Obama Signs Bill Mandating GMO Labeling

[Vash The Stampede]

Meanwhile, people are dying due to lack of Vitamin A, which could be fixed with GMO golden rice. But alas, since a soccer mom in Utah believes it causes cancer or autism, no golden rice for dying people.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/ge...ed-human-being

Greenpeace is very well funded. They have many, many times more funding than the groups that are developing the golden rice and they can lobby the governments to say it’s not safe. They can demand higher and higher levels of safety testing. Then, when the safety testing starts to look good, they can go in and trash the plots of land that’s growing the golden rice through vandalism—as happened in the Philippines recently—and then say, "Well, where is the safety data?" It was destroyed by the vandals. There are many ways that you can block development or approval of something that’s quite clearly safe.

[zeropeorth]

Because clearly marking foods containing GMOs will make it easier for anti-science, anti-GMO people to push their idiotic platform that goes against all of the evidence.

Most rational people would say that selective breeding isn't GMO, like dog breeds; but GMO is direct 'scientific' modification of genes, like glow in the dark cats that have their genes modified to include jellyfish code http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...372763/?no-ist. Even if they have good intentions, until we have long case studies on the effects of such things, it is usually better to take precautions than just go with it because no initial issues have been found.

One of the bigger rational arguments against gmos is the fact they are patented and nature dictates that stuff like that doesn't stay contained. Therefore if your crops have been contaminated by their crops, you can get sued and your livelihood can be affected by no fault of your own, . What you have is sort of a mom and pop versus corporation type of setting in this cause http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/farmers-vs-monsanto/.

So, it isn't all about omg scary science and irrational behavior nor is it as simplistic or all inclusive as some make it out to be. Corn and bananas, selectively bred to be the way they are now for greater yield over generations isn't gmo in the same way your particular favorite dog breed isn't gmo; but something designed to be pesticide resistant without knowledge on how those genetic changes might affect animal reaction from consumption (humans are animals too), it is more akin to glow in dark cat gmo http://fortune.com/2014/11/12/monsan...tal-gmo-wheat/. Some people have at least some foundation for concern; or at least take the cautious approach when dealing with new technology and methods until it is vetted to be safe long term; just not by testing it themselves on themselves.

Of course, on the internet, hyperbole and ignorance combined, we have people who don't have a discussion but yell from their soapboxes the most asinine arguments to make the other side sound like lunatics, while making themselves sound that way as well. It seems like most everything nowadays devolves into people picking sides like sports teams and painting themselves in their team colors and shouting/cheering/booing until they win/lose; with undue angst and loss of any decency and respect for their fellow humans or their opinions. I suppose it is more fun for them; but gets humanity no where. We can't progress until we have legitimate and respectful debates, no matter how out of it you think the other side may be ... a little bit of empathy and intelligent discussion goes a long way even if you'll never agree.

[Osmeric]

Most rational people would say that selective breeding isn't GMO, like dog breeds;

Some crops are produced not by (just) selective breeding, but by crossing with related species. This introduces many thousands of new gene variants into the plants.

Some crop varieties are produced by gamma irradation of seeds and plants. This introduces random mutations throughout the genome, producing new proteins not occurring in the original variety.

I sincerely hope no dog breeders are irradiating their animals, and crossing them with wolves is known to be a bad idea.

[Waniou]

Some crops are produced not by (just) selective breeding, but by crossing with related species. This introduces many thousands of new gene variants into the plants.

Some crop varieties are produced by gamma irradation of seeds and plants. This introduces random mutations throughout the genome, producing new proteins not occurring in the original variety.

So if those techniques are potentially dangerous, why are we labelling all GMO techniques?

I sincerely hope no dog breeders are irradiating their animals, and crossing them with wolves is known to be a bad idea.

So? If certain GMOs are found to be a bad idea, then ban those. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or are you saying that, because crossing dogs with wolves is a bad idea, we should stop breeding dogs altogether?

[DarkTZeratul]

So if those techniques are potentially dangerous, why are we labelling all GMO techniques?

Because it's not natural or some such bullshit.

[Osmeric]

So if those techniques are potentially dangerous, why are we labelling all GMO techniques?

Excellent question.

So? If certain GMOs are found to be a bad idea, then ban those. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or are you saying that, because crossing dogs with wolves is a bad idea, we should stop breeding dogs altogether?

I'm pointing out that traditional, non-GMO plant breeding uses rather violent techniques with far-reaching effects, so the anti-GMO argument to try to make it seem like cute cuddly puppy happiness is not accurate.

[Deleted]

Governments there ban or restrict use of GMOs to avoid damaging exports to Europe. It's a perverse kind of remote colonial exploitation.

Is it not people's right to decide what to buy and not to buy anymore, especially considering Europe does NOT need GMO?
I guess then "the third world" should focus on growing non GMO so they can export back again. Not happy with the free market?
And that leap of logic talking about colonialism, while the companies behind the commercial success of GMO behave like the world and governments are theirs really is fucking revolting.

[nextormento]

I guess then "the third world" should focus on growing non GMO so they can export back again. Not happy with the free market?

Considering the cap subsidies and our tariffs on imports, I'd question if European food market can be said to be free in any meaningful way.
There's, of course, opinions for and against cap, but our protectionist policies do effectively dictate how other less developed countries behave.

