YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
That is not exactly a compelling reason to hop on the anti-GMO freight train.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is There a Rational Reason for Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
Augustus
…
You have claimed it is 'less risky', so you believe it is different.
Taking genes from a fish and putting them in a plant to generate a property not found naturally is clearly different from conventional breeding though.
What you are banking on is that human designed artificial manipulation of a complex system will not produce unintended and unpredictable consequences. This would be completely unprecedented in human history though.
Such consequences do not necessarily appear straight away, as we see all of the time in the medical industry. According to your logic, every new medicine is safe until proved harmful as there would be no evidence it is harmful.
There is plenty of evidence that gmo shouldn't be considered 'risk free'.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Why do you think it is okay to go ahead without doing the research?
That is a shifting of the burden of proof. If you propose that there are no long term consequences of GMO on the environment, then it is up to you to support your position. I do not know what those consequences may be and prefer to err on the side of caution. I am not saying there are any, I an just saying we do not know.
How do you propose to keep GMO genes out of the environment at large?
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Not at all. I'm suggesting that if people are that hung up about this then the research needs to be done to either confirm the fears or put them to rest.
That said, I can't quite shake the perception that this is an expansion of the homeopathic agenda. (That that crowd is not partially involved in this is current outcry is undeniable.) It too, is another popular trend that is based on little to no evidence and they strongly support Organic, non-GMO's.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I'm a skeptic and view such things as homeopathy as a lot of woo. But if they are on board, then they are right in this case. I hope there proves to be little to no downside for GMO. I just don't like flying blind. once the gene is out of the bottle, it's done.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
All the more reason for the research to be done, as at least that way people can make choices based on evidence rather than agenda driven suspicion.
There is only one rational reason to label GMO foods.
It's because irrational people are numerous & demanding.
It's because irrational people are numerous & demanding.
Any consumer who wishes to know whether or not a food has been genetically modified by rDNA techniques already has that information. Anyone whose suspicions induce him/her to eat only foods that have not been genetically modified by rDNA techniques already knows to buy foods voluntarily labeled "organic".
Have you read what has been posted on this thread at all? See International Dairy v. Amstoy in #66. The government does not have the power to compel persons (including businesses) to speak in the absence of a substantial governmental interest:
We do not doubt that Vermont's asserted interest, the demand of its citizenry for such information, is genuine; reluctantly, however, we conclude that it is inadequate. We are aware of no case in which consumer interest alone was sufficient to justify requiring a product's manufacturers to publish the functional equivalent of a warning about a production method that has no discernable impact on a final product. See, e.g., Ibanez, 512 U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2090 (invalidating state requirement that Certified Financial Planner (“CFP”) disclose in advertisement that CFP status was conferred by unofficial private organization despite unsubstantiated claim that public might otherwise be misled by CFP's advertisement). Cf. Riley, 487 U.S. at 797-98, 108 S.Ct. at 2677-78 (holding unconstitutional state requirement that professional fundraisers disclose to prospective donors factual information concerning the percentage of contributions actually passed on to charities notwithstanding the fact that prospective donors might find the truthful information relevant and persuasive).
Although the Court is sympathetic to the Vermont consumers who wish to know which products may derive from rBST-treated herds, their desire is insufficient to permit the State of Vermont to compel the dairy manufacturers to speak against their will. Were consumer interest alone sufficient, there is no end to the information that states could require manufacturers to disclose about their production methods. For instance, with respect to cattle, consumers might reasonably evince an interest in knowing which grains herds were fed, with which medicines they were treated, or the age at which they were slaughtered. Absent, however, some indication that this information bears on a reasonable concern for human health or safety or some other sufficiently substantial governmental concern, the manufacturers cannot be compelled to disclose it. Instead, those consumers interested in such information should exercise the power of their purses by buying products from manufacturers who voluntarily reveal it.
Accordingly, we hold that consumer curiosity alone is not a strong enough state interest to sustain the compulsion of even an accurate, factual statement, see Riley, 487 U.S. at 797-98, 108 S.Ct. at 2677-78 (compelled disclosure of “fact” is no more acceptable than compelled disclosure of opinion), in a commercial context. See,e.g., United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 693, 68 S.Ct. 331, 334, 92 L.Ed. 297 (1948) (upholding federal law requiring warning labels on “harmful foods, drugs and cosmetics”) (emphasis added); see also Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651, 105 S.Ct. at 2282 (disclosure requirements are permissible “as long as [they] are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers.”); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 201, 102 S.Ct. 929, 936, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982) (“warning or disclaimer might be appropriately required ․ in order to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception.”); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 384, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2709, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977) (state bar association could not ban advertising that was neither misleading nor deceptive); Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771-72, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1830-31, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975) (regulation aimed at preventing deceptive or misleading commercial speech would be permissible). Because Vermont has demonstrated no cognizable harms, see Edenfield, 507 U.S. at 770-71, 113 S.Ct. at 1800, its statute is likely to be held unconstitutional.
