Hawaii Senate panel to consider GMO labeling

[rainyjim]

PunaMauka2,

Here is a study from Cornell University that illustrates my explanation of increased costs in significantly greater detail.

http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles...lingNY.pdf

As you can see there are significantly more complications involved then those I mentioned.

[Wao nahele kane]

Facts -
No scientific consensus about GMO safety. A peer reviewed document.
- http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12...0034-1.pdf

According to a consumer reports poll, an overwhelming 92% of Americans support GMO labeling.
- https://consumersunion.org/news/new-cons...ered-food/

Question -
Where do legacy media outlets derive their misinformation? Do they get it from corporate paid PR firms such as the following firm and it's fluffy bologna video?
http://usrtk.org/gmo/gmo-industry-doesnt...his-video/

All from the following link -
http://usrtk.org/gmo/media-reports-that-...out-wrong/

-enjoy

ETA... all the above and more was found by following the informative links in the following article.
http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/2...o-labeling

[kalakoa]

Still confused as to how the astroturfing and lobbying efforts are cheaper than a labeling requirement.

[rainyjim]

When researching on the interwebs I tend to look for links that end in .edu and .gov while completely ignoring .com and .org

There tends to be a trend in government agencies and universities to have some level of accreditation and generally support for information without opinion. I find the opposite trend seems to hold true for sites that end in .com and .gov.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but just a good rule of thumb for finding fact based information as opposed to opinion that's good for researching anything not just 'GMO' labeling.

[Wao nahele kane]

Rainyjim...
So you ignore the following also http://www.elsevier.com/
That explains a lot.

[Wao nahele kane]

Kalakoa,
LOL... that was funny.
Come now, we all know it's not about what's cheaper. It's all about losing profits. Once the GMO label is slapped on the product it begins to collect dust on shelf in the store and GMO food profits sink. Just like they've done in Europe. LOL. No need for extra grain storage bins when so few are willing to shovel your product down their throat.

[PunaMauka2]

appreciate the intentions as taken, Rainyjim, though i really don't have the time or inclination to wade through that particular study to determine it's validity from my position as layman on the topic.

i could however punt it back to you with a list of other studies apparently coming to an assortment of other conclusions.

but i don't have the time nor the inclination to go over all these either. we could spend days and untold hours going back and forth jousting with competing sources like that. i'm no expert on the issue by any means, though from that inexpert position i still find it rather unlikely that the problem of GMO labeling would have to be so prohibitively daunting as some might suggest.

i am very much open to varying points of view on the topic, just as an amateur not to getting bogged down in a quagmire of competing interpretations of mountains of highly intricate data.
----------

http://www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/up...y-2013.pdf




https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/up...e_Summ.pdf (By Dr. Andrew Dyke and Robert Whelan, ECONorthwest
Consumers Union. Study conducted by the economic consulting firm ECONorthwest found that requiring GMO food labels would cost a mere $2.30 per person per year, or less than a penny a day.)



http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/upload...ssment.pdf (Shepherd-Bailey’s assessment of potential costs associated with California’s failed Proposition 37 to require GMO food labeling found little or no change in consumer food prices as a result of labeling.)


http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/themes...of_522.pdf (By Joanna M. Shepherd-Bailey, Ph.D., Emory University School of Law

Shepherd-Bailey’s assessment of potential costs associated with Washington state’s Initiative 522 to label GE food, which also lost following a massive industry advertising campaign, similarly predicted no change in consumer food prices as a result of labeling.)



https://consumersunion.org/research/cu-r...-labeling/ (By Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist
Consumers Union

Hansen finds that Lesser’s industry-funded study, which predicted a surge in food prices as a result of GMO labeling, relied on faulty assumptions about consumer behavior and product reformulation.)



http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/...114_en.pdf (By David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection

In his 2001 report, Byrne wrote that, “When the current labeling regime was introduced in 1997, it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”)

[rainyjim]

I don't think it would take days!

I look at the authors of studies, their affiliations, and who funded the studies. Based off those variables I categorically discard many and only read those authored by reliable individuals who are published in peer reviewed journals.

For instance, I wouldn't read a labeling initiativd from 'x' state, but I may read a peer reviewed journal which the labeling initiative may have made reference to.

All the same I understand that not everyone has time or inclination to do so.

yet may I suggest:
(1) it seems a little odd to participate in a discussion (like an online forum) and tell someone you disagree with them and then say you don't want to discuss why you disagree.

(2) if you don't have time to become familiarized with the subject and recognize that then why bother to post that you disagree just seems odd.

Anyways, I appreciate your civility and candor.

I'm not against labeling but I would like people to know the reality of what they are asking for isn't as simple as slapping a sticker on.

[Obie]

rainyjim

Apparently someone agrees that it's not as simple as slapping on a label.

STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P. O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801-3378
doh.testimony@doh.hawaii.gov
Testimony in OPPOSITION to SB 131
RELATING TO FOOD LABELING
SENATOR JOSH GREEN, CHAIR
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
SENATOR RUSSELL E. RUDERMAN
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Hearing Date: February 19, 2015 Room Number: 414
Time: 2:45 PM
Fiscal Implications: Passage of this measure will require substantial resources. The department would need to hire numerous experts in the field of biotechnology and genetics as well as multi- million dollar analytical equipment currently not available at DOH. Additional enforcement staff will also be required.
Department Testimony: The department respectfully opposes this bill. The department does not object in principle to a labeling policy to enhance public awareness of the absence or presence of genetically engineered food or food ingredients in Hawaii markets. However, the department is not in a position to enforce such legislation because practical and legally defensible analytical methods to detect any and all genetic modifications do not exist. Testing for common genetic markers could easily be evaded. Furthermore we do not conduct genetic engineering work; and therefore, do not possess the requisite scientific expertise, capacity, equipment and experience to test and determine whether a suspected food or food product has been genetically engineered at a confidence that could withstand legal challenges.
Currently, there is no conclusive scientific evidence of negative health effects associated with the consumption of genetically engineered food or food products as determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As such, we do not believe such labeling is a health issue and thus do not support any such program being assigned to the department to administer.
The department would like to focus its limited resources in areas such as controlling the incidence of food borne illness risk factors by inspecting food establishments at the appropriate frequency.
Timely inspections have proven to produce consistent compliance with food safety regulations and reduce the rates of food borne illness outbreaks.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

[kalakoa]

practical and legally defensible analytical methods to detect any and all genetic modifications do not exist

Interesting; the assumption is that "we would perform our own analysis", even though this is not done for other packaged foodstuffs.