GMO Labeling?

Morn66

Theeeere we go. You finally said it. You made the big ol' assumption that if I want to be informed, it MUST be because I'm "scared" of GMOs, that I believe they are unhealthy. I have made no such claims, because tha is NOT why I want to be informed.

OK, so...Why DO you want to be informed, then? Most people have a specific reason for the information they want. If you're a big-business-o-phobe, fine and dandy. But like I said earlier, instead of calling for government intervention (and more bureaucracy) to force companies to label their GMO products when they don't want to, how 'bout you just support those companies that proudly and vividly announce on their products that they are pleased as non-GMO punch to be non-GMO. They're all over the place in the health food store I frequent and even in the regular food stores. Buy those products. Don't buy ones that aren't labeled as flag-waving non-GMO. Then your problem is solved, you "know" there's no GMO in what you're buying, and you're sticking it to The Corporate Man, all in one fell swoop.

Tons of things are labeled that are not bad for you.

Like what? Mind you, I'm talking ONLY about government-mandated labeling of the type we're discussing here. I'm not talking about labels that various companies voluntarily put on things, like those "happily non-GMO" ones. Bear in mind, nutrition labels have only been required since 1994, and the clamoring for legislating started pretty much only as a reaction to rising obesity. So those, in a sense, ARE warnings. As in, "Here! Look at this bag of pork rinds! See how terribly horribly bad it is for you with all that fat and salt and stuff in it?! Now go buy some carrots.")

To fear putting GMO labels on GMO foods because then consumers may fear the product and not buy it, doesn't make sense. Your arguing one exaggerated fear with another. Not all labels are warnings.

Here's the plain truth: Companies will resist mandatory labeling because they will fear it will cut into their profits because whether or not you are afraid of GMOs, many people obviously are. Government will likely only mandate labeling if there is a proven concern related to public health. They, currently, don't care about your or anyone else's desire to be "informed." They, currently, don't care about the environmental concerns associated with GMOs. (I do, frankly, but that's not relevant to this particular discussion.) They care about whether or not GMOs are going to kill anyone. Unless/until evidence arises that shows that they do/can/have killed anyone, you're unlikely to see the government requiring labeling, no matter how many referenda there are. It's that simple.

There is no reason to keep the public uninformed to protect a companies profits. What other reason is there to keep people in the dark? <-- legit question by the way, not rhetorical

Because the only way the government is going to create more bureaucracy for itself is if there is something to GMOs that it sees as a known, demonstrated threat to public health. This is true whether or not companies are resistant to labeling. Since there is currently no known health risk associated with GMOs -- As I said, E.coli have been cranking out human insulin for over 30 years now, and I see no diabetics kicking it or having any sort of health problem because of OMG!GMOs -- then I can't see the government tagging the FDA with regulating GMOs. If that changes, it changes. But for now...

ThickMcRunFast

Some people want GMO labels

I want everyone who screams about GMOs to have to take a course in basic genetics.

Goes to show...We can't always get what we want.

Morn66

Some people want GMO labels

I want everyone who screams about GMOs to have to take a course in basic genetics.

Goes to show...We can't always get what we want.

^ THIS. I mean, the part about the course in basic genetics. And with that, I'm off to bed.

vienna_h

Theeeere we go. You finally said it. You made the big ol' assumption that if I want to be informed, it MUST be because I'm "scared" of GMOs, that I believe they are unhealthy. I have made no such claims, because tha is NOT why I want to be informed.

OK, so...Why DO you want to be informed, then? Most people have a specific reason for the information they want. If you're a big-business-o-phobe, fine and dandy. But like I said earlier, instead of calling for government intervention (and more bureaucracy) to force companies to label their GMO products when they don't want to, how 'bout you just support those companies that proudly and vividly announce on their products that they are pleased as non-GMO punch to be non-GMO. They're all over the place in the health food store I frequent and even in the regular food stores. Buy those products. Don't buy ones that aren't labeled as flag-waving non-GMO. Then your problem is solved, you "know" there's no GMO in what you're buying, and you're sticking it to The Corporate Man, all in one fell swoop.

