Labels for GMO foods are a bad idea

Why have labels at all, then? Why not just put food out there and let the people take their chances?

Gluten intolerant? Too bad! You have to learn the hard way.
Peanut allergies? Be sure to carry your epipen at all times.
Don't want trans fat? Hope you are a good guesser.

I think informing the public of what is in their product is an important responsibility of the manufacturer.

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not."

So let's compare apples to apples. And trans fats? Hope you avoid grass fed meats

The FDA is not a credible source any more, it is all about corporations, not the consumers. Let's label everything, and let he consumer make their choice.

FDA said BPA in plastic wasn't harmful either.

Your post should be taken down ,untrue 100% totally . Irresponsible .

And trans fats? Hope you avoid grass fed meats

Natural trans fats, as from grass-fed meats, are not harmful. Man-made trans fats are unquestionably harmful.

Thanks for the information, I know I am on the fence about it. On the one hand we need all the help we can get with the food shortage crisis. On the other hand most man made things turn out to be bad lol

I did read that some GMO food has less antioxidants then those "organically grown" simply because the plant needs to create more to survive on its own.

I will be voting for labeling in WA State. I simply think it is my right to know.

I do not trust Montesano. From a consumer prospective and as a local small farmer supporter. The financial support put toward voting down this initiative by Montesano smells rotten to me.

As far as organics go.....local and organic are it for me. I switched about 2 years ago and immediately my family started commenting on how good the potatoes or brocoli were, thats all I need.

This does not mean I will never buy a GMO labeled product, but I will purchase it as an informed consumer.

I reread your original post and the article from "Scientific American". There is no author attached to the article. Why, where's their balls.

So basically the problem and my point is that it may not be the GMO but what they spray on the GMO crop. If this Glyphosate is an issue then it's giving GMO a bad name.

Were the GMO monsanto plants that the FDA tested treated with Glyphosate? If not then it's not a valid test on the operational usage of GMO by the FDA. Did the FDA look this far?

So you have a study that shows that glyphosate is harmless to our gut bacteria? It raises some questions.

If it does harm Monsanto will lose billions.

Also if it shown to cause the Bee CCD then there will be a ban of glyphosate. Notice I did not say GMO.

http://gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BeesYet_Another_Suspect_in_CCD_2_.pdf

Glyphosate

Glyphosate is an organic phosphonate compound that was first patented as a
broad-spectrum, cat-ionic metal chelator by Stauffer Chemical Company in 1964
(USPTO, 1964), as an herbicide by Monsanto Company in 1974 (USPTO, 1974), and
as an antibiotic by Monsanto Company in 2000 (USPTO, 2000). All of these uses
are based on its ability to ‘grab onto’ and form a chelate complex that immobilizes
mineral nutrients such as Ca, Fe, Co, Cu, Mn, Mg, Ni, Zn, etc. (Glass, 1984). These
metal nutrients serve as metal co-factors for various enzyme systems in plants,
microorganisms, and animals. Once these metal nutrients are chelated by
glyphosate in soil or plants, they become physiologically unavailable as co-factors
for many enzymatic and other physiological functions.

The broad-spectrum toxicity of glyphosate to plants initially simplified weed control,
especially with selectivity provided by genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant
(Roundup Ready®, RR) plants, so that glyphosate could be applied directly to the
RR plants without killing them. This use has led to an estimated annual
indiscriminate usage of 880 million pounds of this mineral-immobilizing herbicide
and antibiotic in the US. There is nothing in the genetic engineering process,
however, that does anything to the glyphosate that is applied to these plants that
are foraged by bees.

Glyphosate is systemic in plants:As a phloem mobile chemical, glyphosate from
foliar, stem, or root uptake is systemic in plants where it accumulates in flower and
reproductive parts, root and shoot tips, and legume nodules (Huber, 2010; Johal
and Huber, 2009). Much of the glyphosate will remain in the plant and it can
accumulate over years in perennial plants such as alfalfa, vine, fruit, and nut crops
and environmental perennial species. It is an active mineral chelator in the treated
plant for as many as 8 to 15 days after application before becoming sequestered in
flower parts, other meristematic tissues, or soil. As little as 12 gm/acre (1/40th
of
herbicidal rate and well below the general 12-16 % drift rate) inhibits root uptake
and translocation of Fe, Mn, Zn and other nutrients so that plants exposed to
glyphosate directly or through drift in air or water have lower nutrient content
(Bellaloui et al, 2009, 2011; Bott et al, 2008, 2011; Cakmak et al, 2009; Eker et al,
2006; Huber, 2010, 2012; Zobiole et al 2012).

Minerals in glyphosate-tolerant plants may be impacted even more by glyphosate
than those in non-tolerant plants since there is nothing in the genetic engineering
that does anything to nullify the glyphosate and its chelating effect on mineral
nutrients. Since plant products are the source of essential mineral nutrients, bees
may become mineral deficient, malnourished, have a weakened immune system,
and be more susceptible to infections and abiotic (environmental) stresses.

Direct toxicity of glyphosate: Glyphosate is not acutely toxic to bees, but is
chronically toxic to animals, and, like the neonicotinamid insecticides, glyphosate is
a neurotoxin and disrupts the endocrine hormone system at very low exposure
rates (Antoniou et al, 2012; Gasnier et al, 2009) that are well below levels found in
air, water, and, especially, plant tissues (Benbrook, 2012; Huber, 2012).

It makes no difference whether or not someone believes that GMO is bad (or not bad) it boils down to one thing.. CHOICE. Everyone should have the option to make a CHOICE based on their own goals. Some people CHOOSE not to support Monsanto. Some people CHOOSE to eat meat. Some people CHOOSE to buy local. Some people CHOOSE to eat and buy whatever they can. It's a choice. I don't give a rat's behind what someone else thinks I should do (or not do) because they are not ME and removing my right to make a CHOICE - even if that choice is unpopular - is total BS.

And trans fats? Hope you avoid grass fed meats

Natural trans fats, as from grass-fed meats, are not harmful. Man-made trans fats are unquestionably harmful.

How can the body tell them apart?

Something to do with the chemical structure, and the position of a double bond between molecules. How the body knows, I'm not sure. Sorry, it's been too long since high-school chemistry... ;-)

I'm actually a chemist, lol. I didn't realize they were actually different, specific, compounds. But they are actually quite different, so that makes sense.

Of course, while I was looking them up, I also read some articles that suggested trans fats are actually way worse for women than men, too, so there's that...

Ahhh remember the good ol' days when agent orange, lead and asbestos were safe also? All its going to take is an outbreak of kids born with seal legs, three arms and their insides on the outside for proper studies to be done on gm food.

I eat organic and I eat GMO. I would like to know with a simple label, just like for allergins.

If GMO's were so great, healthy and better for us, why wouldnt Monsanto and the others want to let the public know with labels? I mean they tell us when products are new and improved, why not say its a super food. Because the FDA approves something doesnt mean its as safe as one would think:
Monsanto and FDA regulator relationships
http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm
rBGH tie in
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/25/finally-huge-victory-against-monsanto-milk.aspx

Its sort of laughable, but also scary that this happens today in the US. GMO's can be awesome, the lack of transparency from a company that made Agent Orange DDT PCBs is really not comforting.

Why is our food being made and modified by the worlds largest pesticide manufacturer?

I want to pick my poison;-), a label would help

Well said!