Is There a Rational Reason for Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods?

[Nous]

I would want to know why the GMO was produced. If it was engineered to be more resistant to chemical pesticides and herbicides so the farmer can use more chemicals on the plant without damaging the crop, then I would reject that GMO, as it was engineered to withstand more chemicals. I don't want more toxic chemicals in my food.

Geez, there is no genetically engineered food that contains any greater amount of toxins than conventionally bred, hybridized and radiated food. ("Biotechnology saves the equivalent of 521,000 pounds of pesticides each year and helps cut herbicide runoff by 70 percent." https://www.geneticliteracyproject....7/Biotechnology-infographic_7.29.13-clean.pdf )

But even if there were GM foods containing greater amounts of toxic pesticides and herbicides than conventionally bred foods, slapping a "GMO" label on all genetically engineered foods does not help consumers distinguish between "toxic" and "non-toxic" GM foods. Right?

As the AMA states, “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods . . . Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. . . Consumers wishing to avoid bioengineered foods can purchase foods that are certified USDA Organic. This labeling term indicates that no bioengineered ingredients were used in the food." http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA Report.pdf

In your opinion, why is it that every scientific organization in the world that has examined the issue of GM foods has publicly defended the safety of GM foods?

 

[Quintessence]

I already asked you what important fact you have been prevented from knowing about where a food comes from or how it is made due to the absence of mandatory labeling of GM foods. Why don't you answer?

Because you're trying to twist this in a direction I don't follow, and I refuse to play that game. I've said it already - I'm for wholesale transparency about production and processing of foods, including but not limited to information about the genetic pedigree of a food product. This is not about GMO foods specifically, for me. Get it? I want better labeling and transparency for food products in general, and I've said already that I consider labeling GMOs to be a relatively unimportant component of that overarching ideal.

Obviously, "GMO" on a label does not provide any information about where a food comes from or how it was made.

Yes it does. It tells me something about the product's origin (where it came from, as well as how it was made). Just like a tomato labeled "heirloom" tells me something about the product's origin. Or an apple labeled "granny smith" tells me something about the product. I'm a fan of more information, rather than less. Hell, I'd be tickled if stores started putting scientific names of produce on the signs.

The scientists and medical experts are on my side (my bolding):

I do not believe you understand what "side" (what?) I am on, given you have repeatedly demonstrated you fail to understand what my position on this topic actually is.

 

[Nous]

I do not believe you understand what "side" (what?) I am on, given you have repeatedly demonstrated you fail to understand what my position on this topic actually is.

Do you agree or disagree with the AMA's statement: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods"?

 

[Augustus]

Apparently you've never looked at any of the studies on GM plants-

Apparently you haven't read any of my posts.

You even quoted my post telling you to stop focusing on the strawman of effects on human health, to start a reply focusing on the effects on human health.

Copy/paste, copy/paste, ignore actual reply, copy/paste, copy/paste.

Again I ask: Do you believe these eminent scientists are just ignorant of the facts about GM foods or involved in a huge conspiracy?

Neither actually. Just an incorrect paradigm.

I asked you a few questions, if you answer them then I'll continue this dialogue.

I'd like to know your opinion first, beyond an ability to copy/paste without understanding.

 

[Augustus]

I know you weren't asking me, Augustus,

It's ok, I usually like your posts

I'm not a supporter of GMOs, but not for the traditional alarmist bandwagon reasons.

Me neither

I generally approve of GMO initiatives to breed insect and disease resistance into crops if it means the farmers will be spraying less poison all over the land, because such poison use is definitely the worser of two evils.

Now we disagree

Pesticides and things are bad, but they are a limited harm and one that is fully within human control.

An insect resistant crop has the potential of changing the ecological balance, spreading to additional crops/weeds, reducing biodiversity (successful GMO will be adopted en mass). They are also self-replicating and have the potential to spread outwith human control.

I see them as similar to introducing non-native species into an ecosystem, often beneficial, but always carrying the potential of great harm.

Humans, being ecosystem engineers, will endlessly meddle in things they shouldn't.

Of course, but all meddling is not equal.

