Require labeling of GMO foods?

[MoSurveyor]

Or bring the plant here... there are numerous plants that are not indigenous to the US (kudzu is a well known example) yet have cross pollinated with native plants to create new species.

Then you've shown exactly what I was saying, that man creates not-natural plants and has been doing so for a long time.

Not knowing the exact tomato is the reason they are averaged in their nutritional value. Having a particular one weighted heavy for X content would throw that average out of balance, of course. Weighted averaging for something as variable as all tomatoes would be an effort in futility, hence sub groupings such as Roma or Beefsteak. Since a tomato specifically manipulated to be heavy for X vitamin (a selling point for GMO, supposedly) would need a separate classification so it didn't weight those averages.

If you look at the article you cited you will not find tomatoes broken down into varieties - nor does the government list I cited do that. The farthest the USDA went was specifying "tomatoes, red", which is a huge group including many others besides the ones you just named.

I said five years to show that rate of change to the market share would need to update it frequently if GMOs were grouped with non GMOs.

You're assuming only GMOs would have a change in nutrients, which is a false assumption. You're also assuming a change in nutrition must come from a GMO, which is another false assumption.

So, you as the consumer just look at a bin of tomatos and pick what looks good without knowing what kind of tomato you're buying... as I mentioned earlier, which tomato makes a good paste? A good sauce? A slicing tomato for on your burger? (rhetorical) There are no signs in your store that say Romas or Beefsteak/slicing, Jersey or heirloom, with pricing? Just one big bin, take your chances. :wink:

There are usually signs that show tomato type, they do not include any other information. Lettuce and other plants work the same way - iceberg, leaf, etc. No other indicators.

For those concerned with nutrient, a reference point of a list matched with the product... but you aren't even will to grant ANY identification to the consumer, and that is where I disagree. Something being put on the market without any identification of what it is for that reference point.

I have no idea what you're getting at here unless it's types as described above. There is no nutritional information, origin indications, whether pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers - and what specific type of each - or whatever else may have been sprayed on the plants or their field prior to planting.

You brought up that GMO's aren't necessarily created for pesticide resistance, and I added nutritional value (a point argued by other pro-GMO posters) and this thread has gone from there.... so the pick a reason GMO's shouldn't be labeled, and stick with it.... other than the supposed negative connotation, you have yet to make a solid argument that they shouldn't be.

Nutritional information doesn't say anything about a plant being GMO or not. If you want to argue for better nutritional labels that is certainly your choice but it has nothing to do with a plant being GMO or not.


You seem to be laboring under the false impression that all GMOs are the same but they're not. Some are drought tolerant, some are herbicide tolerant, some are for more nutrition, some are for faster growing, and the list goes on and on. Labeling something GMO won't tell you a damn thing about what kind of changes have been made and unless you're going to add a whole sheet of paper to cover all the options you will never know. You've graduated far, far beyond your "few drops of ink" and at that point, I'd say farmers who use pesticides should label their foods with the pesticide and amount, same for herbicides, and fertilizers, greenhouse or field, state in which grown, small or corporate farm, etc., etc. I mean, seriously how far down do you want to take this? You can have a whole sheet printed up for each batch of produce so you know exactly which field of which farm is was taken from and exactly how it was grown and what chemicals it contains. That certainly could be done but it's silly to do all that or any of it, for that matter, including your GMO label. If you want organic, then buy what's labeled organic.

We've both divert from the subject at hand, the labeling of GMO's, and my reasoning for believing GMOs should be labeled, and your argument that they shouldn't be, based on a supposed negative connotation.

I assume you mean a negative connotation - by the public at large? I didn't make that claim. I just think the whole idea of labeling foods as GMO is wasteful (costly) and ridiculous. If it comes to labeling them as GMO I can only hope my can of GMO corn stays the same price and the additional cost is added to the non-GMO corn.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Then you would be wrong. I already posted links to sites that explain the labeling rules for textile products and other products. Now does EVERY product need to be labeled made in America by law or regulation? I don't know as there are about a billiojn products and probably a regulation for each. Many do though so apparenlty labeling isn't a big cost to a manufacturer and 3-6 extra letters being printed on a label that is already applied is not a big cost adder either.

