Skeptics and GMO Labeling

[ehcks]

I support GMO labeling because it is a public concern

Is it, though?

 

[Segnosaur]

So, you do advocate tricking people into buying something they don't want by hiding it among things they do want without telling them? Yes?

We are in the way of tricking them in the exact same way that an Organic food farmer is tricking people by not having to label "this product has come into contact with cow dung and possibly urine".

 

[cosmicaug]

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)

It needs to be pointed out here that the ground beef example may be irrelevant. The regulations do not require a label for livestock fed with GE crop based ingredients, as far as I know. Feel free to correct me it I am incorrect.

Also, not that it affects anyone's argument here, but the regulatory framework was also not adopted in the 90s and left unchanged as implied by yog_sothoth. They actually upped the stupid in 2004 and made it totally process based. Before 2004, selling something like HFCS produced from maize that may have been genetically engineered (perhaps even oils, but I'm not sure about that) as a non-GMO would have been OK.

 

[marplots]

Not to abandon a meme, it is racism for food.

Just as I might want to know the DNA background of the young man dating my daughter. After all, even though I know he's just as human as any other boy in her school - I just want to know. I want to have that choice. I agree that everyone is equal, but why hide his ethnic background from me?

The only purpose of labeling is discrimination. Instead of leaving it up to professional farmers to decide what to grow, we want to use our biases to shape the market.

This food racism does have consequences. No one has answered, but my understanding is that GMO labeling has driven many GMO-containing products from the market there.

And currently, in the US, non-GMO is more expensive:

The budgetary implications of a GMO-free diet are substantial and even small increases in the costs of GMO-free ingredients in food products translate into significant impacts on the typical US household. Currently, a GMO-free certification raises prices by an average of 34%.

If the typical family were to purchase only non-GMO food, their food budget would increase from $9,462 to $12,263 each year, or $2,800 per year.

Overall, our calculations suggest that the cost of a typical US family’s market basket of food would rise from 8-50% annually, depending on the impacts on retail prices from going to a GMO-free diet.

(from: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bkgoodwi/papers/non_gmo.pdf)

This isn't predicted, but actual costs.

 

[Segnosaur]

I support GMO labeling because it is a public concern...

And sometimes the public has concerns about things for which there is no hint of a problem... like Obama being a secret muslim terrorist from nigeria.

It is the law in most industrialized countries and has been successfully implemented for quite a while. This isn't some fringe idea, the US is the outlier for NOT having it.

So, because other countries have decided to cave in to idiotic pressure and increase food prices (which, by the way, is what happens) the U.S. should follow suit?

 

[yog_sothoth]

So, who here is against hiding GMOs among non GMO food without labels to trick people into eating it?

 

[ehcks]

So, who here is against hiding GMOs among non GMO food without labels to trick people into eating it?

If someone makes a non-GMO food that could in any sense ever contain GMOs and doesn't put a "No GMO" label on it for marketing, that's their problem.

 

[cosmicaug]

I support GMO labeling because it is a public concern and would affect what people buy.

It's a manufactured concern. People who are truly concerned already know what to buy because, as I keep repeating, there's already enough information on the labels, as they are today, to figure it out.

 

[marplots]

So, who here is against hiding GMOs among non GMO food without labels to trick people into eating it?

It's a false choice. GMO food is just food.

This really is food racism, isn't it?

 

[Segnosaur]

It needs to be pointed out here that the ground beef example may be irrelevant. The regulations do not require a label for livestock fed with GE crop based ingredients, as far as I know. Feel free to correct me it I am incorrect.

You are right (as far as I know) that GMO corn can be used on livestock with no problem.

But, it is probably not totally irrelevant, since there are costs involved in keeping the non-GMO corn seperate from the GMO corn. This drives up the price of the corn overall (even if the cows are fed relatively cheaper GMO corn, its still more expensive than having one big huge corn market.)

Also, not that it affects anyone's argument here, but the regulatory framework was also not adopted in the 90s and left unchanged as implied by yog_sothoth.

That's not surprising.

yog_sothoth seems to be quite eager to spread mis-information, and is quite unable to respond when his "facts" are challenged.

 

[Aepervius]

I agree. I would also like to see foods which have been fertilized with pig poo properly announcing that fact. I have the right to select my food by species of feces.

How am I to make an informed choice about what I put in my holy mouth (on its travels to my revered stomach and honored gut), without knowing the facts? I just want the truth.

Let me tackle the point which (may be behind the humour).

There are some people which says that something does not need to be labelled if there is no risk or impact. There are some which says stuff STILL need to be labelled if it is informative of content that some people would want to avoid *even if for belief reason*.

