Monsanto

[Dymanic]

What if someone insisted they wanted their milk labeled to indicate the breed of cows used in the production?

What if someone insisted they wanted their goat milk labeled to indicate whether it came from breeds of goats genetically modified to add spider silk protein to their milk?

Spider goats

 

[Segnosaur]

What if someone insisted they wanted their goat milk labeled to indicate whether it came from breeds of goats genetically modified to add spider silk protein to their milk?

Spider goats

Depends...

Does adding the spider gene change the look or taste of the milk in any way? Has it been tested to see if individuals have any health reaction to the modified milk?

By the way, I've seen the spider goats. They used to have a couple at the government's "Experimental farm" here in Ottawa where I live. (Of course, given the value of the spider silk and of the goats themselves, I doubt that using them to produce milk for drinking would be that economical.)

 

[Susheel]

What if someone insisted they wanted their goat milk labeled to indicate whether it came from breeds of goats genetically modified to add spider silk protein to their milk?

Spider goats

Slippery slope and it doesn't follow...the spider silk protein milk is not meant for consumption.

The basic idea behind GM is that the basic products remains the same as the parent with an added favourable trait, insect resistance, abiotic stress resistance or maybe even biofortification (extra iron, vitamins or other nutrients) that do not change the taste or edibility of the original vegetable. Perhaps at some future date when they develop cows that provide vanilla flavoured milk, it would be up to the regulatory bodies to see how safe these are and also decide on labelling. But that bridge needs to be crossed only when we come to it.

 

[Dymanic]

Depends...

Does adding the spider gene change the look or taste of the milk in any way? Has it been tested to see if individuals have any health reaction to the modified milk?

Is that really the only possible basis on which you could accept a person's objection to that? What if they just really, really didn't like the idea?

By the way, I've seen the spider goats. They used to have a couple at the government's "Experimental farm" here in Ottawa where I live. (Of course, given the value of the spider silk and of the goats themselves, I doubt that using them to produce milk for drinking would be that economical.)

Well, the gene, having been inserted into the DNA of those goats, is passed to their offspring. As things stand right now, it's not likely that spider goat milk will be appearing on store shelves anytime soon -- but goats are well known for being escape artists, and their overall hardiness enables them to go feral rather easily... is having the hills crawling with spider goats the sort of bridge we want to cross only when we come to it?

 

[Checkmite]

What if someone insisted they wanted their milk labeled to indicate the breed of cows used in the production? Or they type of feed used to feed the chickens that produced the eggs they eat? Most people would view such demands as unneeded (i.e. the end producer is unlikely to tell the difference in the end product), and would produce an unnecessary burden on producers.
[/url]

Adding a word to a food label isn't really a burden on anyone, and it's something that you just do if enough of your customer base wants it. You mentioned milk, but for instance there's an unqualified preconception out there that Angus cattle beef tastes superior in some undefined way to "other" beef; therefore, meat manufacturers who use Angus cattle label their products as containing Angus beef, in order to attract those customers who care. Manufacturers have similarly not faced an undue "burden" marking their particular chicken and/or eggs with "free range" or "cageless" stickers. I myself have found that people looking for local honey have a low opinion of corn syrup in general or micro-filtered honey; so since I don't use either of those things with my bees, when I sell honey I have no problem marketing it as raw, strained, unheated, or pointing out that I don't use corn syrup with my bees. There are supplemental labeling materials available which declare these things. I have no personal objection to either thing; but people want raw stuff so that's what I sell them. And I sell.

 

[The Man]

With GMO foods, I'm not sure how well that same approach will work. Due to the increasing ubiquity of GMO elements in our food supply, we may be approaching a point where it would be virtually impossible to guarantee that any food was completely free of GMO elements.

Well that’s the real rub of it. With the ubiquity of non-kosher methods, chemical pesticides and penned animals those tend to be the default conditions (at least here in the US), with “kosher”, “organic” and “free range” being the labeled designations for those who wish to choose otherwise. Of course one of the differences with GMO is that once that genie is out of the bottle one may not be able to put him back in. So actually demonstrating your product is ‘GMO free’ may become far more problematic than any (or all combined) of those other preferential designations.

 

[GlennB]

Also it is necessary to keep in mind that every food crop, vegetable or fruit is the result of human intervention over generations. Wild eggplant, potatos, carrots, bananas or any other crop are either inedible, not really tasty or are not really viable as an alternative for the large number of consumers today. Biotechnology is an option allows us to enhance beneficial traits in crops more quickly.

Sorry to have snipped most of your post, especially as I thoroughly agree with the gist of it.

But this particular part is the source of a lot of aggravation in these discussions. It's often claimed that GM is little (or nothing) more than "rapid selective breeding" which, it's true, we've been doing for centuries.

I've just been reading an interesting snippet about how the enzyme used to curdle milk (rennet, essentially) in cheese production these days is generated by certain bacteria and yeasts. This is very handy as there aren't many calves' stomachs easily available. But I'd say that no amount of selective breeding between cows and the bugs () could have developed that DNA sequence in the micro-organisms. The gene was spliced in there directly from a totally unrelated source organism.

