EU won't sacrifice food safety for US trade deal

[Canpinter]

Or how in the US the government has to proof a product isn't safe where as in europe the company has to proof it is safe before release.

how do you prove something is safe, you can only show that you have no reason to think it isn't. Run a billion trials over ten thousand years and you still haven't show it to be safe just that you haven't seen any evidence of danger.

[Pangean]

On the labeling issues lets revers it and see if you think labeling something shown to be perfectly safe is a good or fair idea. from no on all products that don't have gmos must be labeled with "warning dose not contain gmos" dose that sound like it might have a unfair negative impact on public image and sales?

Yeah I actually believe that all foods should be labeled with all ingredients, all pesticides used yada yada period. An informed consumer is a better consumer. And a label is neutral in it's labeling of ingredients based on the ones I see. It doesn't say "warning contains sugar". If a law exists that says GMO products must be labeled with a warning then we can have that discussion.

[Deleted]

Or how in the US the government has to proof a product isn't safe where as in europe the company has to proof it is safe before release.

That is another factor. TTIP would make it so that we could not ban things unless it's proven that they are unsafe, compared to being able to ban them until it's proven that they are safe. That is a huge - and very important - difference.
Overall, everything that gives the US more possibilities to interfere with any of our regulations is bad.

[Machismo]

Thanks.

/10char

- - - Updated - - -



Which is based on ignorance. As I said you don't actually care about the science. It's a club. And it's why you are a troll. Bye Bye.

I have no problem if people want to be ignorant. I have a problem when they try to force their ignorance onto others via legislation.

I do care about the science, and the science is quite clear. Vaccines are a huge benefit, and GMO food is not inherently dangerous, or less healthy than other crops. That does not mean I'm going to force any of it onto people.

You never answered my question. Stop dodging.

- - - Updated - - -

With all the homework I did on the subject a long while back...not easy.
They'd have to go into the EU's testing which was damn close to being as objective as any other testing. (with well over 100 tests) The conclusion I read was that GMOs are safe...for now. Long term testing is still needed.

The problem is that a lot of scientists get shitted on if they do find something that's flagged as a potential problem. As the earlier link showed, there was a solid scientific study in "Nature" mag and the researchers in both top notch universities got dumped on, all the weapons of dersion and ridicule to sully their reputations.
So even if science finds a problem, the individual scientists would likely be leery of saying anything.

There's not enough tests to determine if the Playstation 4 is safe, we better ban it to be sure...

[Independent voter]

GMO tomato from America.

[Spectral]

Yeah I actually believe that all foods should be labeled with all ingredients, all pesticides used yada yada period. An informed consumer is a better consumer. And a label is neutral in it's labeling of ingredients based on the ones I see. It doesn't say "warning contains sugar". If a law exists that says GMO products must be labeled with a warning then we can have that discussion.

Do you think companies should be obligated to document all traditional hybridization methods and agricultural techniques used on labels? If so, what do you figure a consumer is going to glean from that information?

[Acidbaron]

how do you prove something is safe, you can only show that you have no reason to think it isn't. Run a billion trials over ten thousand years and you still haven't show it to be safe just that you haven't seen any evidence of danger.

You have norms and protocols in place. You are free to blindly defend such practices however i want to never see such a monstrosity of a bastardized system that is created protect companies and thus profit over human safety.

[Pangean]

With all the homework I did on the subject a long while back...not easy.
They'd have to go into the EU's testing which was damn close to being as objective as any other testing. (with well over 100 tests) The conclusion I read was that GMOs are safe...for now. Long term testing is still needed.

The problem is that a lot of scientists get shitted on if they do find something that's flagged as a potential problem. As the earlier link showed, there was a solid scientific study in "Nature" mag and the researchers in both top notch universities got dumped on, all the weapons of dersion and ridicule to sully their reputations.
So even if science finds a problem, the individual scientists would likely be leery of saying anything.

Well that is unfortunate. So far I am not seeing the GMO's being unsafe as food. I see no issue however labeling food products as containing GMO's though either. I am probably more worried about the business practices of companies producing GMO's than anything at this point.

[nextormento]

You understand that words have different meanings in different dialects, right? In American (and I think Canadian) English, the word "Champagne" usually refers to a style rather than a region.
Or, put in pictorial form, this cheese isn't a dastardly trick:

Yes. Ans many people around here call yogurt "danone", but we don't see any company branding their yogurt as danone because it's trademarked.
Calling sparkling wine "champagne" is not even exclusive to English: it happens in every language I know. But I don't think market regulation has much to do with what common folk call things.

Often times the origin product is understood as superior to any of the imitations (personally, in the case of Parmesan, I'm yet to experience a parmesan-style-cheese that comes close to the "real deal"). So, I can understand that connoisseurs (or "foodies" /shiver) want to keep it that way and not be duped. But the concern for labeling on that area is more appealing to the company (eliminating competition) than to consumers.

Much of the market appeal these "origin name" products have is precisely their origin. Bubbly wine is silly; but it's a thing in a historical region in France, so it has a following.
This labeling is easy to sympathize with from this side of the ocean: because most of the countries here have some form or another of these things. So we protect all of them. Because they're not so much a food export, but a cultural one in the form of food. As we move onto trade agreements, some will make the cut, some won't. Some denominations will eventually get used indiscriminately (like champagne).
Of note, many of the products are "acquired taste", rather than something we instinctively like. So competing to make the most likable product kinda defeats the point. This kind of market regulations are bizarre in an abstract sense. But the entirety of it, and its existence, is predicated on those protections.