Tons of things are labeled that are not bad for you.

Like what? Mind you, I'm talking ONLY about government-mandated labeling of the type we're discussing here. I'm not talking about labels that various companies voluntarily put on things, like those "happily non-GMO" ones. Bear in mind, nutrition labels have only been required since 1994, and the clamoring for legislating started pretty much only as a reaction to rising obesity. So those, in a sense, ARE warnings. As in, "Here! Look at this bag of pork rinds! See how terribly horribly bad it is for you with all that fat and salt and stuff in it?! Now go buy some carrots.")

To fear putting GMO labels on GMO foods because then consumers may fear the product and not buy it, doesn't make sense. Your arguing one exaggerated fear with another. Not all labels are warnings.

Here's the plain truth: Companies will resist mandatory labeling because they will fear it will cut into their profits because whether or not you are afraid of GMOs, many people obviously are. Government will likely only mandate labeling if there is a proven concern related to public health. They, currently, don't care about your or anyone else's desire to be "informed." They, currently, don't care about the environmental concerns associated with GMOs. (I do, frankly, but that's not relevant to this particular discussion.) They care about whether or not GMOs are going to kill anyone. Unless/until evidence arises that shows that they do/can/have killed anyone, you're unlikely to see the government requiring labeling, no matter how many referenda there are. It's that simple.

There is no reason to keep the public uninformed to protect a companies profits. What other reason is there to keep people in the dark? <-- legit question by the way, not rhetorical

Because the only way the government is going to create more bureaucracy for itself is if there is something to GMOs that it sees as a known, demonstrated threat to public health. This is true whether or not companies are resistant to labeling. Since there is currently no known health risk associated with GMOs -- As I said, E.coli have been cranking out human insulin for over 30 years now, and I see no diabetics kicking it or having any sort of health problem because of OMG!GMOs -- then I can't see the government tagging the FDA with regulating GMOs. If that changes, it changes. But for now...

Well, you left out the quote where I said why I wanted to be informed, and then ask me again why I want to be informed. But I'll repeat and elaborate: I want to know what my food is and where is comes from, how it's been processed, etc. As much info as I can. Whether GMO, country of origin, the name of the farm, organic or not, ocean or fish-farm, grass or grain-fed, free range, the small farm one hour out of town, or a mega-farm down in the states, was a rainforest cleared, which pesticides did they use... I want as much info as I can. Knowing if a food is a GMO crop or made with GMOs tells me a lot about it. As does the other information. It helps me understand the impact I'm making by purchasing this particular item. Who's product am I buying, who's getting my money? Who's benefiting? What is the impact on the environment? the economy? the social impact? *

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the health implications of GMOs, but I'd be surprised if they had a negative effect on human health. But the concern of GMOs is WAY beyond that. The implications of ANY food you buy is BIG. I am just one person, but trends matter. Where our food comes from matters. What people buy matters. Who's profiting and who's losing out matters. What are we doing to our environment matters. Food is big business with huge impacts!

If you want even more detail, I think monocropping in general is risky. Higher world population + climate change = potentially dangerous situation with food and agriculture. It's mass starvation waiting to happen. The green revolution was a bandaid, it worked at the time. But it didn't solve anything. If anything, there's a good chance its just setting us up for worse disasters. And GMOs, especially when you consider royalties, puts WAY to much power in the hands of Monsanto & friends. Food = life. It's a BIG deal. Small farmers are losing their livelihoods to these guys. They aren't accountable to the right people.

Are all people like me, no. A lot of people hear some guy on TV say GMOs are dangerous and they will believe it. They may avoid GMOs for the "wrong" reasons. But I don't think that argument outweighs all the other reasons why people should be informed as much as possible on their food, any food.

I think the logic is off. It reminds me of abstinence-only sex ed. Keeping kids uninformed about reproductive health and STIs is not the way to go. Neither is keeping people uninformed about where their food comes from. They should know, they should be informed, they should make decisions.