To give you an example : if pig fat was used without being labelled, you would agree that would make some religious people quite unhappy. Remember the uproar on some fast food chain using the same oil frying bath for beef/and fries ?

It is not *simply* about perceived threat but about "informed consent" on eating food.

Some people declare themselves the judge of what should be written on etiquettes and what should not be. I simply say : write the content like GMO too and let the price and belief sort the people out. Let the free market decide ! But you cannot let the free market decide if the market is not informed.

FYI: I would not balk at eating GMO. I do not care. A bit. But I refuse the fallacy of some that because they think that since it is safe other people wanting the information does not need it.

Again , who are you all to judge the quirk on what food people eat ?

 

[ehcks]

Again , who are you all to judge the quirk on what food people eat ?

I'm not. People can eat whatever they want, however they want.

GMO-free labels already exist, and people can buy those items. I'll perhaps mock how much more they're spending on exactly the same thing, but I won't force them to change. I'm not the one trying to write a law to require an alteration to labeling and to force people to change.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Let there be uproar, if uproar is merited. Let there be labels, if that's what the free market wants.

But don't mandate labels and then say it's the free market sorting itself out. That's just hypocritical.

As for "informed consent," if a food is GMO and there's a GMO-free label on it, that's a concern. But if there isn't a GMO-free label on it, assume it's GMO. That doesn't seem like it's too hard of a leap.

 

[cosmicaug]

Let me tackle the point which (may be behind the humour).

There are some people which says that something does not need to be labelled if there is no risk or impact. There are some which says stuff STILL need to be labelled if it is informative of content that some people would want to avoid *even if for belief reason*.

To give you an example : if pig fat was used without being labelled, you would agree that would make some religious people quite unhappy. Remember the uproar on some fast food chain using the same oil frying bath for beef/and fries ?

It is not *simply* about perceived threat but about "informed consent" on eating food.

If pig fat was used without a label, I would be quite unhappy. Pig fat is an ingredient and belongs on a label.

Other things besides the use of pig fat can make religious people upset and yet we do not have any labeling requirements for those. Instead, we have a system of voluntary labeling that works well enough, apparently.

Guess what? We have a very similar situation with foods that may use GE ingredients. We have labels that tell you a food does not have any. What is the difference? Are anti-GMO nuts more deserving than Jewish people of having a government mandated label requirement.

 

[ehcks]

As for "informed consent," if a food is GMO and there's a GMO-free label on it, that's a concern. But if there isn't a GMO-free label on it, assume it's GMO. That doesn't seem like it's too hard of a leap.

That's not the best idea. It leads to people seeing a label on a product that could never contain a certain ingredient, then not seeing that label on others, and thinking it means the first is better. Asbestos free cereal and all that. Or gluten free soaps.

It's a weird problem where too much information confuses consumers. No idea how you fix that. But mandating meaningless information just makes it worse.

 

[marplots]

While reading about GMOs, I came across something even more disturbing to warn the public about.

Did you know that genetically modified organisms are making stuff many Americans are injecting into their bodies?!!

That's right. GMOs are making insulin used by many diabetics, and they've largely replaced the all-natural, animal extracted versions of the hormone.

We need a survey here. People need to be asked whether they want to inject GMO products with a syringe. I'm betting most wouldn't want to do that. What is being hidden here? What is the pharmaceutical-industrial complex foisting on us?

Scary stuff.

Does it sound silly to think that GMOs for pharmaceutical production might be a target? Look no further than here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/gmos-and-pharmaceuticals/

Oh yes, the camel's nose in the tent. Fear your food, fear GMOs, fear other products of genetic modification. "Frankenfoods" is a thing.

The anti-science, anti-reason battleground isn't just in the classroom with the Creationists anymore.

 

[yog_sothoth]

You are right (as far as I know) that GMO corn can be used on livestock with no problem.

But, it is probably not totally irrelevant, since there are costs involved in keeping the non-GMO corn seperate from the GMO corn. This drives up the price of the corn overall (even if the cows are fed relatively cheaper GMO corn, its still more expensive than having one big huge corn market.)

That's not surprising.

yog_sothoth seems to be quite eager to spread mis-information, and is quite unable to respond when his "facts" are challenged.

I do realize I am debating people who openly advocate deception, which makes the debate somewhat tricky as I really can't take what people say as honest.

Which facts have been challenged? Cost of living records show that Europe, which has had GMO labeling for 18 years, has overall lower food costs than the US. GMO labeling has resulted in no measurable increase in cost. That was never refuted.

