Should GMO-derived products be labelled as such?
Asked by
Rarebear (
25192
)
April 22nd, 2016
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
56 Answers
No.
People are idiots, and if you label something as “Contains Carbon” they would look for another brand without that label, just because they’re too dumb to know that literally everything that has ever lived contains carbon.
If non-GMO companies want to market themselves as GMO-free in order to court the fear-dollars, they should feel free to do so.
This is something I disagree with the Sanders campaign about, but it’s not significant enough for me to change my vote. It is low on my priority list. Like, WAY low.
Yes.
Customers have the right to know what is in their food and where it comes from.
It should be treated no differently from mandatory ingredients lists and country of origin.
^ I agree. Consumers are powerful. They should realize this, and be as well-informed as possible.
Why is it important to be labeled as such?
I’m not sure why the label is a issue. It is pretty cheap to change what the printer prints. We list the amount of sodium so why not this?
I don’t find it important, personally, since GMOs are not dangerous.
@Rarebear Because without the labels, we have no way of knowing whether the food we eat is GMO-derived or not. It doesn’t matter much whether we believe GMOs are harmful. It matters whether the average consumer wants to eat them, before being absolutely convinced that they are not.
That’s what I believe, but I may be biased because this is common practice in Europe (and has been for over a decade).
Are they really safe?
Can you guarantee it?
Because recently in France several people participating in a medical trial for a new drug suffered debilitating brain damage, and some died, because the company producing it botched the animal trials, and covered it up.
genetic manipulation can have unintended side effects, that may not be apparent at first glance.
The manipulation intended to increase the size of a plant or an animal might trigger the production of previously non-existent allergens or toxins.
Will the company producing these genetically modified foods catch these unintentional side effects?
And if they do, will they just continue with bringing the food to market anyway, without trying to fix the problems?
With companies only interested in their bottom line, and the failures and corruption in the regulatory agencies, can you really guarantee that the genetically modified product has been thoroughly tested?
I am going to venture a guess, and say that the answer is resounding “no”.
@ragingloli Was that France trial a drug trial, or a trial using GMO? I’m confused.
@Rarebear
It was a drug trial.
The point is about the failures and corruption within the regulatory apparatus.
You can preach all you want about how GMOs are “totally safe”, it does not make it true.
And in light of that uncertainty, I would like to have the right to abstain from consuming it, and that requires that producers label their products.
@ragingloli I am not preaching anything. I just asked a question.
You’re using the precautionary principle. I get that.
I don’t see much use in simply labelling something as “GMO.” The term has so many different applications, and they are not all the same. That said, I don’t think the GMO process really poses much of a health risk. We’ve been ‘tampering’ with crop genes for tens of thousands of years. Yes we can make faster and more deliberate changes now, but we do so with methods which use “greater precision and allow for more complete characterization and, therefore, greater predictability about the qualities of the new variety. These techniques give scientists the ability to isolate genes and to introduce new traits into foods without simultaneously introducing many other undesirable traits, as may occur with traditional breeding. This is an important improvement over traditional breeding” (source). Also, from what I understand, most GMO is either splicing in genes we understand from a different organism, or switching off genes in the organism. we’re not introducing new or otherwise unpredictable genetic combinations into the food, and since DNA has so many similarities across species, it makes sense that when we splice in some genetic code it behaves about the way we’d expect. (“Traditional” crop breeding does both splicing and cutting. Nectarines are a well-known crossbreed. Almonds are only edible because they lost the genetic code for producing cyanide (natural defense mechanism) and we cultivated the cyanide-less generations.)
I’m a fan of GMO being used to improve our food, as when scientists give crops resistance to diseases that might otherwise wipe them out, especially when those crops are staples—in these cases, it seems to me that they’re just steering the evolutionary process, and/or stepping in when a crop has lost its genetic diversity or encounters an unexpectedly devastating pathogen. It seems like a powerful tool.
I’m not a fan of sterile seeds that force farmers to continue to buy seeds every year. I’m also not a fan of “roundup-ready” seeds—I caught a snippet of a Monsanto spokesperson claiming that pesticide use is lower now than it used to be, but I don’t recall the entire context, and I don’t see how creating a plant that is specifically designed to withstand widespread pesticide use can reduce the usage. Moves like this seem to me to be uncomfortably monopolistic ways to use GMO technology.
With GMO labels, I could avoid the GMO practices I don’t agree with—but I would also have to avoid potentially beneficial GMO practices. I’d want labels with better granularity… but then, production and manufacturing processes in general seem more opaque than I want them to be.
