Scientists speak out against non-GMO labeling

[Independent voter]

Here's the bullets from the article:

* A Non-GMO Label Can Be Misleading

* A Non-GMO Label Does Not Mean “Better For the Environment”

* A Non-GMO Label Does Not Mean “Pesticide-Free”

* A Non-GMO Label Does Not Mean “Healthier”





Much more to read at the link

https://medium.com/@BioChicaGMO/were...1a3#.gyiq7aaul



Avoiding Non-GMO Labels

In the US and Canada, we are fortunate to have the luxury of many food options. Customers can choose non-GMO food via the USDA’s organic label, which excludes these crops. As individuals who are not interested in Non-GMO labeled products, we find that our options are gradually shrinking, particularly in the stores we shop in, such as Costco, Publix, Kroger, Meijer, Harris Teeter, and others. While certain groups may declare this a victory, it is reducing safe choices and freedom for farmers and the large majority of consumers based on the unfounded fears of a small, yet vocal, group that is imposing its dietary preferences on the rest of the market.

We, as concerned consumers and parents, actively avoid non-GMO labels, especially the Non-GMO Project’s label. Whether a product was made from non-GMO or GMO seeds is irrelevant to us since the process of making a seed tells us nothing about sustainability, pesticide use or nutritional content.

We avoid the NGP label because it demonizes a useful and promising technology. Genetic engineering, along with other tools, can help us address challenges like pests and droughts, while addressing nutritional issues, such as allergens or nutrient deficiencies. Farmers need these tools at their disposal to ensure a safe, sustainable, and reliable food supply.

By demonizing the method, the Non-GMO Project ensures that crops improved by biotechnology will not be commercialized, takes these crops away from farmers and consumers, and perpetuates the false idea that the breeding method tells us anything of importance. This prevents even the attempt to commercialize crops that have the potential to positively impact the environment and our diets. Two such crops are gluten-free wheat, which can help people with Celiac disease, and oranges resistant to citrus greening, which may help save the US citrus industry and reduce the need for insecticides.

Join us in telling companies that the absence of the label was a factor in your purchasing decision. Join us in advocating for science-based decisions in agriculture, in celebrating the plethora of choices our rich agricultural system has to offer, and in advocating for facts, not fear, when purchasing food. Tweet your support using #FactsNotFear and#Moms4GMOs or #Dads4GMOs.

[Matchles]

Ahh, so pretty much the exact reasons why I'm against GMO labeling.

[Calfredd]

That reminds me, where is swineflu to link us research papers that use cancer-prone rats that are force fed a large quantity of untested GMOs until they are swollen with tumors?

[Sunseeker]

Wait, are there people who actually go out and buy food because they are labeled as "GMO food!" I mean, that's almost as uneducated as buying "Natural" and thinking it means "organic".

[callipygoustp]

* A Non-GMO Label Can Be Misleading

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about GMO labeling, but, fuck, come on what kind of a mental midget do you have to be in order to find that label misleading?

[hydrium]

I took one look at the label and figured that it's a product with no GMOs.

God that was terribly misleading.

[Nilinor]

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about GMO labeling, but, fuck, come on what kind of a mental midget do you have to be in order to find that label misleading?

Its misleading because to the layman that really doesnt pay attention or know what it means, it looks like its a "healthier" choice, like the gluten-free stuff to people without a gluten allergy. Since they don't know what it means, it appears official and safer, so they grab it. Then people with agendas use the raw data saying X amount of people bought our item, because they hate GMOs.

Its a stupid cycle.

[Matchles]

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about GMO labeling, but, fuck, come on what kind of a mental midget do you have to be in order to find that label misleading?

It isn't so much misleading as utterly meaningless. GMO and non-GMO labels do not communicate anything substantive about the product. The mere existence of the label misleads consumers into believing there is something different between GMO and non-GMO products, which leads them to believe it must be healthier or grown in a more environmentally safe and sustainable way. None of which is true.

[Kellhound]

It isn't so much misleading as utterly meaningless. GMO and non-GMO labels do not communicate anything substantive about the product. The mere existence of the label misleads consumers into believing there is something different between GMO and non-GMO products, which leads them to believe it must be healthier or grown in a more environmentally safe and sustainable way. None of which is true.

There is a difference between them. One is natural the other a freak of Monsanto.

[Kaleredar]

I don't really see the harm in labeling things. It's not lying. It's not intentionally misleading. I don't really care, but if people want more information on something... then so be it.


If people want to be dumb and believe that non-GMO things are inherently healthier or low-carb or help them regrow hair or whatever, then they can be dumb. They aren't being misled by the label or any ordinance of the law.

[WintersLegion]

Its misleading because to the layman that really doesnt pay attention or know what it means, it looks like its a "healthier" choice, like the gluten-free stuff to people without a gluten allergy. Since they don't know what it means, it appears official and safer, so they grab it. Then people with agendas use the raw data saying X amount of people bought our item, because they hate GMOs.

Its a stupid cycle.

