Obama Signs Bill Mandating GMO Labeling

[Purveyor]

Source: ABC NEWS

A bill that creates a federal labeling standard for foods containing genetically modified ingredients (commonly called GMOs) was signed into law by President Barack Obama today.

“This measure will provide new opportunities for consumers to have access to information about their food,” Katie Hill, a White House spokeswoman, told ABC News.

Two weeks ago, Congress passed the legislation which would require food packages to display an electronic code, text label, or some sort of symbol signifying whether or not they contain GMOs, according to The Associated Press.

The exact details will need to be worked out by the Department of Agriculture, which will have up to two years to write the rules, The AP reports.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/obama-signs-bill-mandating-gmo-labeling/story?id=41004057

[ffr]

1. Beautiful!

It's a start in the right direction.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Remember when we were laughing about the evolution stickers

in school books? This is the same exact thing.

[LongtimeAZDem]

57. ^^^^^ (nt)

[Major Nikon]

90. Arguably worse

If you trace the funding of pro-labeling efforts, virtually all of it goes back to the organic industry in an effort to force regulation that increases their market share for exactly zero benefit to consumers. At least the creationist nutbags aren't simply a tool of unethical industry lobbying.

[ZombieHorde]

91. Very true. nt

[sheshe2]

3. K&R!

[Archae]

4. Phase 2 of the anti-GMO scam has begun.

Phase 1 was crank out as much anti-GMO bullshit as possible.

Phase 3, sit back and watch as "organic" producers make tons of money hand over fist.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

6. Great that organic growers will have a market...

... honesty and integrity in the work place/field is a good thing.

[vi5]

10. You do realize that "organic" and "non-GMO" are not mutually exclusive, right? (n/t)

[progressoid]

13. This has nothing to do with honesty and integrity

If the corn chips I buy now say GMO free, it doesn't tell me anything about how the honesty and integrity of the farmer that grew it or the company that sold it.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

26. I do not trust the pesticides...

... and herbicides they use for big agriculture. I am no city slicker, I see them pumping chemicals out of sprayers and onto fields as I travel the state highways of South Dakota. That isn't the way my grandpa farmed, using only manure from his dairy cows as fertilizer to grow his own feed. Sorry that you can't see that greed in the food chain is not a good thing. Of course, it may cost a bit more to grow organic, you do not use as many chemicals in general.

[progressoid]

35. That's a myth. Organic and/or non-GMO use lots of chemicals.

Here is the list of allowed pesticides and herbicides for organic farming

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7

In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*

Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any."

Scientists can examine pesticides before they are sprayed on fields, however. And what do these analyses show?

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html

Our grandparents (my grandfather was a farmer in Iowa) may not have done it the way we do today but that's likely because the technology wasn't as sophisticated. And that's a good thing.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

36. So citronella and chrysanthemums ...

... are worse than Round Up, 2-4D and even DDT? OK, I have seen this same argument and sources put up in another thread here at DU about a month ago.

[Igel]

41. You put arsenic in the same category as DDT? n/t

[Major Nikon]

55. Some of the chemicals used by the organic industry are far more toxic than any you mentioned

[progressoid]

66. How about sulfur, borax, and copper?

Those are some fun chemicals that are "organic". Of course in all this, it's the dose that matters.

DDT was banned for a while. Then malaria started to rear it's ugly head again and now DDT is approved for that in some nations. Don't think you'll see a lot of DDT being sprayed around here.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

68. Your expediency to endorse all GMO...

... foods blindly, creates a blindness to organic vs synthetic(not natural) and the time that goes into natural selection. I am so happy that you folks blindly jump on the GMO bandwagon! I will do my best to avoid GMO organisms, you can do your best to eat all the Round Up ready foods out there, mmm kay?

[Major Nikon]

72. "Organic" doesn't mean organic and there's nothing natural about any form of farming

[progressoid]

75. Yer dang skippy! Bring on the genetic engineering.

People get all freaked out about GE crops. Yet they inject genetically engineered stuff (insulin, vaccines, etc) into their bodies every day. And except from anti-vaccine nutters, nobody complains.

Hell, there are even genetically engineered batteries on the horizon. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102647672 Why aren't we holding rallies to stop GE Batteries?

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

86. I will just let your last sentence hang there...

... for all to see your lucid points.

[progressoid]

89. Well thanks. Let me expand upon it.

Here's a pretty picture as well:

Shown here powering a green LED light, the battery contains
electrodes that are made without harmful organic solvents.
Instead, researchers use genetically engineered viruses to
create the highly conductive materials.

Yun Jung Lee and Dong Soo Yun/MIT

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

92. I doubt those virus will be unleashed unto the food supply...

... but then we never thought there would be nuclear pollution, either.