As for the bureaucracy and resistance to labeling you mentioned above, oh yeah, I don't doubt it. Those companies will resist to the end. And no doubt a lot of campaign money comes with a promise to never allow this sort of thing to pass. We get you elected, you make sure we don't get labeled. It may be a long time, if ever, that labeling will ever be a reality.

But, I would still like to see it happen.

*ok, I over-analyse every thing... you should see me buying my groceries now, imagine if I had access to ALL THE INFO! :bigsmile: Grocery shopping will be hours of mental calculating bliss!

Morn66

...*ok, I over-analyse every thing... you should see me buying my groceries now, imagine if I had access to ALL THE INFO! :bigsmile: Grocery shopping will be hours of mental calculating bliss!

OK, so you replied in the space of time it takes me to get ready for bed. (Hey, it takes me a long time to brush my teeth! ) So, in the end, you want to know because you wish to avoid supporting Big Food. Fair enough. Problem is, like I said, the Federal government isn't going to regulate that. Largely, it can't. It'd be unconstitutional unless Monsanto becomes a monopoly. Then it could step in. Or unless, like I've said, there's a proven threat to public health associated with GMOs. So, what you want, as noble as it may be, is not likely to happen. Your best bet, instead of waiting for the government to legislate something it won't/can't legislate, is instead to support with your purchase dollar and maybe even your voice, those companies that advertise themselves as non-GMO. Many have seen the marketing benefits of doing so, particularly those that market to a more "natural" crowd anyway. You'll pay more, in general, but you'll be doing your bit.

I understand the economic and environmental complexities of the GMO situation. I do. And I care. But I don't see how creating more government bureaucracy for the sole purpose of labeling GMO foods is going to address those issues. To be frank, your average consumer who doesn't have issues with allergies doesn't often care what's in their food. They want their Doritoes, and those don't give a flying fig what's in them and they won't pay the slightest attention to a label that says they've got GMO stuff in it, just as they pay no attention the (also government-mandated) nutrition label.. And/or, they want cheap food because that's all they can afford to feed themselves and their families. Remember, those of us with the means to be choosy and to care about what might be in our food and the wider implications of those things are indeed the exception, not the rule. Many people simply can't afford to care. They need the most bang for their buck, and I'm willing to bet that the cheapest foods are liable to be those that are GMO because those lend themselves better to mass, corporate farming. Nice, clean, happy organic farming does not. That's why it's far more expensive. And I'm talking worldwide here, not just in the US. The US is rich. Even its "poor" people are rich compared to many people in the rest of the world.

So I guess in the end I want the government to do stuff that actually addresses the problem, not to do "band-aids" that might make people feel better but that ultimately do nothing to address the real problem. It's all well and good to "inform" people, but if those people don't know and/or don't care about what they're being informed of and if the information therefore does nothing to address the wider implications that you pointed out, what good does all the bureaucracy to enact/enforce labeling do? I don't mean to be a fatalist in the sense of "Well, since this won't work, we'll just do nothing because nothing will work." I think that a plan needs to be devised that actually does solve he problem. Labels ain't gonna cut it, as far as I'm concerned. But I also don't know what will.

OK, NOW I'm going to bed. Really. I swear.

bcattoes

In short, if you want to be concerned about GMOs, that is your choice. But there is no current evidence that justifies turning them into a boogieman that needs a label.

Why must something be a boogieman to need a label? I'm pro-labelling of GMO foods, but I don't think they are boogiemen. I'd just like to make an informed choice.

There are an ever increasing number of GMO foods. Grouping them all together as 'safe' or 'unsafe' seems rather silly to me. Surely there are and will be differing levels of safety.

BrianSharpe

In the end science will be what destroys humanity.

Sentences like this are very telling.

Science is the reason that many of us are even alive today. How many MFP members would have died years ago from diseases (like pneumonia) that are now easily treated with antibiotics? How many of us would be dead or in wheelchairs (or iron lungs) were it not for Jonas Salk's polio vaccine? (at it's peak in the 40s & 50s close to a half million people worldwide were killed or paralyzed by polio)

Science is not the problem. Scientific illiteracy and the mistrust of science that goes with it is.........

explosivedonut

In the end science will be what destroys humanity.

