Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
What if a group of poorly-educated people thought crops grown on a Wednesday were poisonous?
Would we have to put that on the label too? You have to draw a line somewhere. Facts, not fearmongering.
There's only so much room on the label!
ETA - your hero Ron Paul is also against GMO labelling
Posts: 10,251
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
Crops harvested on a friday are much worse. Sometimes the date is the 13th and all sorts of chaos can happen then but the scientists won't tell us that. Even worse, those farmers conspire to not tell us when the crops were planted in the first place. How can we plan our diets if we don't know the moon was in the the first quarter or Mercury was conjunct Mars? God forbid there was a grand cross, who would dare eat vegetables given that circumstance. Or meat.
I also want to know if my food was grown during a major solar storm. Please make sure that's on the label as well. If it was protected by lead shielding then that needs to go on the label as well so we know it's safe. I also want to know if my food was grown near a granite outcrop. They're radioactive so clearly everyone needs to have that on the label as well. How about cattle and horses not pissing on the crops? That should be labeled as well. Wild animals leaving their crap on the crops? Let's ban food altogether, there's no way it can be safe.
Tom
http://apacificview.blogspot.com/
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
"You're gonna need a bigger label"
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
Label it, let the public choose; What are they afraid of?
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
Here is a option to look at while the fight about GMO's is being on:
'Eke 'Aina - "always fresh. Local First" - $25 12 x 12 bag (reusable) of produce each Friday with recipes (good for those cooking-challenged like me). Call 974 - 7303
I dont know who can see their FB post but here it is:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=347034242047122&set=a.170397399710808.46154.139135939503621&type=1&theater
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
1. Media item suggests the latest "whither organic" studies out of Stanford might possibly have been influenced by big money from Monsanto.
2. Given how much food is GMO, it would be easier to label things that are non-GMO.
3. If you're that serious about "non-GMO" and/or "organic", grow it yourself or buy from a grower you trust. With the climate/rainfall around here, there's really no excuse.
Posts: 631
Threads: 53
Joined: Oct 2006
There is increasing evidence that GMO foods and ingredients DO have health impacts - especially to fetuses and infants: developmental disabilities, immune deficiencies, etc. That's why so many European countries have already either outright banned or mandated labelling for GMOs. Some studies that were submitted to the FDA by Monsanto itself show these health impacts in their lab studies.
Then, there are other reasons for labelling and informed consent for the public even if there were no health impacts. These are the environmental impacts, already well documented. Also the fact that many religions have food restrictions - lack of labelling means that observers may be eating restricted foods unknowingly. Thus, they are being denied their freedom to practice their religion. I'm not talking about minor sects of pagans, here, but world religions (including Christianity, which has food restrictions during Lent). What is it about the Bill of Rights that you don't support?
Posts: 2,654
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
So, kinda like "organic" labeling, why not put "GMO free" stickers or on the label on GMO free stuff if the new norm is to expect GMO? People that don't care won't look. People that do will. It would keep the label clutter down for the generic everyday stuff.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
"There is increasing evidence that GMO foods and ingredients DO have health impacts - especially to fetuses and infants"
Infants, no less! Please give a reputable source.
"These are the environmental impacts, already well documented."
They are, but not in the way you mean. Many GMO crops are designed specifically to be grown using less pesticides and less water.
I'm sorry, but 'freedom to practice [sic] their religion' does not mean that everyone gets to put a stamp on everything. Would you be in favour of the Mormons and the Shi'ites and the Baptists all reserving space on the label so they can tell their followers whether this or that food is approved by them? By the way, the Bill of Rights is also about freedom *from* religion.
Space on the label is limited. There's barely enough room for important facts like ingredients and nutritional value.
If GMO food really was dangerous then it wouldn't be sold at all. They already have a hard time convincing an uneducated public. The European Governments are just reacting to public pressure, it's not based on facts.
Posts: 1,100
Threads: 6
Joined: Nov 2010
There is no way that "GMO foods" as a group can all have health impacts, because they're all different. Bt corn, for instance, could possibly cause health problems if the corn itself contains more Bt than is normally found as residue (Bt is also used on organic crops, BTW). Roundup resistant plants have nothing wrong with themselves, but could potentially have more Roundup residue depending on how farmers treat their fields. And there is nothing that could even potentially affect you from ringspot virus-resistant papayas.
