Skeptics and GMO Labeling

[Denver]

No, I mean higher quality. I get annoyed at the state of things in the US every time I go to Europe. This has a lot to do with the centralized systems designed to prioritize consistency over quality used by the Giants and Safeways around the US vs the smaller decentralized European model.

I find it odd that the food prices here are higher, but the prices are decided by the market and competition, not how much it costs to bake bread fresh in the bakery as opposed to heating a frozen loaf that was made in a factory in Kansas.

This has nothing to do with GMOs, of course, but food in the US is cruddy compared to Europe.

I'd recommend sticking to the labelling issue, and leaving this 'higher quality' argument to the wayside. It's just going to cause lots of unfocused side arguments and muddy your point. (For instance, my local Safeway bakes their own bread on site, and sells lots of local produce).

 

[marplots]

I find it odd that the food prices here are higher, but the prices are decided by the market and competition, not how much it costs to bake bread fresh in the bakery as opposed to heating a frozen loaf that was made in a factory in Kansas.

Cite?
I have been unable to find a useful comparison between food prices in the EU and in the US.

Although I have found opinions on how food prices would change if GMO labeling were mandated in the US - and the consensus seems to be "higher than now."

How much higher depends on the model adopted, whether there is similar "chain of custody" as in the EU, and whether you stop the cost calculation at printing the label or add in handling and production costs.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Part of the problem is that we know what the purpose of mandatory labeling is. The purpose of mandatory labeling is scaremongering. It is nothing else. At least presently, it provides no useful information.

<focus snip>

And how is it that "we" "know" this?

 

[marplots]

Since we have members in the EU, could one or more weigh in on the matter of choice? Are there, in fact, multiple products of the same type, both GMO and non-GMO, to select from? Or, is this choice business a fiction?

 

[Mark6]

Part of the problem is that we know what the purpose of mandatory labeling is. The purpose of mandatory labeling is scaremongering. It is nothing else. At least presently, it provides no useful information.

If I had a peanut allergy (I do not), I would want to know if particular food contains peanut genes. Likewise, I might want to avoid Monsanto products simply because I consider Monsanto an unethical company.

"Contains GMO" provides neither information. At most, it induces a person who has some specific reason to avoid some specific GMO food, to avoid all GMO food. And of course, an uninformed person who thinks GMO is evil will also avoid it.

So yes, the only possible purpose of GMO-labeling is scaremongering.

 

[yog_sothoth]

I'd recommend sticking to the labelling issue, and leaving this 'higher quality' argument to the wayside. It's just going to cause lots of unfocused side arguments and muddy your point. (For instance, my local Safeway bakes their own bread on site, and sells lots of local produce).

I cite the lower-cost and higher-quality food in Europe as the people fighting against European-style labeling tend to claim that labeling causes higher prices and lower quality. The experiment has been done. Almost 20 years of data are in. Labeling GMOs does neither. It is inconvenient to some companies, I suppose, but there is no downside to the public.

The matter of "giving them a choice" is also a dodge. Consider this:



(from: http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a13-carter.htm)

Again, quoting opinion pieces is not very convincing. If GMO labels scare retailers, then they are the ones with the problem, not consumers.

Also, back to my original point, why is trying to prevent GMO labeling part of the Skeptical "brand" these days? We are discussing how to handle an industrial farming product.

Again, I see this as tribalism. We tend to deal with unfounded claims from "organic" types, but that doesn't mean that we should take an industry position on a regulatory issue.

 

[yog_sothoth]

Cite?
I have been unable to find a useful comparison between food prices in the EU and in the US.

Although I have found opinions on how food prices would change if GMO labeling were mandated in the US - and the consensus seems to be "higher than now."

How much higher depends on the model adopted, whether there is similar "chain of custody" as in the EU, and whether you stop the cost calculation at printing the label or add in handling and production costs.

My personal experience in Germany is validated by cost of living calculators. Switzerland and the UK are more expensive than the US. Germany is much cheaper, as are Sweden, Austria, Italy, and most other countries. By population the EU is cheaper.

Shopping in Germany was a real punch in the face. My kids view going back to Europe as an opportunity to raid the grocery stores for the foods they cannot get while here. I would love to be able to bring the dried meats and sausages back, but they get all whiny at customs. Some specialty stores in the US in larger cities have lower-grade versions of them, but they are very expensive.

My experience and research on prices show that GMO labeling is not the dystopian nightmare that people seem to think it would be and that the places I have seen that use it are better then the US, which does not.

 

[Denver]

I'd recommend sticking to the labelling issue, and leaving this 'higher quality' argument to the wayside. It's just going to cause lots of unfocused side arguments and muddy your point. (For instance, my local Safeway bakes their own bread on site, and sells lots of local produce).