Sure, why not? It’s not a high priority, but I’m all for corporate transparency and enabling people to make their own choices (even if I think some of those choices are stupid).
I don’t mind if those marketing gmo products are not required to label their products as such. What I do mind is those same folks pushing laws prohibiting non gmo products from being labeled as such by their competitors.
The one sure thing we can count on corporations to do is to fight vigorously against any measures designed to ensure more transparency regarding their practices.
I don’t see any harm in Eorope’s insistence upon proper labeling of GMOS.
And sneeringly calling people “stupid” for wanting to know what is in the foods they eat doesn’t make it so.
There have been so many instances of “miraculous” developments in food processing which are touted as being so healthy/desirable only to be retracted years later when the damage has been done and it’s too late to reverse it. Margarine is one specific example.
For years people were practically guilted into using it by being told how much healthier it was than that horrible fattening butter. After all, this was from vegetable sources; therefore, “healthy”.
Well, it sure SOUNDED good back then. But the sound of it was about the only good thing.
Nowadays, we all know how harmful hydrogenated oils are and properly labeling them is required so that people can AVOID them. But back then, the argument would have been along the same lines. “Theyre only adding air. How harmful could that possibly be?”
So, I really can’t see a single downside for the CONSUMER if products containing GMOS are labeled as such. Why not empower people to make their own decisions about whether they want to consume them?
Just calling them stupid for wanting clear labeling is not a solution for anything. Is all of Europe being stupid for wanting this knowledge about whether their foods contain GMOS?
I have no illusions that big food corporations are developing their products to further the health of their consumers. They are motivated by their profit margin. Period.
If that makes me “stupid” to want more accountability from themvregarding their practices then I wear that label with pride.
Anything we mess with is not automatically safe and this includes GMO. One of the few times I agree with loli. Most GMO food is safe but accepting all of it as safe is just fucking stupid. I can’t really be on board with saying GMO is evil incarnate either since….well, it keeps people from starving to death. I think GMO should be on the labels and let people make their own choice. I personally don’t go far out of my way to avoid it but given an easy choice I’ll go with non-GMO. I think proper labels are important too. Trans fat is not properly labeled, a “serving” can contain up to ½ a gram of pure trans fat. Pretty easy to hide large amounts that way and still call it “zero grams” of trans fat per “serving.”
I think we should use the same definition for GMO foods as does the EU—who, by the way, require all GMO foods to be clearly marked as such—and then mark them as such. I want to know when I’m buying this stuff. I want to be able to make an informed decision about what I put in my body and I strongly object whenever this is impeded in any way.
@Buttonstc Since I am the only one who used the word “stupid” on this thread before you posted your response, I will point out that at no point did I say that people are stupid for wanting to know what is in their food. In fact, I think it is quite smart to know what is in the food we eat. What I did say was that I want people to be free to make whatever choices they want—about food or other products—regardless of what I think about that decision (e.g., I think people should be free to eat unhealthy food to their heart’s content even if I would not make that decision for myself).
@Espiritus_Corvus We should do it because EU does it? Isn’t that a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum?
Well, I said fucking stupid for not wanting to know or believing it is all safe… so there is that.
Out of curiosity, how many people have died of GMO food?
@Rarebear I’m thinking zero/unknown. How many people have certain health problems because of them: unknown. It just takes one mistake though for millions to be injured or killed by them. I treat this like pharmaceuticals. That said plenty of people are injured or killed by “natural” products too.
@ARE_you_kidding_me Sure. Of course. Let me ask you this. If it’s a question of famine and starvation vs. GMO, what is better? Or is that question falsely binary and unfair?
@Rarebear I never said anything about doing it because EU does it. I said that I think we should use their definition of what is a GMO, because I’ve read it and it is very clear, unlike ours which is purposely obscure and confusing with loopholes you can drive a truck through) and then mark the products accordingly.
So, where the fuck in that sentence is their an ad populum argument?
My question is mostly, what real benefit is in the knowledge that it’s a GMO? Do they list which Gs in which Os were M-ed? The reason for that M-ing? The results of the many tests done to verify safety for consumption?
@Seek ” Do they list which Gs in which Os were M-ed?”
I love it.
I’m all for more transparency in food labeling, so I’m with those that say, “why not?”. Why would there be opposition?
Do you know how much was spent on fighting the labeling of GMO foods in Oregon during the last election?