[Politicub]

98. Chrysanthemums have a substance called pyrethrum extracted from the dried flowers

The substance is heavily concentrated.

Farmers aren't happily dancing through the fields tossing flower petals in the air. On the contrary -- pyrethrum is only effective in large doses, and takes multiple applications through a growing season to remain effective. The toxicity of pyrethrum (the minimum amount required to be considered a toxic dose) is the same as neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids are chemicals that many think are responsible for declining honeybee populations.

I'm a big advocate of organic food, but not of factory farm-level production of organics. In addition to pyrethrums, organic operations use a large amount of sulfur and sulfur-containing compounds as an alternative to synthetic pesticides.

I don't know how much better (or worse) those substances are. They all have side effects.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

100. pyrethrum ...

... is also found in dog and cat flea collars, powders and oils.

[Politicub]

102. Yep - it's nasty stuff

It has the same handling restrictions -- heavy gloves, mask, etc. -- as synthetic pesticides.

[fleabiscuit]

105. Any mention of carcinogenic effects of synthetic vs natural pesticides in that?

What about synthetic vs natural pesticide run off effects and environmental half/life. Cobra venom is something I wouldn't want to ingest, yet have very little worry about it's environmental effects. DDT was used with abandon at one time for it's safety.

That being said, the law itself will probably be watered down to meaninglessness. Even organically grown foods contain hybrids that technically are GMO's. To me GMO's downside is them being used to make plants resistant to herbicides and pesticides that might allow use with unforeseen consequence. A catch 22.

[progressoid]

110. That's the funny thing,

This is from Lois Swirsky Gold, the director of the Carcinogenic Potency Project at Berkeley.

About 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. The amounts of synthetic pesticide residues in plant food are insignificant compared to the amount of natural pesticides produced by plants themselves. Of all dietary pesticides that humans eat, 99.99 percent are natural: they are chemicals produced by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects, and other animal predators.

We have estimated that on average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues.

Even though these natural chemicals are as likely to be carcinogenic as synthetic ones, it doesn’t follow that they’re killing us. Just because natural pesticides make up 99.99 percent of the pesticides in our diet, it doesn’t follow that they’re causing human cancer — or that the .01 percent of of synthetic pesticides are causing cancer either. Dr. Ames and Dr. Gold believe most of these carcinogenic pesticides, natural or synthetic, don’t present problems because the human exposures are low and because the high doses given to rodents may not be relevant to humans.

“Everything you eat in the supermarket is absolutely chock full of carcinogens,” Dr. Ames told me. “But most cancers are not due to parts per billion of pesticides. They’re due to causes like smoking, bad diets and, obesity.”

He and Dr. Gold note that “many ordinary foods would not pass the regulatory criteria used for synthetic chemicals,” but they’re not advocating banning broccoli or avoiding natural pesticides in foods that cause cancer in rodents. Rather, they suggest that Americans stop worrying so much about synthetic chemicals.

... http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/synthetic-v-natural-pesticides/

[Major Nikon]

54. Sure e-coli never hurt anyone, unlike GMO

Oh wait...It's actually the other way around.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

85. Total loss of context...

... huh?

[Major Nikon]

88. I didn't think it was that hard of a concept to follow

The primary source of e-coli contamination is cow shit, which does actually manage to sicken and kill people, unlike GMO. So the idea of being irrationally afraid of GMO while simultaneously embracing the agricultural use of cow shit seems to be a bit ironic, no?

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

103. What next?

... the whole periodic table of elements? Maybe you can fit some more obscure factoids into your points list, but never the fact of natural evolution or selection and how that affects the, "health", of an organism or cell.

[Major Nikon]

104. Not really obscure unless you live under a rock

Natural evolution or selection? WTF are you even talking about? Kinda brilliant to finger wag about "obscure facts" while throwing out random gibberish.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

113. As you three have been doing...

... I see where you come from. Sit on it. Or maybe get gut problems from it.


"Gluten-related disorders are commonly accompanied by and possibly triggered by intestinal permeability, which is commonly referred to as “leaky gut.”[9] Leaky gut occurs when gaps form between intestinal cells and large particles from the digestive tract enter the bloodstream, potentially triggering immune or allergic reactions. The Bt-toxin produced by genetically modified corn kills insects by punching holes in their digestive tracts, and a 2012 study confirmed that it punctures holes in human cells as well.[10] Bt-toxin is present in every kernel of Bt corn, survives human digestion, and has been detected in the blood of 93% of pregnant women tested and 80% of their unborn fetuses.[11] This “hole-punching toxin” may be a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding gluten-related disorders."

http://responsibletechnology.org/glutenintroduction/


Lots more here, it even includes FOOTNOTES! Should be fun shooting down everyone of those FOOTNOTES.