I cite the lower-cost and higher-quality food in Europe as the people fighting against European-style labeling tend to claim that labeling causes higher prices and lower quality. The experiment has been done. Almost 20 years of data are in. Labeling GMOs does neither. It is inconvenient to some companies, I suppose, but there is no downside to the public.

Ok if you think the quality issue needs to be maintained to make your point, fair enough. So, what is the claim, and who is claiming, that GMO labeling lowers quality? I am not familiar with that claim. I can see how the higher-cost would apply though.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
My experience and research on prices show that GMO labeling is not the dystopian nightmare that people seem to think it would be and that the places I have seen that use it are better then the US, which does not.

I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying here, so I'll ask instead of responding.

Are you saying that GMO labeling led to some improvement in food/food prices in the EU? If so, can you explain what the mechanism behind that might be?

Because, until now, I was thinking the labeling wasn't supposed to make any difference (i.e. lead to a dystopian nightmare), but now it sounds like you are claiming GMO labeling leads to some overall improvement instead of just being neutral. Is this a correct reading on my part?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Amazing how many shotgun solutions being advocated from both sides of the issue, when sniper solutions are needed.

 

[yog_sothoth]

I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying here, so I'll ask instead of responding.

Are you saying that GMO labeling led to some improvement in food/food prices in the EU? If so, can you explain what the mechanism behind that might be?

Because, until now, I was thinking the labeling wasn't supposed to make any difference (i.e. lead to a dystopian nightmare), but now it sounds like you are claiming GMO labeling leads to some overall improvement instead of just being neutral. Is this a correct reading on my part?

I am saying that the data on GMO labeling in Europe since 1997 shows that there is, at worst, no measurable harm done to food cost or quality by GMO labeling.

As we know, based on nearly 20 years of data, that GMO labeling does no harm, I find it interesting that Skeptics seem to jump to conspiracy theories (e.g. "We know the REAL reason behind this nefarious plot! Just ignore the EU that falsifies this theory") or attempts to change the subject (e.g. "Label pig poo then if you like labels so much!").

I am used to dealing with stuff like this from creationists and climate deniers. How did this bad of a stand on an industrial farm product get into the "Skeptic" brand?

 

[marplots]

As a skeptic, I am against GMO labeling because I think it is an expression of conclusions about GMO that are unsupported. In my view it encourages poor thinking and is driven by unproven claims.

As a parallel, I would point to news reports (covered elsewhere on the forum) about radiation from Fukushima. It is a fact that radioactivity "escaped." Relating this fact without the context of it being irrelevant can only mislead those unwilling or not interested in investigating the matter for themselves.

This happens a great deal - a kind of implication without overtly stating the case. It may be that someone took a homeopathic remedy and subsequently, their cancer went into remission. And it would be a factual statement for them to go on the Dr. Oz show and say, "I took Cancer-be-gone and my cancer went into remission." The implication is there was an effect from the homeopathic remedy, but this conclusion isn't warranted. So too, with GMO on the label, it is pretty easy to conclude there must be some rational reason why they'd be required to put it on there - unwarranted taint by implication.

And this is different than putting "heart healthy" or "free range" or "100% organic" or even "GMO free" on a label. We know manufacturers will put positive statements on their labels to sell more products. But when we see a negative label ("contains genetically modified products"), we naturally assume they were forced to do so and the statement is there as a warning.

In fact, this would actually be the case. Suppliers would be forced to do so. If this were voluntary (as it is now), and positive, why aren't they already identifying their products as containing GMOs? It's because GMOs have an unwarranted, negative connotation. The evidence tells me that the negative taint is bogus. It hasn't been proven. Therefore, as a skeptic, I cannot support continuing this fiction or making GMOs a "thing."

 

[Segnosaur]

My personal experience in Germany is validated by cost of living calculators. Switzerland and the UK are more expensive than the US. Germany is much cheaper, as are Sweden, Austria, Italy, and most other countries. By population the EU is cheaper.

Facts do not support your clam.

From: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/america-food-spending-less
People in most European countries spend over 10 percent of their incomes on food. In fact, Americans spend less on food than people in any other country in the world.

Or how about from http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/food-price-comparison-around-the-world/

A pound of ground beef (which uses as part of its 'input' genetically modified corn)
In the U.S. the price varies between $2.79 and $5.29.
In Paris: $11.20. Belgum: $6.06. The cheapest place listed was germany, at $4.93, which might be cheaper than the price in L.A., but still more expensive than the cost in Oregon.

Cocacola (using High Fructose Corn Syrup):
U.S.: Between $1 and $1.89.
Europe: Between $2 and $4.06

I can compare other items, but they'd say pretty much the same thing.

Ultimately though, comparison between countries are not a perfect measure about the impact of GMO foods, since other issues (population density, amount of farmland available in a country, etc.) also provide a significant impact.

Still, you made a claim (that food is cheaper in Europe) that was completely and totally bogus.