We were discussing country of origin. Is every single piece of produce in all your stores labeled "USA", "US", or "local" or some other country? Or do just some of them have those labels? Here, almost none have an origin label at all, which I assume means they're grown in the US.


I don't see the point in separating the crops or adding anything to a label. It's useless information and an added step in processing.

 

[GottaGo]

Then you've shown exactly what I was saying, that man creates not-natural plants and has been doing so for a long time.

Not quite, but nice try... just because man transferred a plant from continent A to continent B, does not mean the cross pollination is not natural...

If you look at the article you cited you will not find tomatoes broken down into varieties - nor does the government list I cited do that. The farthest the USDA went was specifying "tomatoes, red", which is a huge group including many others besides the ones you just named.

Calories in Tomatoes, Red, ripe, raw | Nutrition, Carbohydrate and Calorie Counter Don't forget to click on the box that gives you a selection on the type of tomato.... :wink:

You're assuming only GMOs would have a change in nutrients, which is a false assumption. You're also assuming a change in nutrition must come from a GMO, which is another false assumption.

False assumption based on what you think I believe.... I am well aware that nutrients can change, that's why they are averaged based on given parameters (size makes minimal difference within a particular species, given internal distribution) based on portional weights.

There are usually signs that show tomato type, they do not include any other information. Lettuce and other plants work the same way - iceberg, leaf, etc. No other indicators

. and when a Roma tomato has been GM'ed, it is technically no longer just a "Roma". Hence our discussion last night regarding biological taxonomy.

I have no idea what you're getting at here unless it's types as described above. There is no nutritional information, origin indications, whether pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers - and what specific type of each - or whatever else may have been sprayed on the plants or their field prior to planting.

We are not talking about pesticides used in the field or fertilizers applied, or how they are applied.

Nutritional information doesn't say anything about a plant being GMO or not. If you want to argue for better nutritional labels that is certainly your choice but it has nothing to do with a plant being GMO or not.

That's why the GMO should be identified for the average layperson to know what they are purchasing. If you are allowing for better nutritional labels, then we are back to the few more drops of ink discussion.

You seem to be laboring under the false impression that all GMOs are the same but they're not. Some are drought tolerant, some are herbicide tolerant, some are for more nutrition, some are for faster growing, and the list goes on and on. Labeling something GMO won't tell you a damn thing about what kind of changes have been made and unless you're going to add a whole sheet of paper to cover all the options you will never know. You've graduated far, far beyond your "few drops of ink" and at that point, I'd say farmers who use pesticides should label their foods with the pesticide and amount, same for herbicides, and fertilizers, greenhouse or field, state in which grown, small or corporate farm, etc., etc. I mean, seriously how far down do you want to take this? You can have a whole sheet printed up for each batch of produce so you know exactly which field of which farm is was taken from and exactly how it was grown and what chemicals it contains. That certainly could be done but it's silly to do all that or any of it, for that matter, including your GMO label. If you want organic, then buy what's labeled organic.

I don't believe all GMOs are the same, false assumption again. When alterations have been made to a 'standard' product on the market to be consumed, don't you think that people who purchase that product have a right to be advised that it is no longer the same product they purchased before? Most would tout it to the high heavens....

I assume you mean a negative connotation - by the public at large? I didn't make that claim. I just think the whole idea of labeling foods as GMO is wasteful (costly) and ridiculous. If it comes to labeling them as GMO I can only hope my can of GMO corn stays the same price and the additional cost is added to the non-GMO corn.

Considering the premise of this thread, the labeling considered to be a negative connotation based on fear, your stance falls in the same line.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

We were discussing country of origin. Is every single piece of produce in all your stores labeled "USA", "US", or "local" or some other country? Or do just some of them have those labels? Here, almost none have an origin label at all, which I assume means they're grown in the US.


I don't see the point in separating the crops or adding anything to a label. It's useless information and an added step in processing.

I will check next time I am in the store. I would guess that most are.

Please tell me how is asking a printer to print 6 more letters adding a step to processing?

