GMO labeling

[-X-]

For it or against it?

I just watched the House Subcommittee hearing and testimony with regards to house bill (H.R. 4432) which would prohibit genetically modified plants (or seeds, fruits, or any other part thereof) intended for a food use or application to be introduced into interstate commerce prior to complying with a safety review process at the FDA.

Under the bill, if FDA were to find a material difference between the product and its comparable marketed food and that disclosure of such difference is necessary to protect health and safety or to prevent the labeling from being false or misleading, the agency could require such labeling. Otherwise, under the bill, any labeling that would indicate bioengineering was or was not used in the production of a food product would have to meet a specified set of Federal standards, preempting State-specific regulation.

The ISSUE is that States are lobbying for labeling in order to give consumers a choice about which foods they want to buy, and labeling foods that contain GMO's will give them that choice. The Bill is intended to NOT address those concerns; and if passed, will keep GMO's from being labeled.

My stance is that not enough is known about GMO's other than the propoganda perpetuated by Monsanto that they're fiscally beneficial and safe, coupled with their claims that they want to "feed the world." There are a number of documentaries online about the GMO's and what goes into genetically modifying seeds and food - including introducing weed resistance through introducing pesticides into the genetic make-up of seeds.

Anyone else have an opinion on this, or am I the only activist on the board?

 

[LesBaker]

What are the nutritional differences, that's the first thing that comes to mind. Also cost differences.

I was going to watch an documentary called "GMO-OMG" but haven't gotten around to it, and documentaries on subjects like this are probably the least subjective (ala Supersize Me) so I have to be really motivated to watch them.

I thought the weed resistance was in the fertilizer not the plant. This is the first time I've heard of that.

 

[Athos]

IMO, when you're selling something than people consume whether that be food, beverage, or medication, you have a fundamental RIGHT to know what is going into your body.

The only way to know that is to require everyone to put a label of all the shit that's in their food, on the sticker. Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to a label that tells me exactly where the ingredients were gathered.

Let the people decide if they want GMO or non-GMO food on their own. These days, you're perfectly capable on getting on the interwebs and researching.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Personally I think the GMO 'scare' is mostly bunk. Almost everything we get we genetically modify, corn, fruit, etc.

If they want to slap labels to them, thats okay, but GMO would include corn and a lot of foods that are healthier and give us more nutrition as well.

 

[-X-]

Personally I think the GMO 'scare' is mostly bunk. Almost everything we get we genetically modify, corn, fruit, etc.

If they want to slap labels to them, thats okay, but GMO would include corn and a lot of foods that are healthier and give us more nutrition as well.

I don't know if it's bunk, but I do know that I don't know enough about the process or how it translates to what's going in my gut. The 'debate' (as it were) during the house meeting unrightly shifted to the safety of GMOs and couldn't stay focused on the issue of consumer's rights to know whether or not they're ingesting it.

@LesBaker, that documentary is probably biased, but it's really only about one guy's search for answers. Of which he didn't get many.

 

[RamFan503]

It really depends on the wording. I voted against a measure here in Oregon because it would have put our state at a market disadvantage in a lot of areas and was overly vague in some areas that would likely have affected certain small farmers while allowing a loophole for the big corporate farming operations with extreme lobbying and legal budgets. I'm a local control guy but I felt this would be better handled at the federal level.

As far as GMO and genetic engineering, it depends on the definition. Genetic engineering can be as simple as cross pollination or grafting. The earlier attempts at drafting legislation wouldn't have differentiated. Next came the big corporations "helping" to draft some of the wording in a fox being asked to guard the hen house mentality. But when the fox pays for your campaign and plays all sides of the aisle, you have a hard time finding politicians that honestly want to challenge their benefactors.

I am more concerned with the overall potential for a few companies to control our seed stock and also the inevitability of some disease devastating what will potentially become a monocrop agricultural system.

There's not a lot of evidence out there that I am aware of to suggest that GMO crops are inherently less healthy. Though, I haven't done a lot of research on that part of the argument. But here is what I have a problem with on that front. This world is a balancing act. Whether you believe in creationism or big bang or whatever, the world evolves with a delicate balance. What genetic interference on a basic level does is screw with that balance in a way that no scientist can possibly know the long term results. By basic level I mean that instead of just cross pollinating a couple strains of corn for example, they are going in and changing the DNA of the plant or animal.