[Major Nikon]

115. Jeffrey Smith, yogic flying instructor

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

114. But wait...

... there's more, only if you act NOW:

"Some of the investigators had also previously seen higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from their bowel and die. We weren’t able to look inside the intestines, due to the amount of food in them, but we were able to look inside the stomach."

http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-harms-reproductive-and-digestive-health/

There are even pictures, so even a caveman can understand!

[Major Nikon]

116. Actually the whole idea is to get scientifically illiterate people to "understand"

First you source the anti-vax quack Mercola, then for good measure you source yogic "flying" instructor Jeffrey Smith, and for the coup de grâce you dig up a well debunked junk science study authored by well known hacks.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2013/06/13/gm-feeding-study-in-pigs/

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

118. And you source Monsanto funded and approved sources...

... but that's ok, right?

[Major Nikon]

120. So the Austrailian government is on Monsanto's payroll now?

Do you even realize how nutty that is?

However, since you brought it up, you do realize your favorite source, Mercola, is a anti-abortionist, pro-gun, homophobic wingnut, yes? I suspect you don't really care much about such things so long as the bullshit flies in formation with your own.

Mercola is a member of the Political advocacy group Association of American Physicians and Surgeons as well as several alternative medicine organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Political_and_legal_activism

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

122. Yes, I do...

... you trying tell me to have no worries about holes in my gut, holes in pig guts, and ground water poisoning from heavy chemical use in agriculture. Nevermind that it is unsustainable. But that's OK, you go ahead and enjoy your Round Up poisoned food and water. Just keep it away from me.

[Major Nikon]

123. I couldn't care less about whatever keeps you up at night

But if you're going to spread nonsense from dipshits like Mercola and Jeffrey Smith, you should expect to get called out for it.

[yallerdawg]

11. Such a cynic.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, genetically engineered crops first entered the U.S. food supply in the 1990s, and account for 93 percent of planted soybeans and 88 percent of corn.

Genetically engineered crops, the agency says, are as safe to eat as traditional crops.

Between 75 and 80 percent of foods contain genetically engineered ingredients, The AP reports.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

27. Oh, and then there is this...

"The truth is that studies of GM food have shown tumors, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, allergic reactions and more."


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx

[Igel]

42. Half a truth is worse than a lie.

"Studies" can be really biased or use horrible methodologies. The ones with these results are typically in that category. Small numbers, data dredging, wrong choice of test subjects, force-feeding, no controls, and usually with a pre-set "I know this is true and the scientific method says to find the data to support my assumptions." It's sounds better in French, but that's not the scientific method nor anything close to critical thinking. (Just critical tinkering.)

Look at it this way, if you eat all organic food, are you going to die--whether from stroke, heart attack, or cancer? Well, then, organic food must lead to stroke, heart attack, or cancer. Such a conclusion would show bad design.

[Archae]

49. Mercola?

Are you kidding me?
He's such a quack that he has webbed feet!

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/12/273-joseph-joe-mercola.html

[Major Nikon]

62. Mercola citing Seralini. A dipshit twofer

...with the nutbag Mae-Wan Ho thrown in the mix as if that weren't stupid enough:

"It is now clear that horizontal transfer of GM DNA does happen, and very often. Evidence dating from the early 1990s indicates that ingested DNA in food and feed can indeed survive the digestive tract, and pass through the intestinal wall to enter the bloodstream. The digestive tract is a hotspot for horizontal gene transfer to and between bacteria and other microorganisms.

[Enrique]

39. more information is better

imho

[wordpix]

107. It's BS that GMO's allow MORE herbicides like glyphosate to be applied and poison us?

I don't think so. You really need to read up, there's tons of info out there about GMOs and herbicides

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

5. K&R...

...eom.

[vi5]

8. Oh great. Our side can be anti-science as well...

So does that mean my corn on the cob and zuchinni and sweet potatoes or anything containing those as ingredients are going to come with stickers saying that they are GMO's?

Does that mean we want farms to go back to putting excess amounts of pesticides on their crops rather than using the strains modified to be naturally pest-resistant?

[GoneOffShore]

12. Exactly. The "organic" lobby will make lots of money off of this scam.

[avaistheone1]

15. How so?

[Archae]

24. By demonizing GMO's.

In our local grocery store, milk (store brand) is $2.70 a gallon.

"Organic" milk is $9.00 a HALF gallon.

And milk is milk.

Now you tell me that isn't a scam.

[avaistheone1]

28. Organic milk is better. Usually the difference is only about $2 or $3 a gallon.

It is one of the better investments in organic food you can make.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-organic-milk-really-better-you-regular-milk-2D11712970

[Archae]

30. The article lists a "study" done by Charles Benbrook.

And Benbrook is a paid shill of the organic lobby.