 

[MoSurveyor]

Not quite, but nice try... just because man transferred a plant from continent A to continent B, does not mean the cross pollination is not natural...

Of course is does - it couldn't have happened without man's interference.

Calories in Tomatoes, Red, ripe, raw | Nutrition, Carbohydrate and Calorie Counter Don't forget to click on the box that gives you a selection on the type of tomato.... :wink:

Oh boy! Italian, plum, and cherry - that's a complete list of tomatoes if I've ever seen one!

False assumption based on what you think I believe.... I am well aware that nutrients can change, that's why they are averaged based on given parameters (size makes minimal difference within a particular species, given internal distribution) based on portional weights.

Then obviously nutrients have no relation to GMOs in general and shouldn't be part of this discussion.

. and when a Roma tomato has been GM'ed, it is technically no longer just a "Roma". Hence our discussion last night regarding biological taxonomy.

According to taxonomy if it looks like a Roma, reproduces like a Roma, and has all the other overt physical characteristics of a Roma then it is, indeed, a Roma regardless of it's genetic makeup.

We are not talking about pesticides used in the field or fertilizers applied, or how they are applied.

There's no nutritional information in the store, either, not for fresh products.

That's why the GMO should be identified for the average layperson to know what they are purchasing. If you are allowing for better nutritional labels, then we are back to the few more drops of ink discussion.

The GMO label does nothing to inform the consumer of anything other than it's a plant that doesn't occur in nature - and man has been creating not natural plants for centuries.

I don't believe all GMOs are the same, false assumption again. When alterations have been made to a 'standard' product on the market to be consumed, don't you think that people who purchase that product have a right to be advised that it is no longer the same product they purchased before? Most would tout it to the high heavens....

It depends on what kind of modification it is. "GMO" tells you nothing at all. For all you know the only modification is to make the plant more drought tolerant. Hothouse plants are drought tolerant, too, but they're not usually labeled as such. What makes the GMO so different if that's the only change?

Considering the premise of this thread, the labeling considered to be a negative connotation based on fear, your stance falls in the same line.

Only fear of raising prices. LOL! I could care less about public hysteria in general. I've seen it too many times to care anymore what the masses think.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I will check next time I am in the store. I would guess that most are.

Please tell me how is asking a printer to print 6 more letters adding a step to processing?

Because it won't be just that. Producers will separate GMO from non-GMO, which is an added step - and I hope they lay that cost on the non-GMO products instead of the products I buy.


But as GottaGo and I have been discussing, just labeling something GMO really doesn't tell you a thing about it except that it's a not natural plant and man has been creating those for centuries.

 

[GottaGo]

Of course is does - it couldn't have happened without man's interference.

Oh boy! Italian, plum, and cherry - that's a complete list of tomatoes if I've ever seen one!

Then obviously nutrients have no relation to GMOs in general and shouldn't be part of this discussion.

According to taxonomy if it looks like a Roma, reproduces like a Roma, and has all the other overt physical characteristics of a Roma then it is, indeed, a Roma regardless of it's genetic makeup.

There's no nutritional information in the store, either, not for fresh products.

The GMO label does nothing to inform the consumer of anything other than it's a plant that doesn't occur in nature - and man has been creating not natural plants for centuries.

It depends on what kind of modification it is. "GMO" tells you nothing at all. For all you know the only modification is to make the plant more drought tolerant. Hothouse plants are drought tolerant, too, but they're not usually labeled as such. What makes the GMO so different if that's the only change?

Only fear of raising prices. LOL! I could care less about public hysteria in general. I've seen it too many times to care anymore what the masses think.

Then we will have to agree to disagree, my stand has been made and won't be changing. My belief in the necessity of labeling GMOs is based on people having the right to know what they are consuming. Apparently, you don't feel people have a right to know, and there is no way I am going to agree on that, or several other things you've put forth.

I may not be a scientist, but I do know a wee bit about plants, biology and nutrition impact.

Enjoy your tomatoes. :wink:

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Because it won't be just that. Producers will separate GMO from non-GMO

Why? Are they incompatible?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

But as GottaGo and I have been discussing, just labeling something GMO really doesn't tell you a thing about it except that it's a not natural plant and man has been creating those for centuries.