Though I believe that the earth itself is very resilient, that which inhabits it is an infant in comparison.

I don't fault business and corporations from wanting to feed their pockets. This whole feed the world mantra is really laughable though.

Personally, I don't mind if corporations want to use engineering to design crops used for fuel or fabrics or the like. But I draw the line at food and feed.

 

[-X-]

It really depends on the wording. I voted against a measure here in Oregon because it would have put our state at a market disadvantage in a lot of areas and was overly vague in some areas that would likely have affected certain small farmers while allowing a loophole for the big corporate farming operations with extreme lobbying and legal budgets. I'm a local control guy but I felt this would be better handled at the federal level.

As far as GMO and genetic engineering, it depends on the definition. Genetic engineering can be as simple as cross pollination or grafting. The earlier attempts at drafting legislation wouldn't have differentiated. Next came the big corporations "helping" to draft some of the wording in a fox being asked to guard the hen house mentality. But when the fox pays for your campaign and plays all sides of the aisle, you have a hard time finding politicians that honestly want to challenge their benefactors.

I am more concerned with the overall potential for a few companies to control our seed stock and also the inevitability of some disease devastating what will potentially become a monocrop agricultural system.

There's not a lot of evidence out there that I am aware of to suggest that GMO crops are inherently less healthy. Though, I haven't done a lot of research on that part of the argument. But here is what I have a problem with on that front. This world is a balancing act. Whether you believe in creationism or big bang or whatever, the world evolves with a delicate balance. What genetic interference on a basic level does is screw with that balance in a way that no scientist can possibly know the long term results. By basic level I mean that instead of just cross pollinating a couple strains of corn for example, they are going in and changing the DNA of the plant or animal.

Though I believe that the earth itself is very resilient, that which inhabits it is an infant in comparison.

I don't fault business and corporations from wanting to feed their pockets. This whole feed the world mantra is really laughable though.

Personally, I don't mind if corporations want to use engineering to design crops used for fuel or fabrics or the like. But I draw the line at food and feed.

Nice post.

All I want is the ability to choose for myself if I want to ingest foods that have been genetically engineered until I've been able to determine that it's a good thing. On the whole, I think that GMO science is a good idea and has good intentions, but not a lot of people even KNOW that they're ingesting it, and there aren't enough conclusive studies out there that show they *aren't* bad. I don't know why transparency is such an issue (well, actually I do), because the arguments against it are stupid. It's not cost-prohibitive, because labels are changed all the time to accentuate new ingredients, or new marketing programs, or new health benefits (which is going to be outed as a fraud soon anyway if the bill passes, because it will debunk all of the "natural" claims).

Like you said, fucking with food should be taboo. Particularly when there are now plants that don't die when drenched in pesticides or weed killers because they've been genetically altered to be more resilient. I'm just now climbing aboard the debate, because like I said ... I didn't even know this was happening until recently. Obviously Monsanto would do everything they could (financially) to keep this labeling initiative from gaining traction, because fear of the unknown is still fear. And it would most definitely affect their bottom line.

For the time being, I'll just keep shopping organic and supporting my local farmers I guess.

Not that that's a bad thing.

Just more expensive.

 

[RamFan503]

Nice post.

All I want is the ability to choose for myself if I want to ingest foods that have been genetically engineered until I've been able to determine that it's a good thing. On the whole, I think that GMO science is a good idea and has good intentions, but not a lot of people even KNOW that they're ingesting it, and there aren't enough conclusive studies out there that show they *aren't* bad. I don't know why transparency is such an issue (well, actually I do), because the arguments against it are stupid. It's not cost-prohibitive, because labels are changed all the time to accentuate new ingredients, or new marketing programs, or new health benefits (which is going to be outed as a fraud soon anyway if the bill passes, because it will debunk all of the "natural" claims).

Like you said, freaking with food should be taboo. Particularly when there are now plants that don't die when drenched in pesticides or weed killers because they've been genetically altered to be more resilient. I'm just now climbing aboard the debate, because like I said ... I didn't even know this was happening until recently. Obviously Monsanto would do everything they could (financially) to keep this labeling initiative from gaining traction, because fear of the unknown is still fear. And it would most definitely affect their bottom line.

For the time being, I'll just keep shopping organic and supporting my local farmers I guess.

Not that that's a bad thing.

Just more expensive.