“In what became the most expensive campaign in Oregon’s history, Yes on 92 was outspent $21 million to $9 million by No on 92, which included major agribusiness and biotechnology companies with deep pockets, including Monsanto and DuPont, as well as the venerable anti-labeling trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association.”
Why was so much spent on something that isn’t a big deal? It would have been a blip on the label. I will bet 98% of the population never reads the shit on the label.
Why? Because most of the shit we eat is GMO
Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
So, why was so much money spent to prevent accurate labeling in just one state?
@Seek
In your first comment on this thread, your basic rationale against labeling is that “People are idiots…”
Does that automatically abrogate everyones right to accurate labeling because a few are idiots?
Or is it your contention that everyone in the European Union is an idiot?
Almost all of the food we eat has been genetically modified in some way or another. You wouldn’t want to eat an apple the way natural selection made it – humans have artificially selected for produce and meat that is tastier, larger, and more plentiful since we first started growing food. People who are afraid of genetic modification have no idea what it means. I’d rather not have them in charge of hysteria-inducing marketing. “Natural” is not equivalent to “better” or “healthier”. It’s telling that there is a large degree of overlap between the people who want GMOs labelled and the people who think vaccination is dangerous.
@ARE_you_kidding_me Yeah, but you said it after @Buttonstc answered the question. In any case, I was just clarifying in case my answer had been unclear. I’m confident that @Buttonstc are on the same page now.
@dappled_leaves To be fair, people don’t use the term “GMO” to mean “anything that has been genetically modified in any way whatsoever.” I suspect that is why @Espiritus_Corvus advocated using the EU’s specific definition, since it clarifies what sorts of genetic modifications they care about in a way that makes it clearer what is at issue.
What is the EU specific definition?
@SavoirFaire “To be fair, people don’t use the term “GMO” to mean “anything that has been genetically modified in any way whatsoever.”. ”
No, they don’t. There is an corollary to the “Natural is better/healthier” law which states, “If shiny tools were used, then it must be evil/dangerous.” This, even though we have greater control over genetic modification if shiny tools are used than if we just leave it up to sex. Sex is messy – shouldn’t we be afraid of that, too?
Now, how are people supposed to know which GMOs are to be labelled? How about we label only the ones which have been shown to be dangerous to human health?
Yup. Naturalistic fallacy
@Rarebear Actually, appeal to nature fallacy. Importantly different.
Yup. You’re right. My mistake. I learned something today, thanks!
@Rarebear No problem. It’s nice when my profession actually comes in handy.
@dappled_leaves First, I obviously agree that “natural is better” is a bad argument. In fact, it’s a fallacious one. I’m not sure I agree that Luddism is necessarily behind the worries about GMOs, though. For one, I suspect plenty of those who are suspicious about GMOs own iPhones. For another, it only takes a few really bad cases to put people on guard. So it’s probably less about the tools and more about being particularly cautious about what goes into one’s body (which, as a general motivation, isn’t entirely unreasonable).
This isn’t to deny that in some cases it’s a general paranoia about corporations (which isn’t entirely unreasonable either, especially in the US), and in other cases it’s a fear of the word “artificial” (which I think is unreasonable, but only the motivation of a select number of particularly loud voices—the ones you correctly align with those who are still afraid of vaccinations). But even if we limit ourselves to the people for whom ignorance is behind their fears, I still don’t see the problem with labelling.
As @johnpowell said: if it’s no big deal, why so much opposition? Be transparent, and let people make their choices—even if they’re not the choices you or I would make. In fact, transparency is one of the best antidotes to any suspicions that are based on fear of “shadowy corporations.” A nutrition label is supposed to tell you everything that’s in the package. It informs people about the presence of potential allergens even though not everyone is allergic to them, and it can inform people about the presence of GMOs even though not everyone is averse to consuming them.
As for sex, I suppose it is messy (I mean, if you’re doing it right), but of course “messy” doesn’t mean “bad” any more than “synthetic” does. So I see no reason to be afraid of sex. I also don’t see any reason for people who are suspicious of GMOs to be afraid of sex either. There’s good reason to be safe about sex, of course, but no reason to be afraid of it in itself.
@SavoirFaire “As for sex, I suppose it is messy (I mean, if you’re doing it right), but of course “messy” doesn’t mean “bad” any more than “synthetic” does”
Yes, that was my point. :)
“So I see no reason to be afraid of sex. I also don’t see any reason for people who are suspicious of GMOs to be afraid of sex either. There’s good reason to be safe about sex, of course, but no reason to be afraid of it in itself.”