Can we truthfully say that every GM crop could have been developed more slowly by conventional means?

 

[Susheel]

Thanks Glenn and yes, entirely trus. For example the Bt Gene used for cotton in India is from a bacterium. But I am referring to other traits like late blight resistant potato that uses a gene from a wild potato and more.

 

[The Man]

Sorry to have snipped most of your post, especially as I thoroughly agree with the gist of it.

But this particular part is the source of a lot of aggravation in these discussions. It's often claimed that GM is little (or nothing) more than "rapid selective breeding" which, it's true, we've been doing for centuries.

I've just been reading an interesting snippet about how the enzyme used to curdle milk (rennet, essentially) in cheese production these days is generated by certain bacteria and yeasts. This is very handy as there aren't many calves' stomachs easily available. But I'd say that no amount of selective breeding between cows and the bugs () could have developed that DNA sequence in the micro-organisms. The gene was spliced in there directly from a totally unrelated source organism.

Can we truthfully say that every GM crop could have been developed more slowly by conventional means?

I wouldn't think so (at least in some cases) and of course you can’t get to the moon in a hot air balloon. So as our needs and goals change our technological methods must change as well.

Just as a side note, I do have a particular bias in this area. One of the drugs that keeps me functional is a fusion protein.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_protein

 

[Segnosaur]

Depends...

Does adding the spider gene change the look or taste of the milk in any way? Has it been tested to see if individuals have any health reaction to the modified milk?

Is that really the only possible basis on which you could accept a person's objection to that?

Pretty much, yeah. (I do expect the products to go through extensive testing to ensure safety, both for consumption and for the environment.)

What if they just really, really didn't like the idea?

Then you'd lump them in the same category as those who want to know the breed of cow that their milk came from, or the type of food the hens were fed when they layed their eggs...

Personal preference can only be humored so far; at some point, its reasonable for food producers to say "this is too much red tape".

 

[Segnosaur]

Adding a word to a food label isn't really a burden on anyone...

I suspect it depends on the situation. You gave several cases where it was easy to add labels to various products (e.g. honey production). But, in those cases, you were dealing with relatively small-scale operations. Large-scale producers would probably have a harder time verifying the "origins" of certain products.

You mentioned milk, but for instance there's an unqualified preconception out there that Angus cattle beef tastes superior in some undefined way to "other" beef; therefore, meat manufacturers who use Angus cattle label their products as containing Angus beef, in order to attract those customers who care.

The difference is, people can taste the difference between Angus beef and other beef (Well, I assume they can), so there is some justification in labeling it for the benefit of the end consumer. On the other hand, there is no taste difference that I'm aware of between milk produced by a Holstein and a Jersey cow. So, expecting producers to label milk products "produced by Holsteins" is a waste of time.

Manufacturers have similarly not faced an undue "burden" marking their particular chicken and/or eggs with "free range" or "cageless" stickers.

Unfortunately the term 'free range' doesn't really have a good definition. All it means is that the chickens have "access to the outside". They could still spend all their time in overcrowded barns and still be called "free range".

http://www.cracked.com/article_19433_the-6-most-horrifying-lies-food-industry-feeding-you_p2.html

People could come up with a "no GMO foods used in this product" sticker, but I suspect the statement would become as meaningless as "free range".

 

[Dymanic]

Personal preference can only be humored so far; at some point, its reasonable for food producers to say "this is too much red tape".

Obviously, "red tape" is not the issue. I mean, how much "red tape" are we really talking about here? The producers already place labels on their products, correct?

 

[Manger Douse]

Funnily enough, this was on my Facebook feed just as I was reading this page:

Want to stick it to Monsanto? March for public investment and open data

Also: Argumentum ad Monsantium is the new Goodwin

 

[Segnosaur]

Obviously, "red tape" is not the issue. I mean, how much "red tape" are we really talking about here? The producers already place labels on their products, correct?

About as much red tape as there would be if milk producers had to give the particular breed of cattle used to produce the container of milk that I had yesterday.

On any given day, it might be possible for a product to contain 100% GM items, 50%, or 0%. That number might change on a day to day basis. (Maybe the farmers that were using GM crops got hit by a flood one year.) And what about secondary effects? (What if you feed GM crops to "natural" cattle? Are the cattle themselves still considered "pure" when you turn them into hamburgers?)

And even if a company wanted to produce separate GM and non-GM product lines... that would basically require them to have twice the infrastructure, basically driving up the price for everyone. Not to mention even more government bureaucracy as they have to now have inspectors checking that a company is actually adhering to the 'No GM' label.

More importantly, keep in mind that at least some people protesting against Monsanto are not just demanding more labeling, they're demanding an outright ban.

 

[Skeletor]

Also: Argumentum ad Monsantium is the new Goodwin

This is brilliant, thanks for posting this!

I really want my arguments well presented when confronted with the woo...Monsanto is part of the "Zionist Consipiracy" as well? I bet some of these people could attempt to forge a connection between Monsanto and 9/11...if they haven't already.