And saying something may contain one or more of the following oils doesn't tell you a whole lot yet they put it on the label. Apparently it doesn't cost much in ink. So how harder would this label be to make if instead of just listing corn as an ingredient it said 'may contain Corn and GMO corn'?

 

[MoSurveyor]

Then we will have to agree to disagree, my stand has been made and won't be changing. My belief in the necessity of labeling GMOs is based on people having the right to know what they are consuming. Apparently, you don't feel people have a right to know, and there is no way I am going to agree on that, or several other things you've put forth.

I may not be a scientist, but I do know a wee bit about plants, biology and nutrition impact.

Enjoy your tomatoes. :wink:

It's not about a "right to know", it's about a right to know the important information. I like nutrient labeling and ingredients labeling, it was an excellent idea and continues to inform people. The difference is you seem to think GMO products are something special and I don't. If they all had the same goal or same basic changes you might have a point but they don't, those changes vary from GMO to GMO depending on the application. Man has been changing plants in that manner for centuries, enforcing some traits and reducing others. This is nothing more than an improvement on that process. I'd rather know what kind of chemicals they're putting on my food but that seems to be much less important to most people for some odd reason that I have never been able to fathom. :shrug:


I'm good with agreeing to disagree. It's been a good discussion.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Why? Are they incompatible?

If they're going to be labeled differently then I would guess they will be handled differently as well.

 

[MoSurveyor]

And saying something may contain one or more of the following oils doesn't tell you a whole lot yet they put it on the label. Apparently it doesn't cost much in ink. So how harder would this label be to make if instead of just listing corn as an ingredient it said 'may contain Corn and GMO corn'?

If you're allergic to any of those you might want to avoid that food. So?


Adding "GMO" would tell you nothing extra about the contents above or beyond what is already on the label. Corn is corn and has x and y vitamins @ z calories per serving as shown on the label. When older corn was bred for drought resistance did they put that on the label? No, they didn't put "drought resistant corn" on the label. Then why should they do so, now? Do they put "corn sprayed with roundup" on the label? No, they don't. Corn fertilized with cow manure? Nope! Corn field treated with Acephate or Acetamiprid? Nope, no "may contain Acephate" or "may contain Acetamiprid" on any label. Why aren't any of these things of interest? Or maybe I should say, why is GMO of more interest than these things? The world may never know ...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Should fruits, vegetables, and canned foods that include genetically modified foods be forced to be labeled "GMO-containing"?

I say no. Non-GMO foods have a lot of money to gain by labeling themselves "non-GMO". Let them add the labeling and reap the $$$$$$.

Irrational and baseless fear about genetic modification shouldn't drive public policy.

I would like them to be labeled as containing GMO, but you are correct. Other companies should run with the "does not contain..." concept.

The bread I buy proudly says "no high fructose corn syrup." I would like to see them add "no GMO."

 

[Kanstantine]

Any food listed as "Organic" has no GMO ingredients. This is certified by the FDA.

Problem solved.

 

[Deuce]

Forced labeling of GMO gives an implicit statement that they are somehow inherently less safe. This isn't true.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Forced labeling of GMO gives an implicit statement that they are somehow inherently less safe. This isn't true.

Food comps have to list all the ingredients and nutritional info so it's no big deal to print 3 more letters on the package.

 

[Deuce]

Food comps have to list all the ingredients and nutritional info so it's no big deal to print 3 more letters on the package.

GMO isn't an ingredient. What we currently view as "wheat" is nowhere near its "natural" state, and bananas as you know them never existed in nature. These things are modified.

 

[Paschendale]

Not only should GMO foods be labeled, they should be labeled with what genetic manipulation has been done to them. GMO foods are a fantastic technological innovation, but there are both potential for abuse, like what Monsanto does, and unreasonable fear, like what the organic food movement has to say about "frankenfoods". Labeling and more information about the processes that our food goes through will inform the public that GMO can be totally normal and healthy, and that it is not something that a manufacturer should be ashamed of. And it will let us know when there is a gene in our food just to make it patentable. More information is better.