Yeah - the whole expensive labeling thing is bullshit - especially if the requirement was on a national scale. Having each state come up with their own wording and rules could potentially be expensive.

Unfortunately for many restaurants and the poorer people who can't afford to go the local farm and organic route, they generally have no choice in the matter. They can't decide to go organic or local so it puts the restaurant in a bind and if there are adverse health effects, it just makes the unhealthiest of the population that much less healthy because they are the ones who can't afford the healthier foods. I wish I could agree that it's a matter of choice. It really isn't for many people.

I understand that many people and scientists say that there are no health risks with GMO foods. Maybe I'm being paranoid and I definitely haven't done enough research to really know. But I really don't like them screwing with our foods or the feeds for our animals like this.

So yeah - I'd like to know so that I could make a choice. But I would rather they simply quit modifying our food on such a basic level.

On a reach here but they are working on modifying foods that will lessen obesity and some other ailments of society. What is the next thing about you they will want to modify for your own good? :eek: Sounds like a movie script.

 

[-X-]

I understand that many people and scientists say that there are no health risks with GMO foods. Maybe I'm being paranoid and I definitely haven't done enough research to really know. But I really don't like them screwing with our foods or the feeds for our animals like this.

Have you read (or heard) about this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-bell/haitian-farmers-commit-to_b_578807.html

There are also a lot of Countries that prohibit GMO foods because there isn't enough information to determine if it is or isn't safe for consumers.

 

[RamFan503]

Have you read (or heard) about this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-bell/haitian-farmers-commit-to_b_578807.html

There are also a lot of Countries that prohibit GMO foods because there isn't enough information to determine if it is or isn't safe for consumers.

Ms. Bell certainly has a bent and I can't really get behind not only some of what she has written but some of her connect the dots approaches. Still, the article is dead on as far as some of the tactics Monsanto et al have been employing and also the fear that the world's food supply is more and more being put in the hands of a few corporations. To me this is just in addition to the GMO argument not really part of it. While countries like Haiti are adverse to the GMO seeds, what I have read is that it is not just about the fact that they are GMO but the strings that come with the seed and the potential for small farmers to fall into the trap of higher production over the ability to control their own product. I don't blame them for burning that shit.

Glyphosate in and of itself is not a big bad chemical. But they keep adding things to it to improve its efficacy. The idea that they are incorporating these chemicals into the seeds that feed us and our protein stock should be alarming to all of us IMO. Are we really that sure that we are not ingesting "acceptable" amounts of these chemicals?

The devil is in the details though. And I don't presume to know the best approach to protect our food supply. I will say though that I believe the biggest fear that corporations like Monsanto have is that people will simply opt not to eat foods they know have GMO products in them. At minimum, I don't see the harm in alerting people and allowing them (if they are able) to choose.

 

[-X-]

The devil is in the details though. And I don't presume to know the best approach to protect our food supply. I will say though that I believe the biggest fear that corporations like Monsanto have is that people will simply opt not to eat foods they know have GMO products in them. At minimum, I don't see the harm in alerting people and allowing them (if they are able) to choose.

Yeah, and therein lies the problem. They won't let this legislation pass. Particularly when the bill's sponsor (Mike Pompeo) is the single largest recipient of funds from Koch Industries. He’s also received thousands of dollars from Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organization and tens of thousands from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which has spent tens of millions to keep consumers in the dark about GMOs. His testimony and questions during the hearing today were so incredibly bias, that I just sat there in disbelief. You'd think he'd be more interested in hearing all of the testimony and reviewing all of the data, but all he wanted was to put its opponents in the hot-seat. It really was despicable.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know if it's bunk, but I do know that I don't know enough about the process or how it translates to what's going in my gut. The 'debate' (as it were) during the house meeting unrightly shifted to the safety of GMOs and couldn't stay focused on the issue of consumer's rights to know whether or not they're ingesting it.

@LesBaker, that documentary is probably biased, but it's really only about one guy's search for answers. Of which he didn't get many.

The problem with GMO's is the term is extremely broad. Some of it is as simple as cross polination and selective breeding, others are more lab based. For example have you ever seen a natural banana? It's pretty gross. But its not just about making foods look and taste better, a lot of modification goes into making them healthy and more nutritious.