Although the Court is sympathetic to the Vermont consumers who wish to know which products may derive from rBST-treated herds, their desire is insufficient to permit the State of Vermont to compel the dairy manufacturers to speak against their will. Were consumer interest alone sufficient, there is no end to the information that states could require manufacturers to disclose about their production methods. For instance, with respect to cattle, consumers might reasonably evince an interest in knowing which grains herds were fed, with which medicines they were treated, or the age at which they were slaughtered. Absent, however, some indication that this information bears on a reasonable concern for human health or safety or some other sufficiently substantial governmental concern, the manufacturers cannot be compelled to disclose it. Instead, those consumers interested in such information should exercise the power of their purses by buying products from manufacturers who voluntarily reveal it.
Accordingly, we hold that consumer curiosity alone is not a strong enough state interest to sustain the compulsion of even an accurate, factual statement, see Riley, 487 U.S. at 797-98, 108 S.Ct. at 2677-78 (compelled disclosure of “fact” is no more acceptable than compelled disclosure of opinion), in a commercial context. See,e.g., United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 693, 68 S.Ct. 331, 334, 92 L.Ed. 297 (1948) (upholding federal law requiring warning labels on “harmful foods, drugs and cosmetics”) (emphasis added); see also Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651, 105 S.Ct. at 2282 (disclosure requirements are permissible “as long as [they] are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers.”); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 201, 102 S.Ct. 929, 936, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982) (“warning or disclaimer might be appropriately required ․ in order to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception.”); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 384, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2709, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977) (state bar association could not ban advertising that was neither misleading nor deceptive); Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771-72, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1830-31, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975) (regulation aimed at preventing deceptive or misleading commercial speech would be permissible). Because Vermont has demonstrated no cognizable harms, see Edenfield, 507 U.S. at 770-71, 113 S.Ct. at 1800, its statute is likely to be held unconstitutional.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1210635.html
The fact that lots of people tenaciously hold irrational ideas and beliefs about the dangers of GM foods--despite the extensive and conclusive evidence that GM foods pose no greater risk(and actually less risk) than foods whose genomes have been modified by conventionally breeding, hybridization and radiation techniques--does not change the principle against compelled speech.
So you agree that there is no evidence by which to conclude that growing GM foods poses any greater or different "risks to the ecosystem" than growing any other plant foods.
Can you articulate any theoretical or hypothetical "risks to the ecosystem" that growing GM foods might possibly pose that are greater or different than what any other plant foods pose?
Be sure to cite all of your sources for any and all "risks to the ecosystem" that GM foods have been shown to pose that are greater or different than the risks posed by any other plant food.
(BTW, I absolutely agree that you should be deathly afraid of eating any and all animals.)
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Yeah, really, eh? It's so much more fun to hatch conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma" and "Big Agra" providers and how they are quickly enslaving us.
Repeating for emphasis.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
My very wealthy cousin is a certified Homeopathic Consultant and literally goes into meltdown at the mere mention of "Monsanto". I read of her analysis done for my mom and it raged on and on about how her dependency on GMO foods was the source of her minor ailments. Given that she was 80 when this was done did produce a few giggles. That said, she did have some very sound exercise recommendations. The part on "Spiritual Recommendations" was a genuine hoot.
That is mind-boggling. There is a very real Monsanto psychosis among a huge number of Americans and others. I find it slightly sickening. It makes me want to jump to Monsanto's defense even when they probably shouldn't be defended.
The real fact about GM foods is that--with their ability and potential to provide greater nutrition, to require fewer and less toxic chemicals, and to require less water, and perhaps to thrive in regions of higher temperatures--it may be that GM foods are what save humans from extinction or self-destruction. To try to destroy this technology is quite likely crazier than we can imagine.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
But... but... Monsanto!!!!