 

[Aepervius]

I agree. Yet -- if we assume that safety is not an issue -- what is the justification for requiring that labelling?

Consumer protection and information. You have the right to be informed on what youa re eating, even if you chose at the end to irrationaly chose one product over another. For example you might refuse insect protein on religious ground (isn't some point in the bible for example that you do not eat what creeps or crawl or something ?). Same as vegetarian or vegetalien you might accept accidental insect eating but not real insect eating (because it is an animal or whatnot). Finally there are some people which are actually allergic to some insect protein.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes, perhaps they do. But, there are limits...

What if someone insisted they wanted their milk labeled to indicate the breed of cows used in the production? Or they type of feed used to feed the chickens that produced the eggs they eat?

When the product is advertised to be a special breed or fed a special feed, it is indeed required. Otherwise not.

NOw for all those which find labelling law strange or too much :

OK, let me be honest, I dunno where you live, but in EU we have pretty strict labelling law, and some information are required. Information beyond what's required is only on a volunteer basis. Some stuff like additive , are shown even if they are innocuous. If people wants to get informed on whetehr a product get GMO in it to shun it, and force politician to make product with gmo labelled as so, good for them. That's democraty.

Some people shun pork, some people shun meat, some people shun what's not labelled organic, some people shuns meat which has not been bled with a special process, some people shun meat on a friday, whatever.

To pretend that eating is a full 100% rational procedure for people is to be blind to reality.

Peopel want to be informed for rational or irrrational reason.

Accept it or fight agaisnt windmill.

 

[Segnosaur]

I agree. Yet -- if we assume that safety is not an issue -- what is the justification for requiring that labelling?

Consumer protection and information.

Ummm... its only 'protection' if there is some sort of danger to protect from.

There is no hard scientific evidence that GM foods pose a risk.

You have the right to be informed on what you are eating...

And as I pointed out, there are limits to just how far your 'information' will go.

Do you know the breed of cow that produced the milk you drank last time? Do you know the type of pesticide that was used when growing the wheat that went into the last piece of bread you had?

... For example you might refuse insect protein on religious ground...Finally there are some people which are actually allergic to some insect protein.

And once again... there is a difference between listing a unique ingredient (i.e. "this product contains cochroachs") and making distinction between things that don't matter. There is no difference between the way the body handles GM and non-GM products. Products are tested to ensure there are no allergic reactions, and there is no religion that I'm aware of that specifically targets genetic modification.

Yes, perhaps they do. But, there are limits...

What if someone insisted they wanted their milk labeled to indicate the breed of cows used in the production? Or they type of feed used to feed the chickens that produced the eggs they eat?

When the product is advertised to be a special breed or fed a special feed, it is indeed required. Otherwise not.

In those cases there are reasons for such... there may be taste differences between different styles of beef, etc.

With GM food, there is no such taste difference, and no health difference.

To pretend that eating is a full 100% rational procedure for people is to be blind to reality.

People want to be informed for rational or irrrational reason.

Accept it or fight agaisnt windmill.

So, what your saying is because people are idiots we should always accept what they do? Sorry, your argument fails in 2 ways: 1) Saying "idiots want it" does not mean it would make it the right decision, only the most popular one. and 2) Not everyone is as defeatist as you.

Most people in the U.S. claim to be christian. Should you accept creationism in the classrooms just because many people want to cling to irrational religious beliefs? What if "the majority" believed in the 9/11 conspiracy claims and wanted some new investigation? Would that make such and investigation the right thing to do?

 

[Dymanic]

On any given day, it might be possible for a product to contain 100% GM items, 50%, or 0%. That number might change on a day to day basis.

Easily handled by use of the same type of language already found on many product labels: "May contain one or more of the following ingredients..."

And what about secondary effects?

Or tertiary effects, or quaternary effects... Yes, what about those?

And even if a company wanted to produce separate GM and non-GM product lines... that would basically require them to have twice the infrastructure, basically driving up the price for everyone.

I'm interested in the mathematics that support that conclusion. Please show your work.

Not to mention even more government bureaucracy as they have to now have inspectors checking that a company is actually adhering to the 'No GM' label.

So... food safety laws should be no more rigorous than our current capacity for enforcement? If we're going to let that tail wag the dog, then, considering how inadequate the available resources are now, wouldn't logic dictate that we repeal some of the food safety laws already in place?

 

[Dymanic]

there are limits to just how far your 'information' will go.

Wait. Consumers don't have a right to be better informed because they will never be perfectly informed?

there is no religion that I'm aware of that specifically targets genetic modification.

You may be underestimating the ability of religious people to find scriptural support for their irrational notions -- but what I find most interesting about your comment is that it implies that if there were a religion that specifically targeted genetic modification, that would be a different matter.

So, what your saying is because people are idiots we should always accept what they do?

Irrational and stupid are not the same thing. As the poet said, "Great wits are sure to madness near allied, and thin partitions do their bounds divide". In my opinion, expecting people to make all of their decisions based solely on "hard science" is both irrational and stupid. What, people don't have a right to base those decisions on gut instinct? On politics? Personal philosophy? Aesthetics?