GMO labeling is clearly a public concern. You can claim that it is a manufactured concern or that people shouldn't be worried about it, but you can't deny that people have a concern. The concern is so strong that labeling GMOs is considered a de facto ban on GMOs and is fought tooth and nail by industry.

It is clearly deceptive to take a product that people would prefer not to buy and mix it in with things they need to buy and not label them, to trick them into buying it.

This really has nothing to do with safety, but with consumer preferences. I have no idea why people buy Skullcandy headphones when Grado makes less expensive superior headphones. I have no idea why people buy iphones when replacing the battery is such a pain. People will not always buy the things you think they should buy. If consumers don't want to buy a product, they shouldn't have it forced on them. That is a problem for the company making the products, not the people who do not want to buy the products.

BTW, my contention that much of the reason skeptics flock to the anti GMO labeling as a tribal emotional reaction was clearly shown to be accurate by Marplots calling GMO labeling "racism for food." He really thinks that. When we are looking at which side is reality-based, remember that.

 

[marplots]

Let me tackle the point which (may be behind the humour).

There are some people which says that something does not need to be labelled if there is no risk or impact. There are some which says stuff STILL need to be labelled if it is informative of content that some people would want to avoid *even if for belief reason*.

To give you an example : if pig fat was used without being labelled, you would agree that would make some religious people quite unhappy. Remember the uproar on some fast food chain using the same oil frying bath for beef/and fries ?

It is not *simply* about perceived threat but about "informed consent" on eating food.

Some people declare themselves the judge of what should be written on etiquettes and what should not be. I simply say : write the content like GMO too and let the price and belief sort the people out. Let the free market decide ! But you cannot let the free market decide if the market is not informed.

FYI: I would not balk at eating GMO. I do not care. A bit. But I refuse the fallacy of some that because they think that since it is safe other people wanting the information does not need it.

Again , who are you all to judge the quirk on what food people eat ?

Two things.
1) If consumers want such labeling, they can get it already - there's no reason to make it mandatory. For example, you can find products labeled as Kosher, and this gives a marketing advantage to those selling to the religious. Similarly, you can find foods for other select markets, such as lactose free. We do not require products to be labeled as "non-Kosher" or "contains lactose."

2) Who am I to judge? I am in the same position as the ones judging the opposite. This is how personal judgements work. And I believe that such labeling with adversely affect the choices and the prices I pay, so I do have an interest in seeing things go my way. Judgements about the right course may be at odds, but they are all judgements.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Putting "GMO" on a label is not giving the public the ability to make an informed choice. To make an informed choice, they would have to be schooled in the issues, understand the science, and know the details about each product individually. The labeling would misinform more than inform, because the lay public is much more likely to think there's some reason for labeling the product- when there isn't any good reason.

Why oppose it?
Unintended consequences. I think it does "hurt" and doesn't help at all. And yes, at least in the US, we demand our regulators use some expertise and commonsense to prevent populist nonsense.

Here are a couple of sources for my claim that it causes harm - economic harm:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/?page=1
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/93.new_labelling_laws_gm_products_eu.html

There is a perfectly reasonable alternative: Allow manufacturers to put "GMO Free" on their packages. Instead of requiring a GMO label, simply leave it up to the producers to decide if there's enough demand and profit to be had by avoiding GMOs. This is similar to how "organic" is handled.

Labeling that increases food costs, while serving no other purpose than pandering to ignorant fears, is a bad idea. I have to pay more for my food because someone else is afraid of their food. Furthermore, it tends to blunt the impact of better products, innovation, and scientific progress.

An article in Slate explains some of the expected costs in the US:


(Full text: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._vermont_maine_connecticut_increase_food.html)

Your right, what's the point of giving out information on labels if most people don't understand what is being conveyed. A series side effect of such labels is that most folk are grossly misinformed by various media outlets, or worse celebrities riding anti GMO hobby horses.
Genetically modified grub is one of the best ways to secure a famine free future. I find it offensive that the vast majority of folk opposed are in the first world. Greenpeace a while back talked a number of African nations into turning down free(or extremely cheap) genetically modified seeds. All the Greenpeace members had full bellies.

 

[marplots]

I'm not. People can eat whatever they want, however they want.

GMO-free labels already exist, and people can buy those items. I'll perhaps mock how much more they're spending on exactly the same thing, but I won't force them to change. I'm not the one trying to write a law to require an alteration to labeling and to force people to change.

Someone has been telling us that GMO-free doesn't cost more. I wonder which picture is correct?

(Just guessing, but I think yours is.)