[Canpinter]

You have norms and protocols in place. You are free to blindly defend such practices however i want to never see such a monstrosity of a bastardized system that is created protect companies and thus profit over human safety.

again how do you prove a product is safe, you cant, you can only show that there is no reason to think it is dangerous. and gmos have been tested time and time again and no risk has been demonstrated.

[Pangean]

Do you think companies should be obligated to document all traditional hybridization methods and agricultural techniques used on labels? If so, what do you figure a consumer is going to glean from that information?

So you are arguing that GMO's are the same as traditional hybridization methods?

[Ulmita]

GM food is not unhealthy. There is no scientific evidence at all to support this paranoia.

There are valid reasons to be against this, but this isn't one of them.

So eat them as much as you want dude. We aint eating GMOs

[Canpinter]

So you are arguing that GMO's are the same as traditional hybridization methods?

what reason do you have to treat them differently doesn't the public have the right to know everything about the product? /sarcasmoff

[Spectral]

So you are arguing that GMO's are the same as traditional hybridization methods?

For the most part, yes. Generally speaking, the impact of a single gene modification is easier to understand and characterize than that of hybridization. Obviously there are technical differences between genetic modification and traditional hybridization, but I can't really come up with any good reason why these technical differences should matter to consumers much one way or the other.

If someone wants to label their food as not being genetically modified, or organically grown, or whatever other thing the local market's into, I support them doing so if it's accurate, but I can't really see any material benefit to requiring everyone to document exactly how a varietal was generated on a label.

[Acidbaron]

again how do you prove a product is safe, you cant, you can only show that there is no reason to think it is dangerous. and gmos have been tested time and time again and no risk has been demonstrated.

Are you intentionally being thick, in that case bravo you are excelling at it!

You have norms and protocols in place for every type of product, for chemicals we have the REACH program. I already said this.

Also where was i speaking about GMO's exclusively? I was speaking of things as a whole and the EU is far superior in that regard than what the US has in place.

[Pangean]

I have no problem if people want to be ignorant. I have a problem when they try to force their ignorance onto others via legislation.

I do care about the science, and the science is quite clear. Vaccines are a huge benefit, and GMO food is not inherently dangerous, or less healthy than other crops. That does not mean I'm going to force any of it onto people.

You never answered my question. Stop dodging.

Labeling of foods is not ignorance. It reduces ignorance.

People put in danger others by not having vaccinations, but your rights purity would allow that. In other words you would allow people to force their ignorance onto others.

Which is why we curtail rights when necessary in this society , to prevent people like you from putting others in danger. I know social charters scare zealots but we live under one. Feel free to wail and whine all you want but history has shown why it's necessary.

- - - Updated - - -

what reason do you have to treat them differently doesn't the public have the right to know everything about the product? /sarcasmoff

If you wish to argue that they are the same go ahead. But I would like you to demonstrate that. Thanks.

[Machismo]

Labeling of foods is not ignorance. It reduces ignorance.

People put in danger others by not having vaccinations, but your rights purity would allow that. In other words you would allow people to force their ignorance onto others.

Which is why we curtail rights when necessary in this society , to prevent people like you from putting others in danger. I know social charters scare zealots but we live under one. Feel free to wail and whine all you want but history has shown why it's necessary.

- - - Updated - - -



If you wish to argue that they are the same go ahead. But I would like you to demonstrate that. Thanks.

Then you surely support the labeling of the race and nationality of those who touched the food. After all, in your words, it's not ignorance, it reduces ignorance.

As for vaccines, they are hugely beneficial, and anyone who does not get them is an idiot. I do not want to force someone to get them, but I would hold them accountable for any consequences from their actions.

[Spectral]

If you wish to argue that they are the same go ahead. But I would like you to demonstrate that. Thanks.

Could you be a bit more explicit about what information you're looking for? I think the similarities between recombinant gene technology and hybridization are pretty obvious. What do you feel are the meaningful differences between the processes that would necessitate labeling for one, but not the other?

[Canpinter]

Are you intentionally being thick, in that case bravo you are excelling at it!

You have norms and protocols in place for every type of product, for chemicals we have the REACH program. I already said this.

Also where was i speaking about GMO's exclusively? I was speaking of things as a whole and the EU is far superior in that regard than what the US has in place.

im perfectly fine with having standards of proof for if a product is safe or not my problem is this ridiculous standard people are setting for gmos where they must be proven to never be dangerous for all time. NOTHING can be show to be safe, you can only show that something has no reason to be thought of as risky

[Pangean]

For the most part, yes. Generally speaking, the impact of a single gene modification is easier to understand and characterize than that of hybridization. Obviously there are technical differences between genetic modification and traditional hybridization, but I can't really come up with any good reason why these technical differences should matter to consumers much one way or the other.

If someone wants to label their food as not being genetically modified, or organically grown, or whatever other thing the local market's into, I support them doing so if it's accurate, but I can't really see any material benefit to requiring everyone to document exactly how a varietal was generated on a label.

But I see no issue for folks to be asked to label that their food was genetically modified and is a GMO. If indeed there is no issue with the safety of a GMO (which I tend to agree with at this point) then it hurts nothing. It just provides more information to folks to allow them to make a fully informed decision.