Nature is not top-down. When humans think they can accurately pick and choose future courses of action they tend not to be successful. GMO is just the latest on this chain with a spectacular record of failure.

If there is even a tiny chance that we could cause massive harm to the ecosystem, then it's best to practice precaution. To say there is no chance of this happening credits us with much greater foresight than we have thus far demonstrated we have.

Was the Aral Sea disaster a one off, or simply an example of our hubris?

 

[crossfire]

<...>

In your opinion, why is it that every scientific organization in the world that has examined the issue of GM foods has publicly defended the safety of GM foods?

I can only think of one reason for scientifically justifying the exclusion of data to consumers: Double Blind Studies.

double-blind study - an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; "a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effects"​

Ball is your court.

 

[Quintessence]

Pesticides and things are bad, but they are a limited harm and one that is fully within human control.

Hahah! Yes, I suppose farmers have "full control" in their decisions to bankrupt themselves by refusing to engage in standard industry practices that today, are pretty much required to break even or make any sort of profit in the business. Tell your average industrial farming operation not to use any pesticides this next season. Watch as they stare at you like you just grew two heads, and good darned luck convincing them to take a serious hit to their finances. The unfortunate reality is we have an industrial agriculture economic system that functionally forces many farmers to spray poisons all over the landscape and use the latest and greatest else they risk financial ruin. Personally, I would not call that full control.

Nor would I under-pitch the consequenes of indiscriminate use of poisons on the landscape. Did you ever read Silent Spring? The book is sadly as relevant today as it was back then. Blanketing the planet with poison has far more serious and cascading effects than GMOs can hold a candle to. Great thing about GMOs with built-in insect resistance is it primarily targets the insects that actually chew on the plant, instead of... well... everything. It's kind of like asking "in wartime, is it better to just kill everything that moves and leave smoking wreckage everywhere... or is it better to target only armed combatants and aim to minimize collateral damage?" Kind of a no-brainer to me. Stuff like this is happening right now. Those kinds of GMO projects - the ones that make the desired crop resistant to poison so farmers can spray it more indiscriminately - that is the stuff of pure evil. But a project that plans to phase out spraying and instead use only resistance in the plant itself? Definitely lesser of two evils, particularly for our poor Danaus plexippus. There are other species that have suffered for this, but the monarchs are the charismatic poster child that gets notice.

An insect resistant crop has the potential of changing the ecological balance, spreading to additional crops/weeds, reducing biodiversity (successful GMO will be adopted en mass). They are also self-replicating and have the potential to spread outwith human control.

I have to kind of laugh here a bit too. Changing ecological balance? What ecological balance? Crop fields are human engineered ecosystems already, and awful monocultures that already lack any sort of biodiversity. As for invasiveness, that's something of an expertise of mine, and the crops in my state in some cases can't even naturalize, much less become invasive. I can't say I've ever seen a corn field taking over a tallgrass prairie or deciduous woodland, and something would have to dramatically change about the nature of Zea mays for that to even be a possibility. The species just cannot compete. Neither can Glycene max. Nobody in the field of natural resource management is concerned about corn and soy becoming the next Alliaria petiolata. *laughs*

Honestly, the entire industrial agriculture system is something I find problematic. But, I don't see it going away any time soon, unless we boycott industrial foods en masse and start buying only in-season and from local producers like we used to. In the long run, this is what will probably happen, but it may not occur in my lifetime. We'll see. At that point, GMOs will be pointless and loose their foothold. They only make sense under an industrial agricultural system.

If there is even a tiny chance that we could cause massive harm to the ecosystem, then it's best to practice precaution. To say there is no chance of this happening credits us with much greater foresight than we have thus far demonstrated we have.

Near as I can wager, there's not even a tiny chance that it could cause massive harm. Well, aside from the massive harm of continuing to support the extremely harmful practice that is industrial agriculture, and continuing to support human overpopulation, and by extension the sixth mass extinction and ecological genocide. Put another way, I see it as a symptom, not a root cause.

Was the Aral Sea disaster a one off, or simply an example of our hubris?

Had to look up that incident, but it seems unrelated to this issue in particular. Of course it wasn't a one-off. Humans are ecosystem engineers, and they are often incredibly irresponsible with that role. GMOs are not the main issue to rally about, IMHO.