"In December 2013, Benbrook was the lead author of a study claiming that organic milk contained significantly higher levels of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. The study was funded in part by the organic milk producer Organic Valley, and was sharply criticized for faulty assumptions and analysis."

I am a NATIVE of the Dairy State, and for a while when I was a kid, my Dad actually did have a dairy farm.
So I do know about milk.

And "organic" milk is a scam.
The prices I quoted are accurate.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-benbrook-former-washington-state-adjunct-consultant-organic-industry/

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

37. And the USDA is full of Monsanto plants...

.... "Myth #5: If the FDA and the USDA allow them, they must be safe

Monsanto has close ties with the US government, such that, despite the obvious conflict of interest, Monsanto executives have been given policy-making positions in Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx

USDA is going with information from Monsanto, Syngenta paid studies. The USDA has done little or no actual research on the safety of poisons.

[vi5]

47. So what do you want labelled?

Foods containing Monsanto products or foods containing GMO's? Those are not the same thing you do realize that, right.

GMO is an extremely large category and umbrella definition, so much so that labelling things that have GMO's is pointless or unless we label an extremely high percentage of foods as having it, will be pointless.

Anti-GMO folks are absolutely no different than anti-vaccine people. Period.

[Major Nikon]

82. In many cases they are one and the same

Several anti-GMO DUers also post anti-vax nonsense. One is a recurrent zombie who was bounced from DU because he couldn't stop posting about chemtrails. Many of them are also fans of "alternate medicine" like homeopathy and some promote the worst sort of conspiracy theory nutbaggery. They often out themselves by implying anyone who disagrees with their pseudoscience MUST be part of the conspiracy.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

84. Don't group me in with that crowd..

... even thought it may be convenient on a Saturday afternoon. Where have I posted anti-vax or chemtrail significa?

[Major Nikon]

87. Guilty conscience?

I didn't group you in with that crowd. Feel free to divest yourself from said nutbaggery, but keep in mind that doing so kinda tends to impeach what seems to be your favorite source.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/30/whooping-cough-vaccine.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/08/chemtrails.aspx

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

119. All of it labeled, just like the ingredients...

...why do so many want to deny consumers information on what they eat?

[vi5]

124. I'm fine with labelling...

..but labelling "contains GMO's" doesn't tell anyone anything. It would be like saying "contains food" or "contains DNA". It's a meaningless term in an of itself and would still allow people to eat a ridiculous amount of unhealthy, chemically treated and engineered food and also to avoid perfectly healthy, naturally modified foods that are very good for them.

If someone wants more specific and descriptive labelling of food then great, I'm all for that.

If someone wants a label that simply says "contains GMO's" then they are at best, naive and at worst willfully ignorant.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

125. I consider it a work in progress...

... the USDA has two years to implement it (too long in my opinion) and things can be, "upgraded", so to speak to make the labeling more obvious and relevant.

[Major Nikon]

79. Mercola

[Major Nikon]

81. Benbrook is a hack that gets paid both over and under the table from Big-Organic®

A Washington State Program, With Company Help
As he left a nonprofit group, Dr. Benbrook set up this program at Washington State, with funding from companies including Whole Foods, Organic Valley, United Natural Foods and Stonyfield Farm. His goal was to get more public and media attention for his research, which examined the benefits of organic foods and the potential risks associated with genetically modified crops.

Research Is Turned Into Advocacy
Dr. Benbrook's research quickly becomes a central talking point for organizations that have advocated mandatory labels on genetically modified foods, including the nonprofit group Just Label It, which is primarily backed by organic foods companies, which stand to benefit if the label mandates are approved. In this piece of literature from the campaign, Dr. Benbrook's research is repeatedly cited.

A Medical Journal Article Draws Protests
The New England Journal of Medicine publishes an article, with Dr. Benbrook as a co-author, raising health questions about G.M.O. crops. The piece draws intense protests from the biotech industry, and questions about Dr. Benbrook's conflict-of-interest disclosure, which he revises after the article is published. In the revised statement, shown below, he concedes that his financial relationship with G.M.O. critics should have been disclosed.

Benbrook's Emails
Here is a sampling of emails obtained through an open records request by The Times, showing how Dr. Benbrook, even while at Washington State, continued to work closely with organic foods industry players, such as Organic Valley, the popular brand of a large milk cooperative, and the Organic Center, an industry-funded group.

Benbrook as an Expert Witness
Dr. Benbrook has served as an expert witness in nearly a dozen cases, many of them related to G.M.O. food issues. Here are excerpts from court documents associated with two of them and a list of cases he has participated in.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-benbrook.html

[wordpix]

108. go ahead and eat your chemically grown food, then, and don't be surprised

when you're diagnosed with cancer and/or some neuromuscular disorder.