[Osmeric]

One of the bigger rational arguments against gmos is the fact they are patented and nature dictates that stuff like that doesn't stay contained. Therefore if your crops have been contaminated by their crops, you can get sued and your livelihood can be affected by no fault of your own, . What you have is sort of a mom and pop versus corporation type of setting in this cause http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/farmers-vs-monsanto/.

Monsanto has never sued farmers due to contamination of their crops, and has stated it will never sue them. I doubt they could win that lawsuit anyway.

What Monsanto did is sue a farmer who crop was slightly contaminated, and who then selectively bred that crop, via exposure to glyphosate, to concentrate the engineered resistance genes. This required a deliberate act by the farmer to evade the patent, and the courts quite rightly viewed it as a deliberate patent violation.

Monsanto has also sued farmers who replanted seeds from a field that had been sown with patented seeds. This is prohibited by contract, so they too were deliberately violating the patent (by deliberately going beyond what they had been licensed to do.)

None of that it at all problematic. If you don't want to be legally targeted, you just avoid the deliberate acts that violate patent law.

[Deleted]

Unless you can show there's an inherently increased risk in the modification techniques used to produce GMOs as opposed to selective breeding or random mutation that occurs in every organism, your first paragraph is indeed an "omg scary science" argument. It is precisely the type of anti-science fear mongering I hate. All you're doing is shouting out things that could happen (it's possible that you could have an increased risk of cancer as a result of not consuming GMOs), without even really having a concrete reason for why it might reasonably be expected to occur, and advocating "caution" (read: paranoia) in dealing with these things that you don't understand.

Your second paragraph isn't even an anti-GMO argument. It's anti-Monsanto and anti-current legal practices.

So please, spare me your silliness. I've had more than enough.

I thought proving that X product was safe to consume for the masses and safe for the planet was the burden of the guys SELLING the product, and not up to the market. This to you is anti-science?!

Yes, anti-Monsanto and the 3-4 companies that have monopolised the market. Considering some of you guys are protecting the COMMERCIAL aspect of GMO and talking about it as if you're saving the world, people have absolutely every right to decide to not support companies that are trying to monopolise the food market. Does that not make sense?

[Osmeric]

Your second paragraph isn't even an anti-GMO argument. It's anti-Monsanto and anti-current legal practices.

And it's also pants-on-fire lying.

[Deleted]

Considering the cap subsidies and our tariffs on imports, I'd question if European food market can be said to be free in any meaningful way.
There's, of course, opinions for and against cap, but our protectionist policies do effectively dictate how other less developed countries behave.

The European market isn't some club we can all enjoy turns out.

[Shadowferal]

These things aren't free. Regulation done without considering these costs is just bad policy - there should be a clear public health or financial benefit to justify the creation of regulation.

And no regulation isn't measured by money, it's measured in dead bodies.

As someone else put it; It's fine until Monsanto finds they can save $2 on pesticides by making your broccoli just slightly carcinogenic. And that wouldn't be found out until years later after they reap the profits. And it's those that cry "regulation costs" that would be the ones first in line for a lawsuit due to the cancer that just cost them years off of their life.

[Osmeric]

And no regulation isn't measured by money, it's measured in dead bodies.

As someone else put it; It's fine until Monsanto finds they can save $2 on pesticides by making your broccoli just slightly carcinogenic. And that wouldn't be found out until years later after they reap the profits. And it's those that cry "regulation costs" that would be the ones first in line for a lawsuit due to the cancer that just cost them years off of their life.

Do you have any other paranoid fantasies you'd like to base policy on?

[Deleted]

Do you have any other paranoid fantasies you'd like to base policy on?

So you're ACTUALLY ok with 2-3 companies holding the monopoly of the food market?

[Shadowferal]

Do you have any other paranoid fantasies you'd like to base policy on?

Do you want to cry some more?

Tell you what, find some place that won't tell you what you're eating.

Here in the US it's my fucking right to know what I'm eating.

Big business cheerleaders can kiss my ass.

[Shadowferal]

So you're ACTUALLY ok with 2-3 companies holding the monopoly of the food market?

These people actually encourage this level of shit.

[Spectral]

...I'm thinking your ancestor probably complained about having a government-funded police force as it wouldn't "come free".

ZOMG! Regulations need somebody to regulate them! Yeah - we have that - it's called the motherfuking FDA. It's not a brand-new thing, you know! /facepalm

I used to work for the FDA. I have no problem with the FDA. My argument is that we shouldn't create pointless regulation that's nothing more than a feel-good measure when there are real costs associated with it.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your goofy rants.

[nextormento]

As someone else put it; It's fine until Monsanto finds they can save $2 on pesticides by making your broccoli just slightly carcinogenic.

They're probably in cahoots with big pharma hiding the cure for cancer and developing new illnesses.

[Spectral]

I really don't know how much of a cost this law is though. Manufacturers already know the ins and outs of every raw ingredient they use. Labels are manufactured in bulk and applied during the production process. Maybe there's some labels in inventory that will not be used, but we're talking several thousand dollars in lost packaging to each factory. Not something any business operating at that level would care.

We're talking about labels here. The cheapest part in the production process.

This dovetails a bit with something I and @Osmeric both mentioned a bit earlier - this is pretty easy for large companies that already have compliance departments and legal teams to make sure they're in keep with whatever measures are enacted. For a small company, however, these sorts of increased barriers to entry are pretty significant. Which, of course, is why large manufacturers aren't particularly bothered by this sort of legislation - they get the peace of mind knowing that individual states can't do anything too crazy and they get another barrier to entry for the competition.