 

[marplots]

Since we have members in the EU, could one or more weigh in on the matter of choice? Are there, in fact, multiple products of the same type, both GMO and non-GMO, to select from? Or, is this choice business a fiction?

I wanted to repeat this request and add some info.

88% of all corn grown in the US is GMO. That makes products high in corn syrup likely to have GMOs.

I would like to know two things from EU members here.

1) What is the price where you are for a branded item containing corn syrup (high-fructose corn syrup too)? For example, Heinz Ketchup (although you'd have to check the label, they have a version using sugar instead of HFCS).

2) For such an item, is there a choice between GMO and non-GMO on the grocery shelf? (Doesn't have to be the same brand.)

These two questions get at costs and the availability of choice.

 

[Modified]

No, I mean higher quality. I get annoyed at the state of things in the US every time I go to Europe. This has a lot to do with the centralized systems designed to prioritize consistency over quality used by the Giants and Safeways around the US vs the smaller decentralized European model.

I find it odd that the food prices here are higher, but the prices are decided by the market and competition, not how much it costs to bake bread fresh in the bakery as opposed to heating a frozen loaf that was made in a factory in Kansas.

This has nothing to do with GMOs, of course, but food in the US is cruddy compared to Europe.

There are places to buy food other than supermarkets. I get my produce from an Amish market in which about half the stuff on the shelves is locally grown, depending on what's in season, or from an outdoor market that has all locally grown stuff. Both are cheaper, better quality, and have more variety than supermarkets, but of course if you want stuff that is not in season locally or not available locally the quality is no better. For bread I'm willing to pay the extra $200 a year for my wife and I to have bakery bread.

 

[yog_sothoth]

Facts do not support your clam.

From: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/america-food-spending-less
People in most European countries spend over 10 percent of their incomes on food. In fact, Americans spend less on food than people in any other country in the world.

Or how about from http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/food-price-comparison-around-the-world/

A pound of ground beef (which uses as part of its 'input' genetically modified corn)
In the U.S. the price varies between $2.79 and $5.29.
In Paris: $11.20. Belgum: $6.06. The cheapest place listed was germany, at $4.93, which might be cheaper than the price in L.A., but still more expensive than the cost in Oregon.

Cocacola (using High Fructose Corn Syrup):
U.S.: Between $1 and $1.89.
Europe: Between $2 and $4.06

I can compare other items, but they'd say pretty much the same thing.

Ultimately though, comparison between countries are not a perfect measure about the impact of GMO foods, since other issues (population density, amount of farmland available in a country, etc.) also provide a significant impact.

Still, you made a claim (that food is cheaper in Europe) that was completely and totally bogus.

I use cost of living calculators. As for percentage of income, that is not a direct comparison. That factors in rent and whatnot. Also, you can cherry pick things like Coke that are more expensive, but that is deceptive.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

My point is that the lower costs and higher quality being delivered to consumers in countries with GMO labeling show that it does no measurable harm.

 

[marplots]

I use cost of living calculators. As for percentage of income, that is not a direct comparison. That factors in rent and whatnot. Also, you can cherry pick things like Coke that are more expensive, but that is deceptive.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

My point is that the lower costs and higher quality being delivered to consumers in countries with GMO labeling show that it does no measurable harm.

Cite? I haven't found one, but I admit I'm not the best researcher.

 

[Segnosaur]

No, I mean higher quality. I get annoyed at the state of things in the US every time I go to Europe. This has a lot to do with the centralized systems designed to prioritize consistency over quality used by the Giants and Safeways around the US vs the smaller decentralized European model.

Ah yes, the high-quality European model... which resulted in horse meat being mixed in to ground beef.

Most Americans, if they were asked if they wanted to eat horse meat, would probably say "neigh".

But since Europe favors quality, we can rest assured that it was high-quality horse meat.

My point? No country holds the monopoly on "high quality". Some countries may favor certain foods (some of which may be fancier than what you can get at your local fast food chain). But high quality food exists everywhere. And likewise low-quality food exists everywhere.

 

[yog_sothoth]

BTW, I also have to say that the argument that GMOs shouldn't be labeled because people would avoid them if it was labeled is an odd one. If people would avoid a product if they knew what it was that means that one certainly should label the product. You can claim that their reasons for avoiding GMOs are dumb, and you could be right, but we are talking personal preferences.

I personally think people who buy Apple products are making a bad choice, but I don't think Apple products should be unlabeled and mixed in with Samsung products to trick people into buying them.

 

[Pulvinar]

I personally think people who buy Apple products are making a bad choice, but I don't think Apple products should be unlabeled and mixed in with Samsung products to trick people into buying them.

That labelling isn't mandatory as far as I know, but maybe it should be. Certain Apple devices would then have "Warning: may contain Samsung parts".