I'm a St. 4 cancer survivor and have gone 100% organic food and most cleaning supplies. I have not had a recurrence (2-1/2 yrs. no evidence of disease). Going organic cured my neuromuscular problems.

Go ahead and eat your chemicals. Just keep them out of my water supply (impossible to do).

[Major Nikon]

121. It's impossible because water is a chemical

You are also made up of chemicals, BTW.

But don't let basic chemistry stand in the way of a good rant.

[wordpix]

126. OMG, what a ridiculous comment

Water is a chemical compound, true, but pure water does not make you sick like glyphosate and other deadly/mutagenic/carcinogenic herbicides. Equating water with glyphosate just makes you look...well, I don't like to call people names and will leave it at "ridiculous."

But go ahead and have a nice glass of glyphosate if you think that's the same chemical as water. Go for it.

[Major Nikon]

127. You stole my line!

[Enrique]

40. labelling is not anti-science

and the answer to both your questions is no.

[Igel]

43. One survey had 85% of people wanting GMO labelling.

The same survey had 80% of people wanting to have food containing DNA also labeled.

Because, it seems, both DNA and modified DNA are evil. And people don't understand what DNA is or what it's in. (And no, (D) weren't all that much better than (R). Worse, in fact, in their burning need to know that meat and vegetables contain DNA, but things like water and salt don't. But that's just "I want things labeled because I can't handle uncertainty" talking.)

(I've also known of people who refused to believe that they were made of molecules. Things are made of molecules, but they're people. Not things.)


Remember--just labeling something as "healthy" with all the same ingredients will get more people to buy it. That Dr. Pepper that's labelled "non-GMO" and "healthy" will pull in more than plain old Dr. Pepper. And, no, GMO sugars are the same as non-GMO sugars because GMO is all about the DNA.

It's the same for water. We avoid hard water because it's bad for us. Then buy expensive water that's had minerals added. (Um ... hard water is water with minerals.)

Green packaging helps for food, as well.

[vi5]

46. Being afraid of GMO's is anti-science.

And why wouldn't we label the items I mentioned?

If GMO's are bad, and If we want products containing GMO's to be labelled, then the foods I mentioned are GMO's and anything that contains them would contain GMO's.

So why wouldn't we label those?

[CentralMass]

52. I would think that you and other like minded lovers of all things GMO would favor labelling

Your trips to the supermarket will be so much easier. Just load up with all the superior food product's that say GMO's inside. You wouldn't have to knock yourself out looking for them anymore.

If we could get them to add the "Crops used in the making of this food were bathed in glyophosate# label, Those could be "Sunday treats".

[vi5]

56. So you're anti chemicals?

Fine. Great. Chemicals do not equal GMO's and GMO's do not equal chemicals.

Label chemicals. Put more specific ingredients on the label.

Something can be GMO and have zero chemicals or inorganic substances. Something can have no GMO's and be riddled with chemicals.

Genetically Modified Organism is such a ridiculously broad term as to be useless which is the problem those of us who favor science and data and....you know.....reality have with anti-GMO folks and labelling. It makes zero sense and will tell you nothing.

Your corn on the cob is a GMO. Sweet potatoes are a GMO. Zuchinni and squash are GMO's. Most tomatoes and a great deal of the rice you eat are GMO's. Soybeans are GMO's. Canola, alfafa, sugar beets, and on and on and on.

Something can be genetically modified naturally with no human intervention as well.

So what exactly is being labelled? What will something containing a GMO tell you? Do you want it to state what that GMO is and the scientific or natural process that modified the genetics of that product?

Or are you also one of these people that wants them to label any products that have DNA as well?

[CentralMass]

59. The simple answer is yes, our foods should be labelled.

You seems to be quite prepared with an agenda of your own.

I equate this to the right to know laws that resulted in the MSD (Material Safety Data Sheets) that now have to be placed on chemicals.

Consumers have a right to know what they are eating. Some, like your self, might chose to purchase these heavily engineered product due to their superiority or their "great benefit" to man kind.

The rest of us science hating blasphemers might not.

[CentralMass]

60. I noticed that the ads below this threads are for Monsanto /Bayer and how the TPP helps farmers.

[vi5]

70. O.K. then tell me....

...how do you define a GMO? Because almost everything you eat has in some way been genetically modified, and everything that is going to come from most food producers has in some way been genetically modified.

If we label products as containing GMO, what would that mean to you? What would it say to you that would make you go "Oh this must be unhealthy for me!!!"

My only agenda is anti-ignorance. Labelling something as broadly "contains GMOs" and then convincing people that means it is bad for them, is as ignorant as it comes and in many ways as dangerous as convincing someone that vaccines are bad.

I'm all for more labelling.

Let's label stuff that has added chemicals.
Let's label stuff that comes from Monsanto.
Let's label stuff that has artificial sweeteners and artificial preservatives.