Sentences like this are very telling.

Science is the reason that many of us are even alive today. How many MFP members would have died years ago from diseases (like pneumonia) that are now easily treated with antibiotics? How many of us would be dead or in wheelchairs (or iron lungs) were it not for Jonas Salk's polio vaccine? (at it's peak in the 40s & 50s close to a half million people worldwide were killed or paralyzed by polio)

Science is not the problem. Scientific illiteracy and the mistrust of science that goes with it is.........

Never mind the fact that we literally wouldn't be having this conversation on the Internet, on a web page written in either Java or PHP (probably Java), if it wasn't for science. Science gave us web-based programming languages, which were caused by the rise of the internet, which was caused by the rise of computers, which became viable thanks to power plants.

mrmagee3

In the end science will be what destroys humanity.

Sentences like this are very telling.

Science is the reason that many of us are even alive today. How many MFP members would have died years ago from diseases (like pneumonia) that are now easily treated with antibiotics? How many of us would be dead or in wheelchairs (or iron lungs) were it not for Jonas Salk's polio vaccine? (at it's peak in the 40s & 50s close to a half million people worldwide were killed or paralyzed by polio)

Science is not the problem. Scientific illiteracy and the mistrust of science that goes with it is.........

Never mind the fact that we literally wouldn't be having this conversation on the Internet, on a web page written in either Java or PHP (probably Java), if it wasn't for science. Science gave us web-based programming languages, which were caused by the rise of the internet, which was caused by the rise of computers, which became viable thanks to power plants.

I think it's Ruby on Rails...at least partially.

Morn66

In short, if you want to be concerned about GMOs, that is your choice. But there is no current evidence that justifies turning them into a boogieman that needs a label.

Why must something be a boogieman to need a label? I'm pro-labelling of GMO foods, but I don't think they are boogiemen. I'd just like to make an informed choice.

Because, like I've said, historically government-mandated labels happen because the government becomes convinced that there is a threat to public health that needs to be addressed. Hence, the enactment/enforcement of mandatory and standardized "nutrition fact" labels in 1994, legislation that was pushed through because of what the gov't saw as a widespread obesity problem that was impacting public health. Same thing with the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes. So, government-mandated labels have always been in response to "boogiemen," generally legitimate ones.

Now, that doesn't mean that the government will never decide that something that hasn't shown itself to be a threat to health needs a label, but it does mean that it's rather unlikely, given precedents. I think we're far more likely to see labels on alcohol before we're likely to see them on GMOs. Like I've said, your best bet at this point is to assume that something is GMO or uses/incorporates GMO products as an ingredient unless labeled otherwise and then purchase accordingly, according to the personal preferences you hold for whatever reason.

Of course, it also depends on what you (or in this case, the government) would define as a GMO for the purpose of labeling them. In my mind, anything that man has deliberately genetically messed with, ever, whether or not the "messers" knew what they were messing with (and no one did, until Mendel, vaguely, and, more clearly, after Watson & Crick) would qualify as a "GMO," given that what happens in a lab is really no different than what happens "naturally." It's only sped up and made easier, and we have more of an ability to cross species to a certain extent. It's still the same process of a teeny bit of deoxyribonucleic acid being exchanged between individuals and then cross-breeding and the results of the breeds being subjected to artificial selection. Which makes my dogs and the tomatoes I (organically) grow in my garden GMOs as much as anything that Monsanto might dream up. As well as pretty much any food sold in a grocery store, since everything's been messed with and in many ways outright created by man to the extent that what we've created has supplanted/made extinct the original plant/creature. (Have you seen an aurochs lately? I haven't.) Which, to my mind, makes labels entirely useless. But then, my definition is broad. To me, messing with genes is messing with genes, no matter how it's done or where or when, and none of it is dangerous in a physical health of the person who eats them sense. (Economic/environmental concerns are a totally different thing and, like I said, not relevant to the discussion.)

There are an ever increasing number of GMO foods. Grouping them all together as 'safe' or 'unsafe' seems rather silly to me. Surely there are and will be differing levels of safety.

That's also true. Which, again, makes labeling kind of...Well, useless, doesn't it? Unless we want the government to decide what's "safe" and what isn't. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't all be "safe," but then I'm not an expert. Just a person with an interest in genetics.

totem12

The problem with the 'frogs aren't meant to be strawberries' argument is that it takes genetic modification completely out of context.

You aren't putting frog into strawberry. You are putting a gene that encodes a protein into a genome that will then produce proteins. Take 'frog' and 'strawberry' out of it. It is all protein in the end.

sjsosu

I read the arguments that there is no evidence GMO produce has any adverse health effects. I haven't seen any unequivocal proof that there aren't legitimate concerns with it either.

Personally the gene manipulation is not concerning to me. What is, is ingesting herbicide resistant plants that have been doused in Roundup. It's the effects of the increased use of herbicides on our ground water or the increased potential for resistant weeds developing. I read an article that implied that traces of herbicides have been found in the urine of a certain portion of the population. And before the militants jump in, I don't know if it was a double blind study verified by an independent source, and I don't really care.

I don't know for a fact that ingesting any amount of herbicide is detrimental over the long term, yet at the same time I don't know that it's not. As long as there is potential for adverse effects I choose to avoid it for myself and my family as much as possible as do a lot of other people.

There's no need to belittle everyone that wishes to eliminate the potential risk, be it tremendous or minute.

Morn66

Ingesting herbicide is not good for you. Regardless of whether or not you buy GMO produce, you should always wash it thoroughly. It'll only be on the outside of your produce, not within the flesh of it.

That said, I suspect that if people are peeing pesticide (and it wouldn't surprise me if they are), it's because it's in their water supply in general. If you live in an agricultural area, some amount of pesticides/herbicides are pretty much guaranteed to be in your water supply. It's also probably in your water supply if your neighbors are fond of immaculate, dandelion-free lawns and are dousing their lawn in weed killer on a regular basis. I know that both herbicides and pesticides are regularly sprayed on all of the public parks in the (very "greenie") town I live in. They publish spray days in the newspaper so that people know to stay away, although they insist that it doesn't go into the water supply. Me, I'm skeptical about that.

Frankly, I'd be happy if pesticides/herbicides went bye-bye, but I know that's a pipe dream because they are somewhat necessary for the large-scale agriculture that's necessary to feed the population. Can't have your cake and eat it, too. So, there are many, many sources of pesticides/herbicides, but it's clear that GMOs are not the ultimate/only culprit and that not only GMO stuff is likely to be doused with pesticides, in particular. Your not-GMO-by-some-definitions regular supermarket produce likely is, too. Unless it's organic. But then, even if your stuff's organic, there's no way to tell if it ever rubbed shoulders with non-organic stuff while in shipping or while waiting to go out into the produce section. So...Wash, wash, wash.

bcattoes

Ingesting herbicide is not good for you. Regardless of whether or not you buy GMO produce, you should always wash it thoroughly. It'll only be on the outside of your produce, not within the flesh of it.

This is not true. Any chemicals sprayed on crops will be washed into the soil by rain, where they are distributed throughout the plant via the roots.

Frankly, I'd be happy if pesticides/herbicides went bye-bye, but I know that's a pipe dream because they are somewhat necessary for the large-scale agriculture that's necessary to feed the population. Can't have your cake and eat it, too. So, there are many, many sources of pesticides/herbicides, but it's clear that GMOs are not the ultimate/only culprit and that not only GMO stuff is likely to be doused with pesticides, in particular. Your not-GMO-by-some-definitions regular supermarket produce likely is, too. Unless it's organic. But then, even if your stuff's organic, there's no way to tell if it ever rubbed shoulders with non-organic stuff while in shipping or while waiting to go out into the produce section. So...Wash, wash, wash.

You are correct that there would be a lot of starving people without pesticides. GMO has little to do with pesticides being sprayed on crops, though, except that some GMO crops need less pesticides because of the modifications.

bcattoes

In short, if you want to be concerned about GMOs, that is your choice. But there is no current evidence that justifies turning them into a boogieman that needs a label.

Why must something be a boogieman to need a label? I'm pro-labelling of GMO foods, but I don't think they are boogiemen. I'd just like to make an informed choice.

Because, like I've said, historically government-mandated labels happen because the government becomes convinced that there is a threat to public health that needs to be addressed. Hence, the enactment/enforcement of mandatory and standardized "nutrition fact" labels in 1994, legislation that was pushed through because of what the gov't saw as a widespread obesity problem that was impacting public health. Same thing with the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes. So, government-mandated labels have always been in response to "boogiemen," generally legitimate ones.

Now, that doesn't mean that the government will never decide that something that hasn't shown itself to be a threat to health needs a label, but it does mean that it's rather unlikely, given precedents. I think we're far more likely to see labels on alcohol before we're likely to see them on GMOs. Like I've said, your best bet at this point is to assume that something is GMO or uses/incorporates GMO products as an ingredient unless labeled otherwise and then purchase accordingly, according to the personal preferences you hold for whatever reason.

Of course, it also depends on what you (or in this case, the government) would define as a GMO for the purpose of labeling them. In my mind, anything that man has deliberately genetically messed with, ever, whether or not the "messers" knew what they were messing with (and no one did, until Mendel, vaguely, and, more clearly, after Watson & Crick) would qualify as a "GMO," given that what happens in a lab is really no different than what happens "naturally." It's only sped up and made easier, and we have more of an ability to cross species to a certain extent. It's still the same process of a teeny bit of deoxyribonucleic acid being exchanged between individuals and then cross-breeding and the results of the breeds being subjected to artificial selection. Which makes my dogs and the tomatoes I (organically) grow in my garden GMOs as much as anything that Monsanto might dream up. As well as pretty much any food sold in a grocery store, since everything's been messed with and in many ways outright created by man to the extent that what we've created has supplanted/made extinct the original plant/creature. (Have you seen an aurochs lately? I haven't.) Which, to my mind, makes labels entirely useless. But then, my definition is broad. To me, messing with genes is messing with genes, no matter how it's done or where or when, and none of it is dangerous in a physical health of the person who eats them sense. (Economic/environmental concerns are a totally different thing and, like I said, not relevant to the discussion.)

There are an ever increasing number of GMO foods. Grouping them all together as 'safe' or 'unsafe' seems rather silly to me. Surely there are and will be differing levels of safety.

That's also true. Which, again, makes labeling kind of...Well, useless, doesn't it? Unless we want the government to decide what's "safe" and what isn't. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't all be "safe," but then I'm not an expert. Just a person with an interest in genetics.

Government labels are as often the result of pressure as any real concern based on data. Either pressure from lobbyist working for big business, or pressure from voters. If a govt official thinks s/he will be voted out of office for not supporting something, they likely will support it.

No, the fact that some GMO may be safer than others is no reason to not label. It's more reason to do so. Those that want to check out the research could decide which they consider safe and shop accordingly. Those that don't want to bother can avoid all GMO. It's about choice. Without labels choice is limited. All the lack of labels really does is allow those companies selling non-GMO to label them as such and charge more.

ea101367

watch: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/beautiful-truth/

AND: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/seeds-death/

quite informative.

Morn66

Government labels are as often the result of pressure as any real concern based on data. Either pressure from lobbyist working for big business, or pressure from voters. If a govt official thinks s/he will be voted out of office for not supporting something, they likely will support it.

Perhaps. Labels do sometimes start as a lobby, but historically the effort has resulted in nothing unless a threat to health can be demonstrated. I'm not saying that will never change; I'm saying the precedent isn't there. But lobbying for something that will cause gov't bureaucracy and expense for no tangible benefit is not liable to be pushed through. Especially because Big Food has bigger lobbies than the average grass-roots anti-GMO group.The only reason cigarette labels went through was because there was indisputable repeated scientific evidence of harm being done that the tobacco industry and its lobbies couldn't deny. No such evidence exist for GMOs. Big Food would most likely win the day.

So, if I were concerned about GMOs, I'd "vote" with my dollar and support those companies who are proudly non-GMO and label their products as such. Hopefully more companies will follow the lead of those companies, because voluntary labeling seen by the company as a marketing aid will appear much, MUCH more quickly than any government-mandated labeling. There's still the problem of regulation -- Either way, with voluntary non-GMO or mandatory GMO. How to verify/regulare a company's claims one way or the other? It's the same problem we have with organic stuff, really. Plus, we can stick all the labels we want on things, but if the average person has no idea what a GMO is (and, moreover, doesn't care), what good do they do? Where's the justification for the expenditure of funds to implement/legislate/enforce this policy?

I guess, in the end, my arguments come down to the fact that I'm a rational realist who looks to the bottom line, not an idealist. To me, it's not enough to say, "This should be labeled so that we're all 'informed.'" It's a matter of looking at the bigger picture and seeing what it will take to legislate/implement such a policy and then to monitor/enforce it. Frankly, I see a lack of return on investment between dollars spent and amount of good done. Maybe I'm too much of a corporate accountant for my own good. Or certainly for the good of noble causes. Like I said, I don't mean to sound fatalistic, but I really don't think that labels will accomplish what people think they will accomplish. I think that other issues surrounding GMOs -- Like the environmental impact of them -- need to be addressed. Putting a label on something that, face it, the average consumer won't understand and will entirely ignore, doesn't cut the mustard.

No, the fact that some GMO may be safer than others is no reason to not label. It's more reason to do so. Those that want to check out the research could decide which they consider safe and shop accordingly. Those that don't want to bother can avoid all GMO. It's about choice. Without labels choice is limited. All the lack of labels really does is allow those companies selling non-GMO to label them as such and charge more.

Perhaps you're right. But like I said, does the potential benefit of labels ultimately outweigh the expenditure and the creation of more bureaucracy? Especially given that your average consumer is not likely to care if their food contains GMOs so long as they can afford to buy it and/or that it's something they like and feel they have to have, like their favorite junk food? That's the question. If you ask the people on here, you're liable to get a skewed answer because those of us on here are generally people who care about health and nutrition and such. But I bet if you were to wander around a local grocery (not a health food store) and ask random people if they even know what a GMO is, most of them will give you a blank stare. How will labels help those people or make any bit of difference to those people?

CookNLift

I believe we should know what is done to our food, purely based on the cancer causing agents and chemicals that could provide health issues with people. If I can read all of the ingredients in my toothpaste, why not do the same for my apple?

Monsanto is a nasty company, and I refuse to shop from them because of my moral standards, and I think that as consumers, we all be allowed to require to know what is put into our food. I don't believe any specific chemical makes it addictive to cause overeating or obesity, but I think cancer causing agents could very well be factors of GMO's.

mom2kidds

http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf

mikeberthold

http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/06/20/look-beyond-the-scientific-veneer-of-a-gmo-report/#.Ugu_v9Kfg_x

I mean, obviously you feel very strongly about this. That's fine. You also don't appreciate non-like-minded people commenting in this public forum. That's not so fine.

You're free to advance your cause but you must realize that in a public forum others are free to disagree with you politely. I think anybody's stance should be open to scrutiny and questioning even by the individual holding them, constantly. An unwillingness to hear others' viewpoints is simply closed-mindedness.

I am always willing to be challenged on my assumptions and discuss my beliefs. Why wouldn't everyone? It's too easy to stay in one corner of the web with like-minded individuals who then meet up and become convinced theirs is the only viewpoint that counts, but that's an empty, hollow feeling, isn't it? Far better to face the challenges head-on, and if you are still convinced of your viewpoints they can only be strengthened by analyzing them critically.