 

[Nous]

In your opinion, why is it that every scientific organization in the world that has examined the issue of GM foods has publicly defended the safety of GM foods?

I can only think of one reason for scientifically justifying the exclusion of data to consumers: Double Blind Studies.

double-blind study - an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; "a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effects"​

Are you trying to suggest that all of the national and international organizations of scientists (16 of which have been quoted on this thread) and Nobel prize-winning scientists advocate the safety and production of GM foods because they are involved in a conspiracy to perform an experiment on humans?

 

[Nous]

Apparently you haven't read any of my posts.

I have read your posts, and I summarized your "argument" here to the best of my ability. It seems to me that you're saying something to the effect that the scientific method cannot possibly "prove" GM foods to be "safe". Is that not the essence of your posts here?

Again I ask: Do you believe these eminent scientists are just ignorant of the facts about GM foods or involved in a huge conspiracy?

Neither actually. Just an incorrect paradigm.[/quote]I can only understand your answer as claiming that these statements by scientists and organizations of scientists are erroneous:

The American Medical Association: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

The American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

The National Academy of Sciences: "To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.”

Food Standards Australia New Zealand: “Gene technology has not been shown to introduce any new or altered hazards into the food supply, therefore the potential for long term risks associated with GM foods is considered to be no different to that for conventional foods already in the food supply.”

The Royal Society of Medicine (UK): "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.”

The Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities: “In consuming food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health.“

The European Commission: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.”

The French Academy of Science: “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.”

Academies of Sciences of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the Third World Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage and in principle, health promoting--bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”

World Health Organization: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

110 Nobel laureates in science: "Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

Prove these statements are erroneous.

 

[Nous]

Do you agree or disagree with the AMA's statement: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods"?

Hopefully this question isn't too difficult.

 

[crossfire]

Are you trying to suggest that all of the national and international organizations of scientists (16 of which have been quoted on this thread) and Nobel prize-winning scientists advocate the safety and production of GM foods because they are involved in a conspiracy to perform an experiment on humans?

Nope. I'm only pointing out the valid scientific reason for keeping data from anyone. This is a now a political issue. If you are going to try use the scientists as political levers in order to try to make the issue seem like a scientific issue instead of a political issue, you should be wary of the implications. (Just sayin')

 

[crossfire]

Do you agree or disagree with the AMA's statement: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods"?

Let me also point out that there is also no scientific justification for the non-labeling of GMO's--unless of course, it was to conduct double blind studies.

double-blind study - an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; "a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effects"​

Hopefully this question isn't too difficult.

Likewise, I'm hoping that this is not too difficult for you to grasp, either.

 

[Nous]

Nope. I'm only pointing out the valid scientific reason for keeping data from anyone.

No one is conducting any "double blind" studies with GM foods, and the absence of mandatory labeling of GM foods has nothing to do with "double blind" studies.

A double-blind drug trial is where the participant does not know whether she is getting the study drug or a control, and the person performing some assessment on the participant does not know whether the participant is getting the study drug or control. But obviously, in order to perform the analysis of the outcome, it must recorded which participants got the study drug and which got the control.

 

[Nous]

Let me also point out that there is also no scientific justification for the non-labeling of GMO's

In the US there is a constitutional reason for proscribing compelled speech, which is what mandatory labeling of GM foods is. Further, there are constitutional, statutory and policy reasons for not distinguishing foods by way of labeling in the absence of any material difference between the foods. And the mere fact that the genome of food or plant has been modified by rDNA techniques is not and does not result in a material difference.

The obvious reason for this proscription of mandatory labeling in the absence of a material difference is this: Imagine that a new maker of chocolate candy began selling its goods in Pennsylvania, and the Hershey company (located in PA) persuaded the state legislature to pass a law requiring that a skull-and-crossbones be put on the wrappers of candy made by that new company. That would, of course, kill that new business unfairly.

And because of people's entirely irrational fears about foods modified by rDNA techniques, requiring "GMO" be put on labels is essentially equivalent to requiring a skull-and-crossbones on the label.