Most understand there's a nutrition problem around the world, but few know that a lot of Americans also suffer from malnutrition. Not just from lack of food, but also because a lot of people don't eat healthy, don't get a balanced diet. So we have modified foods so Americans get the nutrition they need, making us healthier.... Not that we're really healthy anyway, but it helps a little. There's also rice and wheat that can be used to help poor countries get more nutrition as well, because they obviously aren't getting all of it, and if we dump natural rice on them, they won't get all the nutrition that the body needs.

Most of the science that says GMO's are unhealthy is based on bad science, somewhat similar to the anti vaccine movement (although not as extreme yet). There really isn't good science to say that they're bad, most GMO's are good for us.

That's not to say that all of them are, there's not enough information out on some. Injecting hormones into beef and stuff is probably not all that good for us, but most people look at the corn and vegetables instead of the meat products.

People look to other countries and say "well, they banned GMO's!" But most of that isn't really a ban, a lot of it is more them banning all new foods until they test them (most pass the test too) if they're okay, not just for the population but the environment. EU has the most strict laws on the matter, but they have a ton of GMO's on the market and have allowed about 50 more since the 'ban'.

That's not to say that we should all be forced to eat GMO's, people should be free to choose if they want to or not. If we label them we really need more information about what they are though. That's the problem though, GMO's have become a buzzword and most Americans are too lazy or stupid or both to do good research on the matter. Hell, I'm not much better, I mostly learned from a friend of mine that works for a lab that works on GMO's, so obviously he has incentive. He did produce scientific journals on the matter though, which helps. He also eats GMO's all the time. Of course some GMO's are there to help produce more crops and thus more money, but not all.

Most organic foods are GMOs as well, its just to the extent of how much. Again, almost all fruits and vegetables have been modified in one way or another, so they're not really 'natural'... You really need to do heavy research on each individual item to really know what you're getting.

However the science is still there saying there's no real risk to them that we know of at this time. When in doubt I always lean towards the science.

 

[RamFan503]

Unfortunately, we need lobbyists with deep pockets to go to DC and push lobbying restrictions. That entire corn belt is full of Pompeos - not the least of which is our Secretary of Agriculture - Vilsack. It's sad really.

However the science is still there saying there's no real risk to them that we know of at this time. When in doubt I always lean towards the science.

The only problem I have with this is that there really isn't as much science behind determining the potential health and environmental risks. "Know at this time" is a very loaded statement.

I mentioned earlier that the definition of GMO is a bit of a tricky one. Simply grafting a highly producing fruit stock onto a disease resistant root stock can be considered engineering - cross pollinating as well - injecting or feeding hormones to livestock falls in here as well. But part of the biggest problem is that it is the large food and seed companies that are actually pushing for more ambiguous language because they know this is actually a losing proposition for them in the long run. In turn, they are better served by muddying the water and making the term GMO as vague as possible. When the labeling requirements are instituted - which they will be - they need for them to mean as little as possible to the public.

 

[-X-]

The problem with GMO's is the term is extremely broad. Some of it is as simple as cross polination and selective breeding, others are more lab based. For example have you ever seen a natural banana? It's pretty gross. But its not just about making foods look and taste better, a lot of modification goes into making them healthy and more nutritious.

Most understand there's a nutrition problem around the world, but few know that a lot of Americans also suffer from malnutrition. Not just from lack of food, but also because a lot of people don't eat healthy, don't get a balanced diet. So we have modified foods so Americans get the nutrition they need, making us healthier.... Not that we're really healthy anyway, but it helps a little. There's also rice and wheat that can be used to help poor countries get more nutrition as well, because they obviously aren't getting all of it, and if we dump natural rice on them, they won't get all the nutrition that the body needs.

Most of the science that says GMO's are unhealthy is based on bad science, somewhat similar to the anti vaccine movement (although not as extreme yet). There really isn't good science to say that they're bad, most GMO's are good for us.

That's not to say that all of them are, there's not enough information out on some. Injecting hormones into beef and stuff is probably not all that good for us, but most people look at the corn and vegetables instead of the meat products.

People look to other countries and say "well, they banned GMO's!" But most of that isn't really a ban, a lot of it is more them banning all new foods until they test them (most pass the test too) if they're okay, not just for the population but the environment. EU has the most strict laws on the matter, but they have a ton of GMO's on the market and have allowed about 50 more since the 'ban'.