Those are all things that have strict meaning and which tell people that something might be unhealthy.

Labelling things as GMO's is meaningless to anyone who has even the most basic, high school level understanding of science.

[Major Nikon]

80. Food are already labeled

[Major Nikon]

83. Labeling is the epitome of anti-science

When the best response to why is, "because I want it", there's no science based reason to rationalize GMO labeling.

[Lancero]

9. Hilariously, this is the same bill that anti-gmo groups were decrying past weeks...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/07/07/3796151/gmo-senate-labeling/

"If this bill becomes law, the industry wins what are essentially voluntary requirements under this GMO labeling 'compromise,' which does not mandate recalls, penalties or fines for noncompliance with the incredibly weak requirements of the bill that will likely leave many GMO ingredients exempt from any labeling requirements," Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in a statement. "And the bill gives companies the option to use discriminatory QR codes that require a smartphone to access basic information about the food on store shelves."

The bill would also pre-exempt local labeling bills from going into effect. Right now, that really only impacts Vermont, which successfully passed the nation's first GMO labeling requirement in 2014. A federal requirement that pre-exempts local ordinances is not automatically a bad thing — proponents of overhauling expiration labels argue that a lack of a federal standard has resulted in a patchwork of state requirements that simply add to consumer confusion. The same argument can, and has, been made in relation to GMO labeling. But to pre-exempt strong local laws with a weaker version of the same idea has given advocates of labeling some pause.

"This is a slap in the face for all of the activists that have worked hard to pass state-level measures because they believe strongly that labels should be transparent, and that they should decide whether or not they are purchasing and consuming foods with genetically engineered ingredients," Hauter said. "The majority of Americans support labeling for GMOs and will hold their elected officials accountable for stripping away this transparency."

[avaistheone1]

16. Oops...I'll take down my hurrah post right now.

[progressoid]

14. Hooray! This will do absolutely nothing for us.

[billhicks76]

17. It's A Start

[democrattotheend]

76. Yes and no

It is good that we will have a way to tell if food has GMO or not, but I am not sure how we can figure it out from a barcode. Is the idea that people have to load some sort of app and scan it to find out?

The other downside of this bill, from what I understand, is that it preempts states like Vermont that have stronger GMO labeling laws.

[Todays_Illusion]

18. ABC doesn't bother, but this must be the one, S.1252 H.R.1567: Global Food Security Act of 2016

I have noticed our news people no longer provide a bill number for the legislation they
announce as passed, rejected and signed or vetoed. It is necessary to do a search and see if it can be found.


There is a lot more to it than the most limited and pitiful kind of GMO labeling It is very much about control and it may not be all that friendly and seems to lean to top down, industry input only kind of meddling. Kind of like that TPP and TTIP.

I can't link to the White House copy or the thomas.gov copy even via the senate.gov or house.gov site versions.


If you have been following Smithsonian and National Geographic. You could believe we are going to be taken off most of our traditional foods and be offered the choice of beetles or grasshopper larvae, and I am only being slightly /s.

Funny how all that email bs is more important that what we will be allowed to eat and here on DU the focus still leans very heavy to bashing away at Sanders supporters.

[WhiteTara]

19. Great!

[mdbl]

20. Anyone who thinks plants genetically modified to poison pests is a good thing

needs to have their heads examined. I would rather have a pesticide that washes off than one my genes have to dance around with trying to figure out what the F to do with it.

[uppityperson]

21. Why would one of your genes need to dance around gmo food?

I am sincerely curious about what you meant.

[proverbialwisdom]

25. That was a facetious post, this isn't.

Last edited Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002803435

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2014/04/extreme-levels-herbicide-roundup-found-food

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670

Misc: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024130570#post46

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021927891
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

The decision not to veto this bill is BAD FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024130570#post27

but don't worry, there's a bill for that, too: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/13/president-obama-signs-new-epipen-law-protect-children-asthma-and-severe-allergies-an

[Major Nikon]

63. Pretty sad if it isn't

The sources you are citing are completely biased shit. As an example, OMIC is a fully biased journal that will literally publish anything for money. It's nothing more than a cesspool filled with pseudoscience shit intended for the consumption of people who know shit from beans about reliable journals.

OMICS Publishing Group is a publisher of open access journals that is widely regarded as predatory.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group

[proverbialwisdom]

73. Deleted, don't need it. Now rebut the rest. (nt)

[Major Nikon]

78. As usual your strategy is to throw as much shit against the wall as possible...

and then demand all of it be refuted.

No thanks. I'm just not playing those games any more with you. All you've done is post the usual round of nonsense, some of which points to dead links and virtually all the rest coming from highly biased nutbag sources interpreting shit research from shitty pay-to-play sources by shit researchers. It's not as if anyone (including even you) can't refute this for themselves. A simple web search produces no less than 3 critical reviews of this nonsense in the first 5 links. So it's not as if you even have to try that hard.