*crawls into safe space and begins sucking thumb*
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No matter what you think of GMOs, people deserve to know what is going in to their food. If there food was grown normally or manufactured in a lab is something should be able to know, just as they can read an ingredients label to know what they are eating (and even those have some loopholes), and while we're at it we could use more accurate and more informative nutritional labels, because if you read them they sometimes aren't too clear as to what the totals are.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I do hear you and to an extent, I agree, but relabeling all items is not an inexpensive undertaking. On the organic side of the equation there are no real standards and that happy little "Organic" tag can be simply whatever a particular producer wants it to mean. Likewise, as a consumer, do you want a 40 page pamphlet on that jar of baked beans? Are you willing to pay another dollar for the whole process? How will this requirement affect really small producers? Etc.. Etc... And what do you do about stuff that has both natural and GMO elements?
I don't see that labeling issue as being as straightforward as some seem to think. From another standpoint, is it fair to get consumers who never look at labels to pay more for a product because some folks have a high need to know?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't care as I believe people have a right to know, such as they have in most countries in Europe, so why are you essentially that their opinions really don't matter? It's none of your business what they may buy-- it's their business. Let them have access to the information they want and let them make their choice. That's how free-enterprise and freedom of choice is supposed to work, and I'm for that, but are you?
Does your belief about "a right to know" have any basis in reality? Has this alleged "right" ever been articulated by any court? Obviously no such right is found in the US Constitution.
How does the voluntary labeling of GM and non-GM foods such as exists in the US violate anyone's "right to know"? No one in the US has been deprived of access to the information on the thousands of products voluntarily labeled and listed on this website: http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/ Have they? No one who wants to know about whether a fruit or vegetable is organic has been deprived of that information found in the Price Look-Up code--in which every PLU code that is 5 digits and begins with 9 is organic. Have they?
You know of no right to compel anyone to speak in the absence of a substantial governmental interest. Correct? And you cannot articulate any substantial governmental interest (such as "a reasonable concern for human health or safety or some other sufficiently substantial governmental concern" International Dairy) that would justify compelling any food producer to disclose whether or not his/her food product has been genetically modified by rDNA techniques. Right?
Please quote whatever it is that I've said that you are referring to. I am interested in only rational reasons for mandatory labeling of GM foods. I already know all the irrational reasons.
How have I deprived anyone of any information, or deprived anyone of any choice?
No one has been deprived of any information about "what is going into their food" by the voluntary labeling of GM and non-GM products such as exists in the US, have they? What information have you been deprived of?
Do you disagree with any of the information found on this thread, such as:
From the OP:
[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.
[. . .]
The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report[1] states: “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 not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
[. . .]
The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report[1] states: “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 not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
From #18:
Based on the published scientific literature, this report examines the potential hazards and risks of consuming genetically modified (GM) plant products. Toxicity, carcinogenicity and food allergenicity, and the possible effects of consuming foreign DNA (including antibiotic resistance genes) are all taken into account. The report concludes that food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.
[. . .]
Conventional maize cobs are often infected with the fungus Fusarium moniliforme, resulting in production of the fungal toxin fumonisin. For more than a century, “mouldy corn disease” has been recognised as a hazard for horses, pigs and other livestock, with entire herds dying after being fed corn infected with Fusaria. Sixteen years ago, the fumonisin was identified as the cause of the disease. It is known to induce liver cancer in rats. Fumonisin is thus a serious problem; it so stable that it survives processing and can sometimes be found in cornflakes. In the UK in September 2003 the analysis of 30 samples of maize products in supermarkets led to the removal of ten of them because of excessively high levels of fumonisin content; the contaminated samples with the highest fumonisin contents were those labelled “organic”.
Several studies have found contamination with fumonisin to be greatly decreased in insect-resistant (Bt) GM maize; whereas in conventional maize plants the fungi proliferate in cobs injured by insects, in GM maize there is much less insect damage and hence less fumonisin. These findings indicate that food from GM maize is more healthy for humans than that from conventionally grown maize.
Is there a higher risk of food allergy from eating food derived from GM plants than from conventional food?
Estimates suggest that 5-8% of children and of 1-2% adults are allergic to certain conventionally produced foods. Peanuts, for instance, are known to contain 12 allergenic proteins.
While there is no legal requirement for the testing of foods from conventional varieties, strict allergy tests are mandatory for GMO products. The WHO (World Health Organisation) has introduced a protocol for detailed GMO allergenicity tests, both for the plant products concerned and also for their pollen. This protocol is being constantly improved. Tests of this sort on one occasion alerted scientists to the fact that the introduction of a gene from brazil nut into soy bean, in the hope that it would improve quality, would be allergenic for certain persons. As a result, further development of that GMO was abandoned by the company involved prior to any commercialisation, demonstrating that the safety regulation system functions well.