That's not to say that we should all be forced to eat GMO's, people should be free to choose if they want to or not. If we label them we really need more information about what they are though. That's the problem though, GMO's have become a buzzword and most Americans are too lazy or stupid or both to do good research on the matter. Hell, I'm not much better, I mostly learned from a friend of mine that works for a lab that works on GMO's, so obviously he has incentive. He did produce scientific journals on the matter though, which helps. He also eats GMO's all the time. Of course some GMO's are there to help produce more crops and thus more money, but not all.

Most organic foods are GMOs as well, its just to the extent of how much. Again, almost all fruits and vegetables have been modified in one way or another, so they're not really 'natural'... You really need to do heavy research on each individual item to really know what you're getting.

However the science is still there saying there's no real risk to them that we know of at this time. When in doubt I always lean towards the science.

In 1992, the FDA wrote in a policy statement that genetically engineered foods (GMOs) were not “materially different” from regular foods. In that policy statement, they said what it considered “material" were only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell or other senses. That's a political statement - not a scientific one.

I don't agree about the "bad science" argument, but I can't really say you're wrong either. I've just recently (past few months) started reading everything I can on the subject, and I try to find research papers as opposed to op-ed pieces. Read this statement, which signed by more than 200 scientists and medical professionals outlining why there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs:

http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-cont...scientific_consensus_on_GMO_safety_ENG_LV.pdf

For instance, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report that was highly critical of the regulatory system for GM foods and crops in that country. The report declared that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe without rigorous scientific testing and that the “default prediction” for every GM food should be that the introduction of a new gene will cause “unanticipated changes” in the expression of other genes, the pattern of proteins produced, and/or metabolic activities. Possible outcomes of these changes identified in the report included the presence of new or unexpected allergens.

See, my problem isn't that it's good or bad. My problem is with the lack of transparency, and the Government trying to decide for me what I should and shouldn't know. All I want is to know (quickly) whether or not I'm eating GMO's while I'm trying to sort through all the data to know whether or not it's good for me. I'm not asking them to tell me the step-by-step process in engineering certain foods, or even to force Corporations to disclose everything they do. I just want the option to know if my food contains them.

Even the American Medical Association has called for pre-market safety testing of GMOs. But that's not happening either.

Now farmers are reporting that there are new strains of 'superbugs' and 'superweeds' being created when insects and weeds become resistant to herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup. Which in turn leads to ever-increasing amounts of toxic pesticides and herbicides being released into our air, water and food supplies to combat them. It should be clear that we're FAR away from being an Organic food supplying Nation, and getting even further away every day. And the rub of it all is that the term "Organic" is really just representative of how we used to produce food normally several decades ago. There are significantly less farmers now than there was just a short while ago.

I just want to be informed, man. Not fed propaganda.

 

[RamFan503]

“default prediction” for every GM food should be that the introduction of a new gene will cause “unanticipated changes” in the expression of other genes, the pattern of proteins produced, and/or metabolic activities.

This is where I am. You want to replace mother nature? Demonstrate that your changes are healthy - not that there is no proof that they are not.

I don't think it is a shocker that I am no tree hugger and am reluctant to get behind knee jerk environmental crazes. But this is shit I am putting directly into my body, feeding my family and customers. I'd only like to know it is there so that I can do research if I wish, determine acceptable risks, etc...

 

[bluecoconuts]

Unfortunately, we need lobbyists with deep pockets to go to DC and push lobbying restrictions. That entire corn belt is full of Pompeos - not the least of which is our Secretary of Agriculture - Vilsack. It's sad really.



The only problem I have with this is that there really isn't as much science behind determining the potential health and environmental risks. "Know at this time" is a very loaded statement.

I mentioned earlier that the definition of GMO is a bit of a tricky one. Simply grafting a highly producing fruit stock onto a disease resistant root stock can be considered engineering - cross pollinating as well - injecting or feeding hormones to livestock falls in here as well. But part of the biggest problem is that it is the large food and seed companies that are actually pushing for more ambiguous language because they know this is actually a losing proposition for them in the long run. In turn, they are better served by muddying the water and making the term GMO as vague as possible. When the labeling requirements are instituted - which they will be - they need for them to mean as little as possible to the public.

The know at this time is more the scientific response. Any scientist worth a damn knows you can't really make absolutes, because things can always change what we know. Theory vs law vs hypothesis, etc etc.

I agree with you on the GMO term being too broad though.

In 1992, the FDA wrote in a policy statement that genetically engineered foods (GMOs) were not “materially different” from regular foods. In that policy statement, they said what it considered “material" were only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell or other senses. That's a political statement - not a scientific one.

I don't agree about the "bad science" argument, but I can't really say you're wrong either. I've just recently (past few months) started reading everything I can on the subject, and I try to find research papers as opposed to op-ed pieces. Read this statement, which signed by more than 200 scientists and medical professionals outlining why there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs:

http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-cont...scientific_consensus_on_GMO_safety_ENG_LV.pdf

For instance, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report that was highly critical of the regulatory system for GM foods and crops in that country. The report declared that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe without rigorous scientific testing and that the “default prediction” for every GM food should be that the introduction of a new gene will cause “unanticipated changes” in the expression of other genes, the pattern of proteins produced, and/or metabolic activities. Possible outcomes of these changes identified in the report included the presence of new or unexpected allergens.

See, my problem isn't that it's good or bad. My problem is with the lack of transparency, and the Government trying to decide for me what I should and shouldn't know. All I want is to know (quickly) whether or not I'm eating GMO's while I'm trying to sort through all the data to know whether or not it's good for me. I'm not asking them to tell me the step-by-step process in engineering certain foods, or even to force Corporations to disclose everything they do. I just want the option to know if my food contains them.

Even the American Medical Association has called for pre-market safety testing of GMOs. But that's not happening either.

Now farmers are reporting that there are new strains of 'superbugs' and 'superweeds' being created when insects and weeds become resistant to herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup. Which in turn leads to ever-increasing amounts of toxic pesticides and herbicides being released into our air, water and food supplies to combat them. It should be clear that we're FAR away from being an Organic food supplying Nation, and getting even further away every day. And the rub of it all is that the term "Organic" is really just representative of how we used to produce food normally several decades ago. There are significantly less farmers now than there was just a short while ago.

I just want to be informed, man. Not fed propaganda.

Part of the problem is that its hard to really get informed, you need to read the scientific journals, and be able to know if the testing and results are good or flawed. A lot of news sites and blogs can either be biased or misinterpret facts because they don't know or want to get views. Its a muddy situation.

For example there's always stories about asteroids heading towards earth and people flip. There's one now and a few of my friends asked me about it and how big it would be when it impacts. They were a bit taken back when I told them it would be about 5 times the distance between us and the moon and thus not a threat to us. I also told them to keep in mind we can fit every planet in our solar system between us and the moon, so it's pretty far away. The news stories didn't really mention that though.

GMO's are similar, there's a push from the organic market to get rid of them because they cut into their profits, then there's hippies and such who are against all that shit, and people like yourself who just want to know what the hell they're eating. You have to really know what you're looking at and read around good scientific sources to get some sort of grasp. I think most of the government doesn't really understand it either.

From my understanding most aren't bad for you, and a lot of modification is to increase nutrition, but not all of it is. If they want to label they need to label exactly what they did, just slapping GMO can be misleading.

 

[bluecoconuts]

And for the record I'm not against labeling GMO's, I just think it should be done in a way that informs consumers, not misleads them into buying something else.

A lot of the push to label comes from competing markets. Similar to if Microsoft pushed to label that PS4's gibe you cancer.

 

[RamFan503]

You have to really know what you're looking at and read around good scientific sources to get some sort of grasp. I think most of the government doesn't really understand it either.

Here's where I disagree. I don't have to know anything of the sort. It would be good to know more - that I'll grant you. I don't have any evidence that flowing agents and preservatives are truly bad for me but I like to know when they are in my food and decide if I want to ingest them.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Here's where I disagree. I don't have to know anything of the sort. It would be good to know more - that I'll grant you. I don't have any evidence that flowing agents and preservatives are truly bad for me but I like to know when they are in my food and decide if I want to ingest them.

I suppose so, but then you aren't really making an informed decision? If you don't know what the effect is on you then you're basing it essentially on the name and a gut feeling. Your right to do so of course, but it's not really an informed one

 

[-X-]

And for the record I'm not against labeling GMO's, I just think it should be done in a way that informs consumers, not misleads them into buying something else.

A lot of the push to label comes from competing markets. Similar to if Microsoft pushed to label that PS4's gibe you cancer.

The panel at the subcommittee hearing is in favor of a "non-judgemental" label, so that's covered.
Hell, it can even read, "MAY contain GMO's" for all I care.