specifically seek out growers who advertise non-GMO products and who are outspokenly opposed to the GMO agenda and 2) grow your own heirloom vegetables and/or raise your own free range chickens, goats, beef, etc.

 

That's the decision I expected. Monsanto lobbies heavily in D.C.
They really don't want Americans to know they are being poisoned.

That's O.K. I buy my fruits and veggies from local small farms.
I can get all the meat I want from locals also.
All non GMO.

 

Until all the local farms are driven out or rezoned from expanding cities..then what?

 

People have modified plants through genetics for at least 12,000 years. That is how we increase yields, genetic selection.

 

Corn



Without human intervention it would be another weed.

 

Not splicing in posion to increase resistents to Pest. That is one reason so many allergies today. that right leave it to a Liberal to no be informed.

 

Not splicing in posion to increase resistents to Pest.

No one is “splicing in poison (or posion) in GMO produce. That is patently false.

 

I think labeling food GMO is on the level of having a food labeled "Blessed by his Holiness" in terms of superstitious nonsense. That said I can not back Congress in this particular matter since it is violating State rights. If the people of a State decide that they want a label for food sold in their State (but not other States) to list some foolishness like, "As Mother Nature intended it" than it is the people of that State that have to live with it.

So as a Federal-State issue (Like Gay marriage was until the SC messed with it) I unfortunately have to side with the forces of ignorance and agree the Feds stay out of the matter.

 

GMO does not worry me. The government to pass laws to increase the profit of a company, and trying to force the public to buy that product, THAT worries me! Where will it end?

Non GMO products are more expensive to raise. The American farmer is SUPPOSED to be allowed to produce that more expensive food and charge a bit more, and sell it to people who are willing to pay a bit more. That has always been the American way! For example, a person can feed their cat either Alley Cat which is cheap or IAMS which is expensive, and that has ALWAYS been the consumer's choice!

I am strongly for allowing companies to label their food "non-GMO if they choose.

 

That's pretty much my sentiment.:thumb:

 

I hate Monsanto. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the GMOs they're talking about theses days is accomplished by gene splicing (genetic modification), not the old traditional way of old. That is problematic in my book..

 

Splicing a salamander with tomato, fish with corn, etc.

 

I'll let one cob go to seed this fall and see if it will germinate and produce next spring.

 

The Europeans demanded their food be labeled if it included gmos.

 

The real question is why don't they want this stuff labeled?

Obviously it's fear of losing profits due to consumers leaving the GMO garbage on the shelves. But are we really that dumb as to continue patronizing these businesses when they refuse to tell us what's in their "food-like" products?

And are we really that dumb as to continue electing politicians who care more about what Monsanto wants than about what "We the People" want?

 

The real question is why don't they want this stuff labeled?

The real answer is:
Labeling them as GMO is not as easy as it seems. Not only would it cost millions in relabeling products, but it would cost many billions in building separate factories, warehouses, and separately transporting those items. All that would be required to insure separation. And as stated elsewhere, simply labeling a product as containing a GMO does not give the consumer any relevant information. Unless all of the scientific data on the GMO were included on the label (or an attached 10 page pamphlet) the buyer would be no more the wiser than before.

But are we really that dumb as to continue patronizing these businesses when they refuse to tell us what's in their "food-like" products?

A little research, or more realistically a lot of research, will show you that “food-like” products are not GMO. GMO produce is just as nutritious and healthful as any equivalent non-GMO produce. Food-like products are imitation cheese, artificial additives, and other ingredients not generally considered to be food, and have been around for over 100 years.

 

**** congress

 

I used to know it, but forget. Isn't there a website where you can see who voted how on a bill?

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes

 

The sponsor sold out to Monsanto for only $1,000 dollars. Sad.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00042069

 

Transgenic varieties have been the target of more hostile research than any other product or process in our history. There are zero negative health risks that are the result of their consumption.

Requiring labeling would force the creation of multiple production, transporting, manufacturing, processing and marketing streams. This is not warranted and would do nothing but increase cost and paranoia.