The idea that DNA somehow magically transfers (yes magically as even the sources admit they have no idea how) from one organism to another via digestion is mindnumbingly stupid. If such transfers were so easy to accomplish, there would be no need for highly sophisticated gene transfer methods employed by biotech to create GMO in the first place.

[proverbialwisdom]

94. OFF TOPIC, but if links become "dead" retroactively, that cannot be controlled. Look elsewhere.

eg. http://www.najms.net/wp-content/uploads/v06i03.pdf#page=34 (gone)
eg. http://app.autism360.org/MumperPrevention.pdf

or http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HbhpeUn03nsJ:www.najms.net/wp-content/uploads/v06i03p134.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

eg. http://www.biotech-info.net/exposed.html (gone)
eg. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins

[Major Nikon]

95. Why would anyone want to go to that much effort for your anti-vax garbage?

It's not as if anyone actually reads it the first time around. And as I said, you can also refute your own garbage yourself if you wanted to put the least bit of effort into it.

[proverbialwisdom]

96. That's a complete mischaracterization, but typical. P.S. Bullying isn't persuasive in the long run.

[Major Nikon]

97. I get that you are a big Wakefield fan, but nobody else is buying that nonsense anymore

[proverbialwisdom]

111. Fail. Aren't you familiar with Marc Edwards and David Lewis? Whistleblowers, all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028030727#post63

[Major Nikon]

112. Wakefield is a fraud. Get over it.

Nice touch that the source of your last bit of gibberish comes highly recommended from Newt Fucking Gingrich.

What's next, Alex Fucking Jones highest recommendation?

Meanwhile stupidity has consequences

[progressoid]

22. Uh, that's not how it works.

Funny that nobody gets bent out of shape about genetically engineered insulin.

[Major Nikon]

65. Even funnier about what they don't get bent out of shape about

GMO modifies one gene at a time in a laboratory and produces predictable results. The seeds produced from this method and their progeny are ineligible for organic certification. People who don't know shit from beans about plant breeding methods whine incessantly about labeling.

Mutation breeding modifies thousands of genes at a time in a laboratory (or a basement) producing completely random results. The seeds produced from this method and their progeny are fully eligible for organic certification. The same people who whine incessantly about GMO labeling could care less about mutation breeding labeling.

Then again when you get right down to it what's more natural than bombarding seeds with ionizing radiation?
http://www.evolutionfresh.com/juice/organic-grapefruit/

[progressoid]

69. Exactly. And with CRISPR we can do some amazing things.

But no. Let's pretend we're still growing food like it's the 1800's.

[alain2112]

23. Our favorite recreational substances are Pest Poisons

Booze, weed, smokes, fugu, shrooms... plus St Johnswort and belladona FWIW.

You've just made up your mind that you want to be upset, so upset you be.

[mdbl]

38. I don't do any of those poisons you cite

so, don't be upset and kill yourself faster.

[Igel]

44. Most plants produce something that kills or is highly distasteful.

It's called adaptation.

Bt corn uses a pesticide organic producers used for quite a while. When I lived in Eugene we'd find our cars covered with little yellow splots because the city was spraying the city with Bt to kill gypsy moths.

Moreover, the pesticide's expressed in green leaves and stems, not in the seeds. Hard to find traces of the Bt in what we eat, and we have pretty good detection methods.

Round-up Ready products just avoid using a protein variety that is insensitive to glyphosate. The enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase is required for plants' survival. Glyphosate blocks it. There's a fully functional form of that protein that glyphosate *doesn't* block, and altering a plant's genes to use just that variant of the same enzyme makes it Round-up Ready. All that's needed is to change a few amino acids so that the enzyme folds a bit differently.

[Eko]

29. That sounds great.

The country sliding into anti-science idiocy sounds great. Might as well put "may kill you" on all foods, makes way more sense.

[Archae]

31. The organic scam is still pulling in the suckers.

[Eko]

33. Yeah its idiotic.

Ive got nothing against organic food, what people buy is of no concern to me at all. You're vegan, cool, you're vegetarian, cool, you only eat organic food, cool, I dont care. At all. Why should I? What I do care about is people dictating what other people have to put up with because you are an idiot for no scientific reason at all. At all.

[roody]

32. It's a bullshit law designed to stop mandated labeling. Corporate sellout.

[upaloopa]

34. Why do pro GMO people not want us to have a choice?

If you want to eat GMO fine. If I don't want to fine. It is none of our business what the other eats.

[cpwm17]

45. Sure then, buy products that are labeled as GMO free.

Don't force everyone to go along with the scam. Actual science should count for something.

