Skeptics and GMO Labeling

[portlandatheist]

BTW, how many people here knew before this thread that GMOs are routinely labeled throughout the industrialized world, with the notable exceptions of the US and Canada?

GMO labeling is not some weird novel concept that is impossible to implement or wildly expensive. It is relatively simple and effective. Brazil does it, China does it, Europe does it, but for some magic reason it is just tooo hard for the US to pull off? What handicap do we labor under that prevents us from being as organized as the other countries? Does GMO labeling skill track with soccer skill or something? If that is the case we will never catch up with Brazil, but we can at least try.

A lot of people have read your posts and have given very thoughtful and detailed responses yet you ignore them and do not respond. Do you at the very least understand why people are convinced it would be expensive even if you disagree with that conclusion? You just hand wave all evidence presented as meaningless. Europe does it is not a counter argument. GMO labeling is a weird novel and stupid idea. It makes as much sense as labeling food that has been grown in the presence of electro-magnetic radiation or green houses.

Holy ****! If Alabama can label it, why can't we? Teach the controversy!

 

[marplots]

GMO labeling is not some weird novel concept that is impossible to implement or wildly expensive. It is relatively simple and effective. Brazil does it, China does it, Europe does it, but for some magic reason it is just tooo hard for the US to pull off? What handicap do we labor under that prevents us from being as organized as the other countries? Does GMO labeling skill track with soccer skill or something? If that is the case we will never catch up with Brazil, but we can at least try.

I know it's not simple, and I've given the cites already. But what do you mean by "effective?" How are you measuring that?

 

[portlandatheist]

Please take a look at the check marks and tell us which check marks are free, and which ones cost money.

 

[tsig]

Yep that's us Americans. Just eating slop. Unlike the cultured Europeans.

How do cultured Europeans taste? Are they better than free range?

 

[ectoplasm]

I know it's not simple, and I've given the cites already. But what do you mean by "effective?" How are you measuring that?

Its effective because it has practically eliminated foods containing GMOs.

What makes the EU different from the United States is not a 'ban' on consumption or imports, but instead 1) non-approval of domestic cultivation of many GMO products, plus 2) mandatory labeling of food products that have even small traces of GMO content. Food companies in Europe have reformulated their products taking out all GMO ingredients so as to avoid these labels, and this is what has squeezed GMO foods for direct human consumption out of the market.

http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/gmos-banned

 

[Wayward son]

In most of the industrialized world, GMO labeling is the norm. In practice, when consumers have a choice between GMO or non GMO labeled food, they choose the non-GMO labeled food to the point where GMOs are primarily used as animal feed. Labeling winds up being cheap as very few wind up being printed.

Ummm...you do understand that the cost of mandatory labeling is not in the actual printing of the labels? And that the costs of testing applies to those that are selling products which are not labeled as having GMOs as well as those which do? Because you don't seem to understand this at all.

As experience has shown that consumers, if the label is visible, avoid the GMOs, labeling becomes a de facto ban on GMO consumer products. This is why producers of GMOs fight labeling as hard as they do. Not labeling the products is basically the only way to get people to buy them.

I have asked people if they would buy foods which were labeled: "product of radiation breeding" or "product of chemical mutagenesis" or several other common methods. None would. Countries with mandatory labeling misinform their populations. They incite fear in their populations, but they do so for only method. That is as dishonest as it gets. But you support that. Probably not your fault, as you seem to be about as misinformed about the reality of plant propagation as someone can be, and instead of using this opportunity to learn, you have closed your mind to anything but the position you started out with.

As a basic principle I am concerned with the consumers more than fractionally improved corn yields, especially considering the massive subsidies given to corn growers in the US.

If you were concerned about the consumers then you concerns would be:

Consumers have been misled into believing a lot of lies; lies that result in them being afraid, which results in a food system that is more expensive and less environmentally friendly.