I was, of course, not talking about human sex here, but plant and farm animal sex. We used to modify the genes in our GMO’s (i.e., all of our food) solely by manipulating what had sex with what. After all, mixing genes is what sex does. That’s why sex exists.
And when I say “messy”, I mean that we have very poor control over what genes are tinkered with via sex alone (although, yes, I was making a double entendre). Now that we have better tools, we have better control over the products. Less messy.
Why don’t we just print out the fully sequenced genome of every organic (that is, carbon-based, not hipster-friendly) component of every recipe, attached to every package of food like those paper-thin giant legal foldouts you get with prescription drugs.
Because we have the right to all the useless information we demand!
@Seek In California businesses are required to have the following sign “Warning, this facility contains chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”
Every place has that sign. Even my accountant’s office is required to have that sign. Totally useless.
@dappled_leaves “Yes, that was my point.”
I know, but I don’t think that it properly gets at the heart of what concerns many people when it comes to GMOs. In other words, I don’t think they’re all in the grips of an appeal to nature fallacy.
“Now that we have better tools, we have better control over the products. Less messy.”
Sure, but you don’t have to convince me. I’m not against GMOs. It’s just that I’m also not against labeling them as such because I see no reason not to.
@Seek “Why don’t we just print out the fully sequenced genome of every organic (that is, carbon-based, not hipster-friendly) component of every recipe, attached to every package of food like those paper-thin giant legal foldouts you get with prescription drugs.”
Appeal to ridicule
Straw man
The obvious response is that every component of every recipe wouldn’t fit on a label, whereas the GMO label would (thus the straw man). And of course, what’s wrong with someone putting the genome sequence up online if they want to? I wouldn’t bother to take a look at it, but I’m also not going to stop anyone from uploading it. In any case, are you really comfortable staking out such a strong position in the “less information is better” camp?
@Rarebear If those signs literally need to be everywhere, then that’s obviously absurd. Labels exist to distinguish that which is x from that which is not-x. But not all food products are GMOs in the sense that some people are concerned with, so we wouldn’t be in any sort of comparable position (at least not for the moment).
Once again, simply hearing that something is genetically modified tells us nothing at all about what was done to it. The funniest thing about the Ray Comfort banana thing is that the banana he was using was a man-made species. Humans have been fiddling with plant and animal genetics since we cracked the concept of the plantable seed. Now we just do it scientifically.
Unless you’re going to put a label on everything we eat saying how it has been modified through human intervention, I see no particularly good reason to single out GMOs for a “warning” label.
I’m not from the “less information is better” camp. I’m in the “this label will be meaningless except as a scare tactic” camp.
@Seek “I’m not from the “less information is better” camp. I’m in the “this label will be meaningless except as a scare tactic” camp.”
It’s actually worse than that. Labelling GMOs is not adding more information. The only way one can see such a label as more information is if GMOs are perceived as harmful. Show me evidence that they’re harmful, and you begin to have a reason for a label.
The potential negative impacts on sales, on the other hand, are obvious. Is it any surprise that people vote with their money without understanding this issue? @SavoirFaire, if everyone were well-educated on the subject, I would see no harm in adding the useless label. But we know very well that they are not.
@Rarebear in case of famine we go all in with GMO and if we never need to play that card…we don’t. In the interim we continue to study and further the science.
“Genetic modifications of plants can have unintended or unexpected effects on the phenotype of the plant, such as poor growth or reduced tolerance to conditions of environmental stress, that are readily apparent and can be effectively managed by appropriate selection procedures. However, effects such as an alteration in the concentration of important nutrients, increases in the level of natural toxicants, or the transfer of allergens from one species to another may not be readily detected without specific test procedures. FDA believes that a scientific basis should exist to establish that new plant varieties do not exhibit unacceptable effects with respect to toxicants, nutritional value, or allergens. In cases where the host plant has little or no history of safe use, the assessment of new plant varieties should include evidence that unknown toxicants are not present in the new plant variety at levels that would be injurious to health.”
- http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm
This entire issue seems to run much deeper. It’s not really about GMOs, it’s about responsibility. Whom are we going to hold accountable for what people put into their mouths? Scientists? Consumers? Politicians?
Personally, I’m uncomfortable giving this responsibility to anyone other than the consumer himself. Yes, scientists would be better equipped to make these judgments, but it’s not their job to do so.
@ARE_you_kidding_me There are already a lot of people around the world that are starving to death.
I know but we are not in famine. Most starvation is from war/conflict and poverty.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