[vi5]

48. Because GMO is a large category...

If you are going to accurately label foods that have GMO's then it would be a ridiculous exercise because a ridiculous amount of our foods contain GMO's. GMO does not mean chemical. It does not mean bad.

So you now could be eating pesticide covered fruits and vegetables because congratulations you've taken brave stand against the food that was developed with zero chemicals to be pest resistant and not require any pesticides. But hey, you labelled something GMO and didn't eat it so....enjoy!

[Major Nikon]

64. You do have a choice

Limit your consumption to organic or other GMO free certifications and you will get zero GMO.

[progressoid]

67. "actual science"

That's the problem. Labeling has nothing to do with actual science. It doesn't say anything instructive about what's in your food.

It's just fear mongering and anti-science.

[Politicub]

99. Glad you have a choice - I'm more concerned about the toxicity of the substances

used to treat organic produce. It's used by the barrel.

While modern pesticides do have drawbacks, the amount of the substance is miniscule compared to how much sulfur, copper, lye, soap and pyrethrums that get dumped on organics.

Factory-level organic farming is nothing like a mom and pop garden.

[Hoyt]

50. I don't avoid GMOs; but if I wanted to, would just assume anything not labeled "No GMOs" or similar,

contains GMOs. I just don't think labeling laws will accomplish a lot -- maybe truth in advertising would make sure "No GMOs" means no GMOs.

I guess other things worry me more, but I get some people see it differently. If it is purely for health reasons, OK. If it's to help someone profit from what some might call a scam (wouldn't go that far), not so much.

[CentralMass]

53. ...

[Hoyt]

58. If label doesn't say "no GMOs (including Glyophosate)" or similar, just assume it has that stuff.

Not opposed to labeling laws, just don't think it makes much difference.

[Politicub]

101. I would rather see the no glyophosate label than a non-GMO label

But it would be great to know both things so people can make their own choices.

I don't like the taste of some organic vegetables. They're often picked green and some have a weird aftertaste.

[vi5]

71. You do realize that covering something in a chemical...

doesn't mean that it's been genetically modified, right? Any more than you using soap means that you've been genetically modified?

And you do realize that something can be genetically modified and contain zero chemicals, right?

On second thought....no you probably do not.

[Cha]

51. Thanks!

[Grey Lemercier]

74. The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.

Labeling them will not make you safer.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

s genetically engineered food dangerous? Many people seem to think it is. In the past five years, companies have submitted more than 27,000 products to the Non-GMO Project, which certifies goods that are free of genetically modified organisms. Last year, sales of such products nearly tripled. Whole Foods will soon require labels on all GMOs in its stores. Abbott, the company that makes Similac baby formula, has created a non-GMO version to give parents “peace of mind.” Trader Joe’s has sworn off GMOs. So has Chipotle.

Some environmentalists and public interest groups want to go further. Hundreds of organizations, including Consumers Union, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Center for Food Safety, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, are demanding “mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.” Since 2013, Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut have passed laws to require GMO labels. Massachusetts could be next.

The central premise of these laws—and the main source of consumer anxiety, which has sparked corporate interest in GMO-free food—is concern about health. Last year, in a survey by the Pew Research Center, 57 percent of Americans said it’s generally “unsafe to eat genetically modified foods.” Vermont says the primary purpose of its labeling law is to help people “avoid potential health risks of food produced from genetic engineering.” Chipotle notes that 300 scientists have “signed a statement rejecting the claim that there is a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs for human consumption.” Until more studies are conducted, Chipotle says, “We believe it is prudent to take a cautious approach toward GMOs.”

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion. But many of us don’t trust these assurances. We’re drawn to skeptics who say that there’s more to the story, that some studies have found risks associated with GMOs, and that Monsanto is covering it up.

I’ve spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Here’s what I’ve learned. First, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

snip



Anti-GMO people are in the same anti-science woo boat as anti-vaxxers, chemtraileers, global warming denialists, and homeopathy pushers IMHO.

[whathehell]

77. Yes!!

[Recursion]

93. Anti-GMO groups are furious, which at point isn't surprising (nt)

[wordpix]

109. uh, I'm anti-GMO and I'm not furious at all, I'm gleeful! GOBAMA!

[wordpix]

106. great! GObama!

[Il_Coniglietto]

117. I'm with Hillary

I'm not a climate scientist, but I trust the scientific consensus and the quality of the evidence regarding climate change. Likewise, my only experience with genetic engineering was in a first year biology lab so I trust the scientific consensus and IT IS CLEAR:

AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

In sharp contrast to public views about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe.

That’s the most eye-opening finding in a Pew Research Center study on science literacy, undertaken in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and released on January 29.

The overwhelming scientific consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change. However, the public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than they do about the consensus on global warming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm.

http://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods