General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRep. Jared Polis (D) offered to rename the pro-GMO bill the "Deny Americans the Right To Know" Act.
The dark act bill, HR 1599, has passed in the US House of Reps and is moving on to the Senate next. Here is what an Ag trade says about today's (7/23/15) vote:
The bill also calls on FDA to allow, but not require, GMO food to be labeled as GMO, and regulates the use of the term "natural." Further, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service may establish a program to certify non-GMO food under the bill.
In an unusual move, a procedural amendment following the passage of the bill was offered by Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., to rename the bill the "Deny Americans the Right To Know" Act. It was voted down.
That moniker is favored by bill opponents and the consumer group Center for Food Safety, which says H.R. 1599 will deny voters the right to pass state bills to label GM food. Opponents also say the bill will withhold information from consumers by not requiring affirmative GMO labels.
http://farmfutures.com/story-house-approves-voluntary-gmo-labeling-bill-hr-1599-0-130222
93% of the American public wants our food labelled and this thing went 275 to 150 to prevent labelling laws.
The tracker on this, yet to be updated for today's move:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Gmos cause harm, to humans and to nature.
Rex
(65,616 posts)There is no good reason (and it is driving some crazy) to NOT label food products. GMO or otherwise. NONE.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)There is absolutely no evidence that supports that.
BurfBrainiac
(15 posts)It would be nice if GMO, Inc. advocates would try a a smidgen of truth once in a while.
http://www.integrativesystems.org/systems-biology-of-gmos/
Deadshot
(384 posts)Articles from obscure journals from a more obscure website?
BurfBrainiac
(15 posts)That's just further evidence that profit-driven GMO corporations and their faith-based advocates are deeply, mystically under the thrall of corporate-funded "science" and the steady onslaught of corporate-funded PR, while disdaining the real stuff -- real science conducted by an MIT researcher and published in a rigorous peer-reviewed journal.
Despite sneers, any intelligent, sensible person will trust the Journal "Agricultural Sciences" any day over "The Anals of GMO-Glyphosate-Petroleum Profiteering."
I mean, really.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)They don't seem interested in any real discussion of the technology, its limits and its risks. So what's being advocated by some is not "science" but simply marketing. Bill Gates is a big investor in GMO now and just like with Microsoft, the attitude is "if the customer doesn't want our product then the customer is stupid."
Without discussing their science or debate, their position is very much like a religion. They even name their companies with religious terms like "my saint" in French ("Mon Santo" .
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)It's a comic book character.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)the wishes of a few overhsadow the wishes of everyone else. Minority interests rule the majority. It wont be long now.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)...make decisions to inform their citizens.
(But then we already knew that "states right'er" were phonies.)
jalan48
(13,916 posts)mountain grammy
(26,676 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)The same people who criticize anti-vaxxers for being anti-science are the same people who are anti-GMOs.
Bill Nye was a guest host of StarTalk last week and he had a great program about GMOs. He used to be anti-GMO and now he's pro-GMO: http://www.startalkradio.net/show/cosmic-queries-gmos-with-bill-nye-part-1/
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)I am VERY, even violently against anyone who would oppose labeling.
there is no such thing as 'too much information', nor 'information that I should not have' (except personal information of others), anyone not down with that can be taken out, flogged and given a necklace as far as I am concerned.
7962
(11,841 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Regardless of your opinion as to whether or not GMO stuff is good or bad, why shouldnt I have the right to know they're part of my food? Labels have to show sugar, salt, coloring, even water as an ingredient
Deadshot
(384 posts)EVERYTHING.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)GMO labeling makes absolutely no sense.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/05/10/mandatory-gmo-food-label-not-backed-by-science/
According to an article in Bloomberg Business Week, entitled The Scariest Veggies of them all:
Reports from the National Academy of Sciences, representing the consensus of experts in the field, say the risk of creating unintended health effects is greater from mutagenesis than any other technique, including genetic modification. Mutagenesis deletes and rearranges hundreds or thousands of genes randomly, spawning mutations that are less precise than GMOs. The academy has warned that regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to mutant products isnt scientifically justified.
No doubt many in the organic farming community would strongly object to GMO labeling if it included mutagenesis as many organic seeds are derived from such a process. In an article for the Boston Review, the noted plant geneticist Pamela Ronald wrote that some varieties of California-certified organic rice were developed through radiation mutagenesis Organic and non-organic varieties of wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum have also been developed through a process of mutagenesis.
To be fair, even though mutagenesis results in the creation of thousands of unknown mutations, versus one or two via precision engineering, there is no evidence that even thousands of random mutations pose genuine health hazards. Whats important though is the hypocrisy factor: thousands of chemical and radiation lab-created mutations are given a free pass by those opposed to GMOs but they go hysterical when just one or two genes are altered, mapped, and tested for allergenicity. That makes no logical sense.
Almost all of the food we eat has been changed by man, much of it in major ways. Minor genetic changes in GMO's are not magically worse than all of the other genetic changes that have taken place since evolution began.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Blind faith in GMO food: 7%. Anti-vaxxers: 7%
You get your GMO info from an actor with an undergrad degree in Mech Engineering? Bill Nye said "one gene controls eye color" so he has not demonstrated even the most basic understanding of genetics. Genetics and Biology aren't Mechanical Engineering and they aren't about reading cue cards.
This is Marketing (not science, not ethics):
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The American Association for the Advancement of Science:
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
The US National Academy of Sciences:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/24/science/la-sci-gmo-food-safety-20121025
"There's no mystery here," said UCLA plant geneticist Bob Goldberg. "When you put a gene into a plant ... it behaves exactly like any other gene."
Genetically engineered crops have been extensively studied. Hundreds of papers in academic journals have scrutinized data on the health and environmental impacts of the plants. So have several in-depth analyses by independent panels convened by the National Academy of Sciences.
The reports have broadly concluded that genetically modified plants are not only safe but in many respects friendlier to the environment than nonengineered crops grown via conventional farming methods.
The American Medical Association
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-medical-association-opposes.html
The council's decision to oppose labeling comes amid California's consideration of legislation that would require genetically modified foods sold in grocery stores to be labeled. Beyond its potential to create unnecessary alarm for consumers, a review by the independent state legislative analyst points out the measure would cost the state and its taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and to pay for lawsuits.
The AMA report is consistent with the findings of a majority of respected scientists, medical professionals and health experts. As the AMA has cited previously, a highly regarded 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper states there is no evidence that genetically modified foods pose any health risks. The report also reaffirms the council's policy recommendation in a December 2000 report stating "there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods."
Additionally, there have been more than 300 independent medical studies on the health and safety of genetically modified foods. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and many others have reached the same determination that foods made using GM ingredients are safe, and in fact are substantially equivalent to conventional alternatives. As a result, the FDA does not require labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients because it acknowledges they may mislead consumers into thinking there could be adverse health effects, which has no basis in scientific evidence.
You're just like right-wing global warming deniers that make it all about Al Gore.
Deadshot
(384 posts)Interesting. Everyone loves him until he talks about GMOs.
7962
(11,841 posts)Most mfgs would put that on their foods which would ALMOST accomplish the same thing. It still sux though
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Maybe people could some amazing powers of deduction to figure out what a food without that label may or may not contain.
Seems like a solution already exists, but for whatever reason, some people are insistent on applying a highly-charged and unnecessarily-stigmatized label to foods not made by organic manufacturers.
A mystery to me.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Many farmers are returning to non-GMO corn. They aren't going to organics just non-GMO:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/04/20/more-money-non-gmo-corn-soy?cmpid=tp-ptnr-eatlocalgrown
We are subsidizing GMO crop systems to the tune of $8 billion a year because the technology does not pay for itself. As that article details, GMO has raised costs for farmers above what corn sells for. It is not cost-effective so like just like going to Congress to stop the consumer from having a choice, the GMO system sellers went to the Fed to subsidize their failed technology.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Without GMOs, I guess it would be...1 billion? 2 billion? I know American would have been OK since we're wealthy, but much of the 3rd world would have starved to death.
Thankfully GMOs are able to increase crop yields and actually feed the world.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)And in a new paper (PDF) funded by the US Department of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin researchers have essentially negated the "more food" argument as well. The researchers looked at data from UW test plots that compared crop yields from various varieties of hybrid corn, some genetically modified and some not, between 1990 and 2010. While some GM varieties delivered small yield gains, others did not. Several even showed lower yields than non-GM counterparts. With the exception of one commonly used traita Bt type designed to kill the European corn borerthe authors conclude, "we were surprised not to find strongly positive transgenic yield effects." Both the glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) and the Bt trait for corn rootworm caused yields to drop.
Then there's the question of so-called "stacked-trait" cropsthat is, say, corn engineered to contain multiple added genesfor example, Monsanto's "Smart Stax" product, which contains both herbicide-tolerant and pesticide-expressing genes. The authors detected what they call "gene interaction" in these cropsgenes inserted into them interact with each other in ways that affect yield, often negatively. If multiple genes added to a variety didn't interact, "the [yield] effect of stacked genes would be equal to the sum of the corresponding single gene effects," the authors write. Instead, the stacked-trait crops were all over the map. "We found strong evidence of gene interactions among transgenic traits when they are stacked," they write. Most of those effects were negativei.e., yield was reduced..
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/do-gmo-crops-have-lower-yields