EU changes rules on GM crop cultivation [Should GMO's be labelled?]

[sir dooble]

An issue with this though is that not all products come from the same farm, especially for really cheap bargain brand stuff.

Who knows, if I go to buy a giant bag of pistachios, who's to say it wasn't all mixed from like 3 different places in a factory.

It's simple really, and should be considerably more common in this modern day and age.
A product that comes from various locations (whether it's a bag of nuts from different farms, or it's a ready meal with ingredients from crop farms and livestock farms) simply needs to provide a website address to a detailed list of the farms and sources that its products and their parts come from.

I'm obviously not expecting them to list the 10 different farms that my club sandwich came from on it's small cardboard box.
I'm just expecting them to give me a website that will let me trace where its sources are, and what they're like.

Of course the average person isn't going to go and check this, just as most people don't go checking the ingredients or nutritional values on most items they buy.
But to those who do, for whatever reason, whether it's for faith or politics, or dietary concerns or looking for allergens, it provides a world of comfort, and no real expense to the producer.

[Ad Bot]

[Harm94]

You're missing the point here. It's not about labeling things kosher, it's whether people should be forced to label something non-kosher.

GMOs are not dangerous, but if they are labeled separately, people will stop buying them out of fear. It is punishing the business for something they didn't do wrong.

Could help avoid some lawsuits if its labeled. There was an incident involving a McDonalds where some vegans ordered some French fries, I believe they discovered that their fries were cooked with lard.
source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93386

Leather goods are usually marketed as real leather or as synthetic leather. Some cultures like the Indians cannot use leather from a cow because it goes against their religion.

Alternatively just throw information out into the mainstream to convince people that GMO foods aren't as evil as they think. Maybe debunk misconceptions.

Obviously their are going to neighsayers, but even before GMO foods become fully known, there were still organic hippies avoiding grocery store produces. Most so called hippies either have a garden, or go buy from some earthy shop that sells organic stuff.

All this fuss over a label. It can be a small green circle on the back of a chip bag that says GMO in white print for all I care. But as long as you have one, if could probably save you more fuss in the future.






Do not under estimate lawyers who make a living of lawsuits. Without that label, your companies ass is not shielded.

It's simple really, and should be considerably more common in this modern day and age.
A product that comes from various locations (whether it's a bag of nuts from different farms, or it's a ready meal with ingredients from crop farms and livestock farms) simply needs to provide a website address to a detailed list of the farms and sources that its products and their parts come from.

Providing the name of farm doesn't really say much. I could call my Company Foster Farms, or Hillshire Farm, or Archer Farm, or Billy Ranch. Doesn't really say much.

[sir dooble]

Providing the name of farm doesn't really say much. I could call my Company Foster Farms, or Hillshire Farm, or Archer Farm, or Billy Ranch. Doesn't really say much.

That's where it should come in that farms should detail what they grow and how.
How you go about getting farms to do that, I don't know. Whether farms self-publish, or have reviews of practices by some government/third-party organisation that are published online for the public.

I'm only conceptualising an ideal world, where what you buy is transparent. It shouldn't really be possible to buy food without being able to know what is in it.
I'm not the one for working out how to do that though. Providing sources on food is just the first step.

[SeventhSandwich]

Could help avoid some lawsuits if its labeled. There was an incident involving a McDonalds where some vegans ordered some French fries, I believe they discovered that their fries were cooked with lard.

Which is entirely unfair to McDonalds, and I believed they settled out of court to avoid having to contest the lawsuit anymore. It's almost as if they were strong-armed by a special interest group into giving up their money for something that wasn't even their fault.

Leather goods are usually marketed as real leather or as synthetic leather. Some cultures like the Indians cannot use leather from a cow because it goes against their religion.

This is a dumb brown townogy because real leather and synthetic leather are two different things. The latter is less durable and lower quality, which is why it is labeled. It has nothing to do with defending Hindus, it's there to help people know the price of what they're paying for.