Someone who claims to care about the consumers would be interested in properly informing those consumers so that they are no longer being taken advantage of financially. Instead what you want to do is the opposite.

As I side note, I get to try to explain to Europeans why we routinely feed American children an industrial farm product that they would hesitate to feed to a pig. (I am not kidding about that, BTW.)

Sounds like a bunch of pathetic food snobs.

 

[cosmicaug]

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24320839/Jref/GMOLabelingCosts.jpg[/qimg]
Please take a look at the check marks and tell us which check marks are free, and which ones cost money.

From the producer's point of view, there's actually one simple way to manage all that. You do no sorting. You simply remove GMOs preemptively from the most troublesome parts of your supply chain because your marketing people tell you that GMOs are a bad sell.

However, it is possible that you may realize (correctly or incorrectly) that your marketing people are idiots but it still doesn't change your actions. It doesn't change your actions because you know, that even in the event that people are a lot more accepting of GMOs than what your hypothetical marketing people tell you (say, for example that only an additional 10% are so opposed that they will actively avoid it when you scaremonger about it on the label --but 10% is still 10% and you don't want to lose it), people not opposed to GMOs will accept non-GMOs whereas people opposed to GMOs will not accept GMOs.

That's actually one mechanism by which GMOs disappear from store shelves. If producers want to reduce complications they will do so by eliminating GMOs and they won't be doing it strictly as a matter of addressing "public concern", as yog_sothoth claims. It becomes an utterly irrational way of restricting choice under the pretense of doing exactly the opposite.


ETA: I see that ectoplasm's link also addresses the existence of a drive to avoid labeling requirements by removing GMOs from the supply chain on the side of producers.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

How do cultured Europeans taste? Are they better than free range?

Not bad, but cleaning them is a bitch.

 

[yog_sothoth]

From the producer's point of view, there's actually one simple way to manage all that. You do no sorting. You simply remove GMOs preemptively from the most troublesome parts of your supply chain because your marketing people tell you that GMOs are a bad sell.

However, it is possible that you may realize (correctly or incorrectly) that your marketing people are idiots but it still doesn't change your actions. It doesn't change your actions because you know, that even in the event that people are a lot more accepting of GMOs than what your hypothetical marketing people tell you (say, for example that only an additional 10% are so opposed that they will actively avoid it when you scaremonger about it on the label --but 10% is still 10% and you don't want to lose it), people not opposed to GMOs will accept non-GMOs whereas people opposed to GMOs will not accept GMOs.

That's actually one mechanism by which GMOs disappear from store shelves. If producers want to reduce complications they will do so by eliminating GMOs and they won't be doing it strictly as a matter of addressing "public concern", as yog_sothoth claims. It becomes an utterly irrational way of restricting choice under the pretense of doing exactly the opposite.


ETA: I see that ectoplasm's link also addresses the existence of a drive to avoid labeling requirements by removing GMOs from the supply chain on the side of producers.

While people claim they have somehow refuted anything I have said, which they have not, in reality we pretty much agree on the facts.

Which of the following things do you disagree with:

GMO labeling is done around the world without apparent problems.

Bsed on international experience, if GMOs are labeled as such the "Ick factor" associated with GMOs will likely result in food being sold to consumers quickly becoming GMO free. When consumers are given the choice, they apparently usually choose GMO-free products.

The GMO properties being used in the US have no real benefit to the consumer, and are related to obtaining higher yields or reduced labor during farming.

Looking at grocery prices in countries with GMO labeling, there is no clear end user cost to GMO labeling that can be picked out of the noise of other factors. If GMO labeling does have some costs, they are too small to detect.

Americans eat food that would only be used as discount animal feed in most of the world.

Which of these premises do you disagree with?

In my opinion, if someone made more GMO products that benefit the consumer, say more things like golden rice that is more nutritious, people would be more accepting of GMOs. If they made GMO low-calorie grain that helps people lose weight that would likely be pretty popular. GMO gluten free wheat that tastes like regular wheat?

As it is, roundup ready and pesticides are not very palatable to most people.

I support labeling because if GMOs are so unpopular that people would rather not eat them, they should be labeled to allow people to make this choice if they feel that strongly about it

 

[Wayward son]

Which of the following things do you disagree with:

GMO labeling is done around the world without apparent problems.

Disagree. There are problems. Needless fear among consumers which leads to consumers spending more than they need to and a rise in orthorexia. A large chunk of the population going from knowing nothing about plant agriculture to knowing less than nothing. Society becoming increasingly stupid about food production is not a good thing. Europe falling behind when it comes to science and technology in agriculture, and innovative companies are leaving.

Paul Collier talks about the major harms that the fantasy thinking in the EU has led to here and here.

Bsed on international experience, if GMOs are labeled as such the "Ick factor" associated with GMOs will likely result in food being sold to consumers quickly becoming GMO free. When consumers are given the choice, they apparently usually choose GMO-free products.

Agree. If GMOs are labeled in the U.S. there will be never be another GMO commercialized. The current ones will continue to be used for things like biofuel and animal feed. Otherwise GMOs that are herbicide tolerant will simply be replaced by non-GMOs that are herbicide tolerant and created through more risky means. That will result in no change except stupid people, being stupid people, have no problem with them.

Seeing as we have 9 or 10 billion that we need to feed in the next 50 years or so, and seeing as there is no chance in conventional breeding even coming close to achieving that (as the scientists know, we are tapped out for most major crop plants), and privileged western liberals are doing everything their power to ensure that lots of people needlessly starve, we should be screwed as species.

However, that will not be the case, as scientists are constantly developing new methods. What would happen is scientists working at the largest companies (and while privileged western liberals have already ensured that only the largest companies can bring products to market, that will only worsen now) will continue to create new GMO crops using transgenesis. They will see how the new crop works. Then they simply go back to the wildtype crops and recreate the transgenic crop through something like CRISPR. Resulting in a new GMO crop that is actually not GMO because it was made through a different method that is amazing, but undoubtedly more risky, and has not gone through the kinds of testing the GMO methods have. Governments appear reticent to regulate these new methods, because the first time they tried to bring crop breeding out of dark ages with transparency and testing, idiots, instead of realizing that this was a massive step forward, instead freaked out, lied their asses off, and then lied a bunch more and have essentially have destroyed our best option for feeding the planet. Futurama referred our time as the "stupid ages" and there is no better example than this one.

The GMO properties being used in the US have no real benefit to the consumer, and are related to obtaining higher yields or reduced labor during farming.

Higher yields, resulting in reduced need for new farmland, decreased pesticide use, lower prices etc are all generally benefits to the consumer and would be recognized as such if we weren't living in the "stupid ages."

Looking at grocery prices in countries with GMO labeling, there is no clear end user cost to GMO labeling that can be picked out of the noise of other factors. If GMO labeling does have some costs, they are too small to detect.

As I already linked to in a previous post the European Commission's report does not agree with your opinion.

Americans eat food that would only be used as discount animal feed in most of the world.

I don't know how many times you are going to repeat this asinine statement. All it does as show what kind of person you are.

In my opinion, if someone made more GMO products that benefit the consumer, say more things like golden rice that is more nutritious, people would be more accepting of GMOs. If they made GMO low-calorie grain that helps people lose weight that would likely be pretty popular. GMO gluten free wheat that tastes like regular wheat?

There are dozens of plant propagation methods. If one of them requires a label while the others do not, people will construe it as a warning label, and such products will not succeed, or future ones be developed, no matter what the benefits to consumers. There is no scientific or health reason to label these products, and your support of mandatory labels simply shows that you support anti-science initiatives, and a system where frauds and cons can easily make lots of money scaring the general public with bogus claims, while politicians prey on the public ignorance for votes.

As it is, roundup ready and pesticides are not very palatable to most people.

Which only shows that your ignorance of herbicide resistant non-GMOs and the fact that plants naturally produce 99.9% of the pesticides we consume. Seeing as you are pretty ignorant about the topic, I guess you should be in charge of policy.

I support labeling because if GMOs are so unpopular that people would rather not eat them, they should be labeled to allow people to make this choice if they feel that strongly about it

You support quacks and cons, scaring the general public, misinforming people (as a label for only one method does) and anti-science policies.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Seems to me everyone on this thread is missing the fact we already have no GMO labels...certified organic. And part of the reason certified organic is more expensive is the same thing the "anti-label" crowd is crying about. I mean that chart above is just as appropriate to explain increased organic costs. Lots of organic methods in the field can actually be cheaper than conventional, but once run through that ringer end up being more expensive. Between economies of scale and the regulatory burden it costs about 20% more or so to produce organically on average. But you get that back at the market because demand is so far above supply, you get a nice premium price.

In some ways I think it would be payback to see industry forced into some of the costs they shoved down our throats. They are happy to increase the organic industries' costs, just don't do it to them equally! lol. But honestly as a general rule I am in favor of less regulations not more. This labeling junk is just more unnecessary bureaucratic interference in the marketplace. The only reason it is even a deal is that consumers have been lied to so often by big ag that they don't even care what scientists say anymore. The credibility is broken.

 

[Minoosh]

... Brazil does it, China does it, Europe does it, but for some magic reason it is just tooo hard for the US to pull off? ...

Why am I singularly unimpressed by anything China decides to put on a label? During the height of manufacturing I imagine factories would use whatever was on the nearest barge as filler.

Now a question for the thread in general: Is all of the concern related to GM practices limited to proteins that modified genes produce? Like, it would totally not apply to oil, extracted sugars, etc.?

 

[portlandatheist]

Why am I singularly unimpressed by anything China decides to put on a label? During the height of manufacturing I imagine factories would use whatever was on the nearest barge as filler.

Now a question for the thread in general: Is all of the concern related to GM practices limited to proteins that modified genes produce? Like, it would totally not apply to oil, extracted sugars, etc.?

It's a mixed bag, all of the suggested labeling laws in the states that I'm aware of(Oregon, California, Washington) would have labeled veggie oil and sugar essentially labeling GMO ghosts, but at the same time would not label cheese made with GMO rennet. The wording is quite awkward as well, what exactly does it mean to label a bag of sugar as "contains GMOs"? It tells you absolutely nothing about the actual contents of the bag itself.

 

[portlandatheist]

It becomes an utterly irrational way of restricting choice under the pretense of doing exactly the opposite.

I think this is exactly right. People who don't want to eat GMO (or who are vegetarian or vegan or eat Halal or Kosher or gluten free, etc) have all the information they need to live their chosen lifestyle. I have no issues with that at all. Labeling isn't about that though, labeling is about spreading your food beliefs to other people. It is food evangelism.

 

[Wayward son]

Seems to me everyone on this thread is missing the fact we already have no GMO labels...certified organic. And part of the reason certified organic is more expensive is the same thing the "anti-label" crowd is crying about.

Oh please. This is embarrassing even for you. There is a world of difference in between a mandatory labeling system and the voluntary labeling system that organic uses to scare gullible people into paying more for their food.

In some ways I think it would be payback to see industry forced into some of the costs they shoved down our throats.

Then you top it off by getting even more embarrassing. I don't know if you believe what you say, but I highly doubt almost anyone here will believe your nonsense. Industry forced nothing down your throat. Organic groups begged for a set standard so that they could then focus on scaring the public into paying more for their food through lying about their competition.

They are happy to increase the organic industries' costs, just don't do it to them equally! lol.

Organic has increased costs because it inefficient and unscientific.

The only reason it is even a deal is that consumers have been lied to so often by big ag that they don't even care what scientists say anymore. The credibility is broken.

No the reason why it is a deal because organic groups have been very effective at lying to the public into scaring them to pay more for organic food. Yes, much of the public doesn't care what the scientists say, but that is because fear and lies are more effective and an easier sell, and organic groups have made sure that their devotees are as paranoid, misinformed and clueless as 9/11 truthers.

 

[cosmicaug]

Seems to me everyone on this thread is missing the fact we already have no GMO labels...certified organic.

If you are defining "everyone" as yog_sothoth, sure. Everyone appears to be missing that fact.

Now, if by "everyone" you actually mean everyone, the fact that yog_sothoth has not addressed this doesn't mean that many of us have not raised that issue over and over again. In fact, many of us have.

And part of the reason certified organic is more expensive is the same thing the "anti-label" crowd is crying about. I mean that chart above is just as appropriate to explain increased organic costs.

That's certainly part of it, sure. There's a cost to certified organic (and there's a cost to GMOFree Project verified and there's a cost to Demeter) because it's a bunch of people getting together offering something (alleged to be) different and bearing the costs of that certification project (or funding the Steinerite cult under the pretense of funding their certification, in the case of Demeter). However, they should bear the costs of such a certification. There's no reason why I, a consumer with no particular interest in purchasing organic (if anything, when I find organic produce I usually look hard to see if I can find the non-organic version to buy that instead), should be subsidizing the cost of organic certification (or NonGMO Project certification or biodynamic, or Kosher...). It's the free market coming up with a way to meet a demand certification is part of that process.

Lots of organic methods in the field can actually be cheaper than conventional, but once run through that ringer end up being more expensive. Between economies of scale and the regulatory burden it costs about 20% more or so to produce organically on average. But you get that back at the market because demand is so far above supply, you get a nice premium price.

It's an increase in labor costs combined with a decrease in returns in terms of yields (spare me the sometimes we get kinda, sorta of close to parity with conventional --yeah, if you fudge the math by not looking at operations holistically). It's made up for by the organic premium that is happily paid by ignorant consumers (though I imagine distributors probably eat a lot of that --just as they do in the rest of agriculture).

 

[cosmicaug]

The GMO properties being used in the US have no real benefit to the consumer, and are related to obtaining higher yields or reduced labor during farming.

So you think higher yields and reduced labor come about with no reduction in costs?

It's magic, I tell you!

 

[cosmicaug]

It's a mixed bag, all of the suggested labeling laws in the states that I'm aware of(Oregon, California, Washington) would have labeled veggie oil and sugar essentially labeling GMO ghosts, but at the same time would not label cheese made with GMO rennet.

But there's no "public concern" about GMO rennet, you see.

As such, not mentioning the use of GMO rennet does not constitute hiding the fact that genetic engineering was used to produce that enzyme and does not constitute deceiving the consumer.

However, not mentioning that genetic engineering was used to produce one batch of (close to laboratory grade) sucrose whereas genetic engineering was not used in another batch of (close to laboratory grade) sucrose is deception of the worst kind.

 

[portlandatheist]

While people claim they have somehow refuted anything I have said, which they have not, in reality we pretty much agree on the facts.

Which of the following things do you disagree with:

GMO labeling is done around the world without apparent problems.

Bsed on international experience, if GMOs are labeled as such the "Ick factor" associated with GMOs will likely result in food being sold to consumers quickly becoming GMO free. When consumers are given the choice, they apparently usually choose GMO-free products.

The GMO properties being used in the US have no real benefit to the consumer, and are related to obtaining higher yields or reduced labor during farming.

Looking at grocery prices in countries with GMO labeling, there is no clear end user cost to GMO labeling that can be picked out of the noise of other factors. If GMO labeling does have some costs, they are too small to detect.

Americans eat food that would only be used as discount animal feed in most of the world.

Which of these premises do you disagree with?

In my opinion, if someone made more GMO products that benefit the consumer, say more things like golden rice that is more nutritious, people would be more accepting of GMOs. If they made GMO low-calorie grain that helps people lose weight that would likely be pretty popular. GMO gluten free wheat that tastes like regular wheat?

As it is, roundup ready and pesticides are not very palatable to most people.

I support labeling because if GMOs are so unpopular that people would rather not eat them, they should be labeled to allow people to make this choice if they feel that strongly about it

For starters, BT corn has less mycotoxins and GMO Potatoes can reduce your exposure to a possible carcinogen
And the reason we don't have more GMOs that are more about taste and nutrition and so on is that the current regulatory environment insures that only mega corporations have the money to jump through all the hoops to bring a GMO to market. The fact that fantastic yummy nutritious GMOS are sitting on shelves developed by the public sector that they cannot afford to bring to market really pisses me off.

 

[cosmicaug]

However, that will not be the case, as scientists are constantly developing new methods. What would happen is scientists working at the largest companies (and while privileged western liberals have already ensured that only the largest companies can bring products to market, that will only worsen now) will continue to create new GMO crops using transgenesis. They will see how the new crop works. Then they simply go back to the wildtype crops and recreate the transgenic crop through something like CRISPR. Resulting in a new GMO crop that is actually not GMO because it was made through a different method that is amazing, but undoubtedly more risky, and has not gone through the kinds of testing the GMO methods have.

I don't think that it is accurate to characterize CRISPR as "undoubtedly more risky". If anything, the opposite is the case. However, other methods are used which could be characterized in that way and I'll mention examples below. In any case, I am not sure if CRISPR will be considered to not be genetic engineering. It might depend on what it is used for and on who you are talking to (this is why I tried to make the point to yog_sothoth that not even he knows what "public concern" means).

In the example I gave of a "gene edited potato" they probably think so because it is a knockout. Nothing is inserted, just deleted with great precision. Nevertheless, I have been told elsewhere that current USDA organic standards treat such deletions as GMO (even though they'd be allowed if they had been achieved through mutagenesis). This could be revised and eventually allowed, though. However, even if that came to pass, it is hard to know what the "concerned public" (read "activists" --because, let's face it, that is really what we are talking about here) would make of this (and, certainly, yog_sothoth has no more insight about this matter than any of the rest of us do).

As for methods more risky than genetic engineering, for instance, the Clearfield trait is an achievement in plant biotechnology but no genetic engineering was used to produce it. What they did, instead, if memory serves me right, was start knowing what enzyme they wanted to modify and what sorts of mutations they wanted (no doubt they performed a very large number of trials using genetic engineering to learn what mutations are most useful in that enzyme), then they exposed their plant stock to a mutagen, then they used some sort of a screen by sequence and picked out those mutants that expressed the mutations they knew were most useful in resisting the action of the herbicide used in the Clearfield system, then they grew those mutants into plants (those which were actually viable, anyway), and then used those as breeding stock to introgress the mutation into commercial varieties (using marker assisted breeding, I believe) and to get rid of the rest of the garbage introduced by mutagenesis.

It's commendable work but absurd if the only reason it was done that way is to avoid being regulated as a transgenic trait. And absolutely no one can convince me that it is somehow a safer trait merely because no genetic engineering was used that would have directly led to the final plant stock.

Likewise with something like flood resistant rice. This was work resulting in varieties that can survive being flooded longer than normal rice. The genes of interest were found in a distant relative of cultivated rice. All the testing of these genes was done through the use of genetic engineering of rice to incorporate the desired trait, of course. Once the usefulness of the gene was well demonstrated, the actual development of the rice varieties was actually done through (marker assisted) conventional breeding. Again, I really fail to understand how it is useful to put so much effort into introgressing this trait through conventional breeding when it could have been done in a single generation by using genetic engineering. I also fail to see how such a process should be assumed to be less in need of regulatory oversight than a straight insertion by means of using molecular biology tools.