Our collective experience to date shows the strict allergenicity tests of GM products to have been very successful: not one allergenic GM product has been introduced onto the market. In conventional breeding, in which genes are altered at random by experimentally caused mutations or unexpected gene combinations generated by crossings, such tests are not legally required. For this reason the risk of GM plants causing allergies can be regarded as substantially lower than that of products from conventional breeding. Furthermore, intensive gene technology research is already under way with a view to removing allergens from peanuts, wheat and rice.
[. . .]
Conventional maize cobs are often infected with the fungus Fusarium moniliforme, resulting in production of the fungal toxin fumonisin. For more than a century, “mouldy corn disease” has been recognised as a hazard for horses, pigs and other livestock, with entire herds dying after being fed corn infected with Fusaria. Sixteen years ago, the fumonisin was identified as the cause of the disease. It is known to induce liver cancer in rats. Fumonisin is thus a serious problem; it so stable that it survives processing and can sometimes be found in cornflakes. In the UK in September 2003 the analysis of 30 samples of maize products in supermarkets led to the removal of ten of them because of excessively high levels of fumonisin content; the contaminated samples with the highest fumonisin contents were those labelled “organic”.
Several studies have found contamination with fumonisin to be greatly decreased in insect-resistant (Bt) GM maize; whereas in conventional maize plants the fungi proliferate in cobs injured by insects, in GM maize there is much less insect damage and hence less fumonisin. These findings indicate that food from GM maize is more healthy for humans than that from conventionally grown maize.
Is there a higher risk of food allergy from eating food derived from GM plants than from conventional food?
Estimates suggest that 5-8% of children and of 1-2% adults are allergic to certain conventionally produced foods. Peanuts, for instance, are known to contain 12 allergenic proteins.
While there is no legal requirement for the testing of foods from conventional varieties, strict allergy tests are mandatory for GMO products. The WHO (World Health Organisation) has introduced a protocol for detailed GMO allergenicity tests, both for the plant products concerned and also for their pollen. This protocol is being constantly improved. Tests of this sort on one occasion alerted scientists to the fact that the introduction of a gene from brazil nut into soy bean, in the hope that it would improve quality, would be allergenic for certain persons. As a result, further development of that GMO was abandoned by the company involved prior to any commercialisation, demonstrating that the safety regulation system functions well.
Our collective experience to date shows the strict allergenicity tests of GM products to have been very successful: not one allergenic GM product has been introduced onto the market. In conventional breeding, in which genes are altered at random by experimentally caused mutations or unexpected gene combinations generated by crossings, such tests are not legally required. For this reason the risk of GM plants causing allergies can be regarded as substantially lower than that of products from conventional breeding. Furthermore, intensive gene technology research is already under way with a view to removing allergens from peanuts, wheat and rice.
http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/special-topics_are_there_health_hazards.html
GM crops in general need fewer field operations, such as tillage, which allows more residue to remain in the ground, sequestering more CO2 in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2011, these practices were equivalent to removing 10.2 million cars from the road for one year. (source: PG Economics)
The new generation of GM crops--Golden Rice, which delivers vitamin A enhanced rice, high carotene mustard seed oil, Vitamin A enhanced cassava, enriched sweet potatoes and even edible vaccines--are just a few innovations awaiting approval. (source: Plant Physiology, Journal of American College of Nutrition, Gates Foundation)
Biotechnology saves the equivalent of 521,000 pounds of pesticides each year and helps cut herbicide runoff by 70 percent. (sources: ISAAA, PG Economics)
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....7/Biotechnology-infographic_7.29.13-clean.pdfThe new generation of GM crops--Golden Rice, which delivers vitamin A enhanced rice, high carotene mustard seed oil, Vitamin A enhanced cassava, enriched sweet potatoes and even edible vaccines--are just a few innovations awaiting approval. (source: Plant Physiology, Journal of American College of Nutrition, Gates Foundation)
Biotechnology saves the equivalent of 521,000 pounds of pesticides each year and helps cut herbicide runoff by 70 percent. (sources: ISAAA, PG Economics)
From #28:
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 peerreviewed 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
From #39:
“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." The American Medical Association Council on Science and Public Health http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA Report.pdf