Alternatively just throw information out into the mainstream to convince people that GMO foods aren't as evil as they think. Maybe debunk misconceptions.

Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you inform people because they will still avoid things on the basis of 'avoiding a controversy'. Mandating a 'GMO' label will lower sales. This is unarguable on all levels.

All this fuss over a label. It can be a small green circle on the back of a chip bag that says GMO in white print for all I care. But as long as you have one, if could probably save you more fuss in the future.

If people stopped defying misconceptions and false fear to make things 'run more smoothly', things would go terribly very quickly. The reason why we have expert committees and experienced lawmakers is to step in when the majority doesn't know what it's talking about.

You are equating GMOs with things that cause cancer, anaphylatic shock, and explosive detonations. Need I repeat what I have already said so many times?

[Harm94]

As far as your farm idea goes dooble, think this one is more simple.

Which is entirely unfair to McDonalds, and I believed they settled out of court to avoid having to contest the lawsuit anymore. It's almost as if they were strong-armed by a special interest group into giving up their money for something that wasn't even their fault.
This is a dumb brown townogy because real leather and synthetic leather are two different things. The latter is less durable and lower quality, which is why it is labeled. It has nothing to do with defending Hindus, it's there to help people know the price of what they're paying for.
Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you inform people because they will still avoid things on the basis of 'avoiding a controversy'. Mandating a 'GMO' label will lower sales. This is unarguable on all levels.
If people stopped defying misconceptions and false fear to make things 'run more smoothly', things would go terribly very quickly. The reason why we have expert committees and experienced lawmakers is to step in when the majority doesn't know what it's talking about.
You are equating GMOs with things that cause cancer, anaphylatic shock, and explosive detonations. Need I repeat what I have already said so many times?

Your argument sounds like people are too stupid just because want things their way and not yours. I have not stated whether or not GMO foods are cancerous or not. My point is, is that these labels can prevent lawsuits and save money in the long run.

Here is a scenario. A man develops colon cancer, his diet is crap for the most part. However he is not convinced. So he hires a lawyer asks him about his diet, what stores he buys from, brands of produces. Several of those produces turn out to be grown from various farms, all of which use seeds from a GMO company. The lawyer is concerned about just getting money and winning the case, not whether the facts or true or not. So they build their case around unlabeled foods. So the case is taken to court, and its lost. However some media outlet picked up on it and reported during case, other media outlets pick up on it and create hype and panick. Now the sales of fruits and vegetables drop because people are worried about what's in their food. Had some sort of sticker or label been printed, the lawyer might have said his case was pretty weak and the trial wouldn't have happened in the first place. Had it not happened, that one media outlet would have never heard about. Had they not heard about, produce sales would still be good.

Just get information out into the mainstream to help your cause and answer the people's questions such as these: Is rat DNA put into my tomato? Does a GMO tomato taste better than this alleged organic tomato? What are the benefits to GMO foods over traditional products? Will these genes in my corn not mutate and cause my corn to grow toxin glands?

or...
you can weep that 80% of Americans and most of the world is unsure and don't want to buy some product you are heavily biased toward. By the way, you are the first person I have ever met to make a big deal out of a small label that most people won't even read.

[Ceist]

if they labelled more foods as GMO maybe morep eople wouldn't eat them, leaving me to have to a bountiful amount.

[Headcrab Zombie]

Your argument sounds like people are too stupid just because want things their way and not yours. I have not stated whether or not GMO foods are cancerous or not. My point is, is that these labels can prevent lawsuits and save money in the long run.

Here is a scenario. A man develops colon cancer, his diet is crap for the most part. However he is not convinced. So he hires a lawyer asks him about his diet, what stores he buys from, brands of produces. Several of those produces turn out to be grown from various farms, all of which use seeds from a GMO company. The lawyer is concerned about just getting money and winning the case, not whether the facts or true or not. So they build their case around unlabeled foods. So the case is taken to court...

...and the defense builds a case with the help of scientists, pointing to hundreds of studies that have shown that GMO foods are safe, and nutritionists and dieticians that show his bad diet along with evidence that that can cause cancer.

Could help avoid some lawsuits if its labeled. There was an incident involving a McDonalds where some vegans ordered some French fries, I believe they discovered that their fries were cooked with lard.
source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93386

Leather goods are usually marketed as real leather or as synthetic leather. Some cultures like the Indians cannot use leather from a cow because it goes against their religion.

Do not under estimate lawyers who make a living of lawsuits. Without that label, your companies ass is not shielded.
Providing the name of farm doesn't really say much. I could call my Company Foster Farms, or Hillshire Farm, or Archer Farm, or Billy Ranch. Doesn't really say much.

You're comparing requirements of religions/culture to a lack of understanding of a science that has no harm

Alternatively just throw information out into the mainstream to convince people that GMO foods aren't as evil as they think. Maybe debunk misconceptions.

Look at what actually happens in these type of discussion
Look at people trying to argue that vaccines cause autism
Look at any other case where people try to argue a stance that has zero evidence, against a side full of evidence.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you throw at them, they'll ignore it and continue on there ways because they lack the scientific knowledge (or in many cases, the intellectual capacity)  to understand the evidence, no matter how basic it is. We're talking about an 80% population that doesn't even understand that DNA is found in all living things, and by extension, all food products.

As far as your farm idea goes dooble, think this one is more simple.

Dooble's idea provides information that actually means something and can allow you to make actual choices based on actual differences
Your idea doesn't provide any meaningful information at all, just "oh no that's scary cuz i don't understand science!"
Give the article linked earlier a read: http://io9.com/80-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-cont-1680277802/+darrenorf

 The results of Lusk and Murray's survey also highlight a contradiction central to GMO labeling campaigns that would see all genetically modified foods blanket-labeled as "GMOs," regardless of the modification they contain, or the ends toward which they were produced. Prima facie, such initiatives seem like a laudable effort to provide consumers with information. What's ironic, UC Berkeley biologist Mike Eisen explains in a recent blog post, is how little information consumers would actually receive from such a mandate:  

If you're worried that the GMOs you're eating might kill you, then you should want to know what specific modification your food contains. I don't think there is any harm in eating food containing the insecticidal "Bt" protein, but even if it were dangerous this would have no bearing on the safety of golden rice.

    Similarly, if you are concerned that the transgenic production of plants resistant to certain herbicides encourages the excessive use of herbicides and triggers an herbicide treadmill, then you can boycott crops containing these modifications. But it doesn't make sense to oppose the use of crops engineered to resist diseases, or to produce essential vitamins. Indeed, there are many, like UC Davis's Pam Ronald, who believe that advanced development of GMOs is the best way to advance organic and sustainable agriculture. You may disagree with her, but it should be clear that the effect on agricultural practices varies depending on the specific plant and type of modification being considered.

you can weep that 80% of Americans and most of the world is unsure and don't want to buy some product you are heavily biased toward. By the way, you are the first person I have ever met to make a big deal out of a small label that most people won't even read.

Have you even read his argument at all?

Genetic engineering has the propensity to help the developing world in a big way too. Golden rice is already being used to help combat blindness in developing countries as a result of vitamin A deficiency, and some people think it's even possible to create plants that act as vaccines for common infectious diseases. How amazing would that be? Food that protects you from polio/smallpox/flu without you ever having to do anything.

Although, that's all not possible unless there's a profit to be made for researching these things, and if people stop buying these plants because they think they're unsafe, then that impetus for research goes away very quickly.

[Tetro Block]

Anyone think GMO's should still be labelled?

[dkamm65]

Anyone think GMO's should still be labelled?

If a company wants to label it, go right ahead. But forcing a company to label it is completely absurd.

[Tetro Block]

If a company wants to label it, go right ahead. But forcing a company to label it is completely absurd.

Hmm... I can sort of see your point, but would you mind telling me why it is absurd? I mean are allowed to know what they're eating right?

[dkamm65]

Hmm... I can sort of see your point, but would you mind telling me why it is absurd? I mean are allowed to know what they're eating right?

Because it's the same thing, with different beneficial traits. Genetic modification does in one generation that which would take dozens with artificial selection; the end result is exactly the same. We've already been using artificial selection for humanity's entire history of food cultivation. This is just the next step in speeding up the process.

You wouldn't also expect food packages to be labeled with which traits were selected to reach the current product, would you? I mean, the "natural" and "organic" food we eat today would look like frankenfood (to use an anti-GMOer's favorite buzzword) compared to a thousand years ago. If the food is FDA approved, what's the problem?

[Headcrab Zombie]

Hmm... I can sort of see your point, but would you mind telling me why it is absurd? I mean are allowed to know what they're eating right?

Also read the fourth and fifth sections of my above post
Labeling a product 'GMO' provides no meaningful information and only scares uneducated consumers

[otto-san]

i think it's always nice for the consumer to be informed about the products they buy and the producers be transparent, even if it's stupid.

obviously genetic modification is safe and it does much more good than it does bad but there's nothing wrong with wanting to have that information.

some people that are less educated about the subject will obviously avoid them, which is common for any major development. people avoid computers, people avoid vaccines, people avoid electricity, people avoid cell phones, etc. etc. because they're paranoid about the effects which they feel have yet to be observed properly. people just need the information.

it is certainly meaningful information because it's a detail about the nature of the production of the product, which consumers deserve to know about, even if it's stupid dumb.

[sir dooble]

Hmm... I can sort of see your point, but would you mind telling me why it is absurd? I mean are allowed to know what they're eating right?

Give Headcrab Zombie and SeventhSandwich's posts above a read.
The issue with forcing a GMO label on GMO foods is that it negatively targets GMO foods. Those entirely uneducated in GMOs (such as those 80% in the study linked earlier who didn't know the difference between GMO and DNA) may entirely boycott lots of products simply because they contain GMO.

And the issue is that GMO is a completely blanket statement.
We're doing all sorts of things via genetically modifying our food.
That includes such things as allowing crops to produce their own insecticides or herbicides (which some might be wary of, as traditional pesticides can have adverse effects on local habitats or be unsafe to consume).
It can also be creating a crop that produces extra vitamins. Vitamins that are useful in keeping people healthy, such as removing deficiencies in populations around the world (these would really be no more harmful than taking vitamin supplements).
And then you can hopefully use them to provide disease resistance or immunity to those who consume them.
And then you get the more novelty situations, as Harm has mentioned, where unusual traits from certain animals (such as bioluminescence from things like squid and octopus) are given to other creatures, like rabbits (so that they glow in the dark). These as far as I know, don't end up in the food chain (because they serve no benefit as a food item) and are just for research, so some people disagree with them because they see it as cruel on the animals involved, or it's needlessly "playing God".


So imagine that you've got a situation where all GMO foods are labelled GMO.
And you have a population of around 80% who don't really understand GMOs, but they've heard of them.
And perhaps they've seen the glowing bunnies, or heard of the crops that produce their own pesticides, and they don't like those (as it's their right to feel about such matters).
They obviously don't want to buy or support those products, so any time they're in the shop and they see a GMO label they say "No! I'm not buying you!".

But those labelled items aren't just glo-bunnies or pesticide GMOs, they're good vitamin-rich or disease resistant, or immunologically beneficial crops/foods. Those companies start losing money because everyone stop buying their products, because they've confused them with other products, and now these companies can't afford to produce their GMO crops, so the developers/researchers of those GMOs also can't afford to continue researching them.
The way around this ties into the labelling system again, whereby farms that use GMO crops detail what exactly it is that these GMOs are for (whether being pesticidal, or producing vitamins).
And then your products need only state their sources.

You go online, perhaps to a database of this big government/3rd party organisation who is keep a record of all these farms and their practices, you search for the farm mentioned, and there you go, you can research what you're buying and choose to spend accordingly.

[Harm94]

Educate them, you can't when them all, but you will win over people.