Yeah it reminds me of the commercials that say they don't use High Fructose Corn Syrup never telling you why it's bad and when you look up why it's bad you get thinks like it might cause so and so but we don't know if it can.

[callipygoustp]

Its misleading because to the layman that really doesnt pay attention or know what it means, it looks like its a "healthier" choice, like the gluten-free stuff to people without a gluten allergy. Since they don't know what it means, it appears official and safer, so they grab it. Then people with agendas use the raw data saying X amount of people bought our item, because they hate GMOs.

Its a stupid cycle.

That's one assumption to explain it. Not the first time I've seen it. Protect the stupid people from themselves meanwhile don't provide usable information to those who do understand it. In summary : side with the mental midgets. Great strategy.

Let me restate, so that someone doesn't go off on the tangent : I don't give a shit either way about gmo labeling. My claim was merely that I don't see how such an incredibly simple label can be seen as misleading. People confused by that label probably shouldn't be shopping for their own food, or driving a car, or operating any kind of dangerous machinery, etc etc etc. Stating that that label is misleading is disingenuous as best.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't so much misleading as utterly meaningless. GMO and non-GMO labels do not communicate anything substantive about the product. The mere existence of the label misleads consumers into believing there is something different between GMO and non-GMO products, which leads them to believe it must be healthier or grown in a more environmentally safe and sustainable way. None of which is true.

It's not meaningless. In fact it has a very simple straight forward meaning : the food in a container with that label has no GMO products. Doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that. Or does it?

[Matchles]

There is a difference between them. One is natural the other a freak of Monsanto.

Monsanto doesn't grow the crops, farmers do. And guess what, plenty of non-GMO products use Monsanto pesticides, so try again.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not meaningless. In fact it has a very simple straight forward meaning : the food in a container with that label has no GMO products. Doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that. Or does it?

It is a meaningless distinction, it is like labeling a product with "your corn was grown by Carl." Sure you can buy only non-Carl products, but that doesn't tell you anything important about the crop.

[Deleted]

As someone is is strongly against GMOs dude to all the side effects they cause not just those that may be caused from consuming the actual product produced but what the round up method has done to people who live close do these GMO farms in poorer counties or even in richer countries as is basically poisen being showered on the stuff you are gone eat(now think about that one). Also to anyone who think roundup crops are great is suggest going to somewhere (assuming you live in the US as I do not and cant do this) and ask a farmer if you can even even walk in the roundup crops without protective suits which you can not.

But What really bothers me with GMOs is that nature can be owned and patented by a company and hell they can force farmers to actually grow their crops if for example the farmers non GMO crops manage to cross breed with their GMO crops.

Its hilarious that ANYONE can swallow this tripe in the article when its clear these people have been paid a handsome sum(or even work for them)by the companies who have great interest in selling us this crap. This is bascially like Apple saying "We are the best" ofc they are gone make that angle they got an agenda and that is to tell their crap to you not tell the truth.

[Kellhound]

Monsanto doesn't grow the crops, farmers do. And guess what, plenty of non-GMO products use Monsanto pesticides, so try again.

Monsanto does the gene splicing. I was talking about the plant itself, not how its raised. Pesticides I can live with, genetic manipulation is a bit more dicey.

[Matchles]

As someone is is strongly against GMOs dude to all the side effects they cause ... Its hilarious that ANYONE can swallow this tripe

You should follow your own advice.

- - - Updated - - -

Monsanto does the gene splicing. I was talking about the plant itself, not how its raised. Pesticides I can live with, genetic manipulation is a bit more dicey.

A bit more dicey how? Genetic mutations that occur naturally are infinitely more likely to harm you than a directed change in a lab.

[callipygoustp]

It is a meaningless distinction, it is like labeling a product with "your corn was grown by Carl." Sure you can buy only non-Carl products, but that doesn't tell you anything important about the crop.

The label tells you who it is made by : Carl. This is exactly the same as the nonGMO label : it tells your there is noGMO in the product. Whether or not that information is meaningless to you it still provides specific information (in both examples) about the product.

I think what you are trying to get at is that there is no proof that GMOs are hazardous to a person's health and as such a label doesn't matter. That's significantly different than whether or not a label provides information.

[Deletedaccount1]

Monsanto does the gene splicing. I was talking about the plant itself, not how its raised. Pesticides I can live with, genetic manipulation is a bit more dicey.

No it isn't. Gene manipulated GMO crops are just as, if not more, safe than regular crops.

[Kellhound]

You should follow your own advice.

- - - Updated - - -



A bit more dicey how? Genetic mutations that occur naturally are infinitely more likely to harm you than a directed change in a lab.

When nature kills things off thats one thing, when humans do it trying to play god thats another. Plus, Monsanto was the spawn of Satan.

[Illuminance]

Monsanto does the gene splicing. I was talking about the plant itself, not how its raised. Pesticides I can live with, genetic manipulation is a bit more dicey.

The sun does more genetic manipulation to crops you eat than the scientists do fyi