 

[Deuce]

Not only should GMO foods be labeled, they should be labeled with what genetic manipulation has been done to them. GMO foods are a fantastic technological innovation, but there are both potential for abuse, like what Monsanto does, and unreasonable fear, like what the organic food movement has to say about "frankenfoods". Labeling and more information about the processes that our food goes through will inform the public that GMO can be totally normal and healthy, and that it is not something that a manufacturer should be ashamed of. And it will let us know when there is a gene in our food just to make it patentable. More information is better.

What, they should post the gene sequence on the label?
Look, everything you eat is modified in some way. Are we going to have to print a history of wheat on every package of cereal?

 

[Kanstantine]

Fearing all forms of genetic modification is a bit hysterical.

 

[BmanMcfly]

What, they should post the gene sequence on the label?
Look, everything you eat is modified in some way. Are we going to have to print a history of wheat on every package of cereal?

Seriously??

Ok, 100 years ago farmers would splice and clone plants / crops... All these "modifications" occur through natural processes. That's NOT what is meant by GMO, and frankly your attempt to connect the two is dishonest.

What should be labelled is when you are adding genes from a cockroach to a salmon, or adding genes from a fungus to a plant so that the plant generates its own genetic pesticide, adding genes to a plant to render that plant sterile, etc...

These types of modifications have not had ANY safety studies performed, because it "looks like" an unmodified version of that plant or animal and so it is treated as though it is no different.

The simple fact is that we have NO CLUE what the ramifications are to modifying the genetics of food. We don't know if the simple change we make today might change through genetic reproduction several generations down the line that makes the food toxic... It might be fine forever, we don't know.... Especially for someone who claims to care about the environment, you are sure easy to take chances with the genetic viability of the Eco-system.

In the us it's about 80% of food is GMO food... Not a good prospect if it turns out that GMO foods can cause problems... Also, how would you propose cleaning up this "genetic pollution" if it were deemed necessary to do so?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Fearing all forms of genetic modification is a bit hysterical.

That's like saying that it's a bit hysterical to not want to play Russian roulette when you don't even know wether there is a bullet in a chamber, or how many...

 

[MoSurveyor]

Ok, 100 years ago farmers would splice and clone plants / crops... All these "modifications" occur through natural processes. That's NOT what is meant by GMO, and frankly your attempt to connect the two is dishonest.

There's nothing "natural" about a naval orange, a tangelo, or a Beefalo. Try again.

 

[brothern]

There's nothing "natural" about a naval orange, a tangelo, or a Beefalo. Try again.

I completely agree with you on the foolishness of labeling GMOs, but ...

How so? All species are derived from a common ancestor differentiated only on the basis of genetic variances. In fact, the term 'species' itself is a loaded human-created term. Many species are differentiated only by geographical locations, but are otherwise completely compatible genetically. In contrast a Mastiff and a Chihuahua are completely genetically incompatible to the degree of an exploding Chihuahua, yet are still considered to be the same species. Crossing a pomelo and mandarin is hardly unnatural or anything of the sort. It's two cousin species being brought together. Nothing more. It could have been done by a human, bee or a breath of wind.

That's the same, I'd argue with genetic manipulation. You are inserting a gene into a plant in order to better its chances at survival, taste, production, or you name it. That's nothing that a couple thousand years could not have done. Nothing unnatural about the process what so ever.

 

[brothern]

These types of modifications have not had ANY safety studies performed, because it "looks like" an unmodified version of that plant or animal and so it is treated as though it is no different.

Not only is that false, but it is blatantly false. GMO foods have been tested for human consumption since the day they were created. Every major mainstream scientific and medical organization -- from the FDA, to the American Medical Association, to the National Academies of Science -- have tested, verified and are able to vouch not only for the safety of GMOs, but for the health-benefits associated with chowing down on carrots and apples all day long. So, to sum it up: The simple fact is that scientists, medical professionals, and plant scientists way smarter than both of us combined have vetted this practice thoroughly and are comfortable enough to endorse it. Whether or not you want to believe 'em is up to you. But, don't go around spewing made-up crap to back your arguments.