 

[crossfire]

In the US there is a constitutional reason for proscribing compelled speech, which is what mandatory labeling of GM foods is. Further, there are constitutional, statutory and policy reasons for not distinguishing foods by way of labeling in the absence of any material difference between the foods. And the mere fact that the genome of food or plant has been modified by rDNA techniques is not and does not result in a material difference.

The obvious reason for this proscription of mandatory labeling in the absence of a material difference is this: Imagine that a new maker of chocolate candy began selling its goods in Pennsylvania, and the Hershey company (located in PA) persuaded the state legislature to pass a law requiring that a skull-and-crossbones be put on the wrappers of candy made by that new company. That would, of course, kill that new business unfairly.

And because of people's entirely irrational fears about foods modified by rDNA techniques, requiring "GMO" be put on labels is essentially equivalent to requiring a skull-and-crossbones on the label.

Well, at least you are now admitting that it is a political issue.

 

[crossfire]

In the US there is a constitutional reason for proscribing compelled speech, which is what mandatory labeling of GM foods is. Further, there are constitutional, statutory and policy reasons for not distinguishing foods by way of labeling in the absence of any material difference between the foods. And the mere fact that the genome of food or plant has been modified by rDNA techniques is not and does not result in a material difference.

The obvious reason for this proscription of mandatory labeling in the absence of a material difference is this: Imagine that a new maker of chocolate candy began selling its goods in Pennsylvania, and the Hershey company (located in PA) persuaded the state legislature to pass a law requiring that a skull-and-crossbones be put on the wrappers of candy made by that new company. That would, of course, kill that new business unfairly.

And because of people's entirely irrational fears about foods modified by rDNA techniques, requiring "GMO" be put on labels is essentially equivalent to requiring a skull-and-crossbones on the label.

If you are planning to produce a food item for export, you will have to know if any of the ingredients are GMO in order to conform to GMO labeling laws outside the USA, so labels are relevant.

 

[freethinker44]

"People have a right to know what's in their food"
Do they? Do they really?
Unless there is a credible health risk then I say no.
I mean, if we're going to label things based on pseudoscience maybe we should also force companies to label if their foods weren't blessed by a priest because, after all, people have a right to know if there are demons in their food.
And we should have amish people inspect and label everything too, because you know, people have a right to know if technology was used to produce or package their food.
And we should have that crazy guy from the history channel inspect all the food because of course people have a right to know if aliens were involved (they were).

 

[columbus]

In the US there is a constitutional reason for proscribing compelled speech, which is what mandatory labeling of GM foods is.

There most certainly is not. Lots of things are already required. Frankly, nobody ever has to label anything. Just don't sell it to the general public.
The whole point to this is preventing people from making informed choices by withholding information. If people don't want what you are selling, for whatever reason, then let the free market rule for once.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

Near as I can wager, there's not even a tiny chance that it could cause massive harm.

What makes you so confident?

That it would be impossible to make a harmful GMO (even on purpose), or that we can tell the difference between 'good' and 'bad' GMO? (or something else)

 

[Quintessence]

What makes you so confident?

That it would be impossible to make a harmful GMO (even on purpose), or that we can tell the difference between 'good' and 'bad' GMO? (or something else)

What I take issue with is the hyperbolic use of the word "massive" in there. Though it doesn't help that anything and everything can be construed as "bad" or "harmful" on some level. When I studied risk analysis in graduate school, it was made quite clear that there is no such thing as a zero "harm" scenario. It doesn't exist. What risk analyses do is examine the probability of "harm" (objectively and operationally defined so it can be analyzed) given a certain level of exposure. From there, the actual managing of the risk is based on stakeholder input and ultimately boils down to value judgements (e.g., what level of "harm" is acceptable).

So to me this is the wrong question. It is impossible to do anything that is not harmful in some way. The right question is what levels of exposure cause undesired outcomes, what the risk-benefit balance is, and what can practically be regulated. There are tons of regulations on the development and release of new GMO products, so really, I am not even a little bit worried about "massive" harm, or an improper risk analysis being done. I've seen too much of it firsthand for that - it's downright anal retentive. XD