GMO labeling

Animal

Well-known Member
I was watching the US farm report and they were reporting that Colorado has passed the GMO labeling, They also stated how many million dollars that Monsanto, Coke and many others has contributed to the fight against labeling. I asked a BTO friend of mine today that if GMO plants were safe then why the big fuss. He told me that with the labeling comes the information on where it comes from, or origin. He said none of these monkeys do not want any of us to know just how much of the end products that we are consuming is imported. Your thoughts, is he correct in this thinking?
 
I believe we have food. Its generally safe, inspected, tested, etc.

After that, we have specialty food, it costs more because it is handled separately, for some special reason. Brand name, organic, non gmo, kosher, glutton free, whatever.

With the certified organic program, and a handful of private certification programs of tent using the 'natural' label I think we already have all the labels we need.

I find the whole gmo laying issue to be a political issue, some sour grapes folk trying to throw their weight around.

Doesn't make sense to me.

What sort of a label, or usefulness, will they get?

Basically all food sold in the USA will get a label saying,

"May contain gmo products"

Well, duh, what good does that do?????

Silly is what it is.

Paul
 
I don't think GMO labeling has anything to do with imports to us although Europe is trying to make a big deal of it for imports to them. People are generally scared of things they don't understand and they worry GMO products are somehow going to cause issues years down the road. I'm sure there are some politics somewhere in the fear and probably some of Monsanto's competitors have something to do with it.
 
Gee,let's see here. We have former Ag Secretary John Block calling for food labeling for a different reason. Who's opinion carries more weight? A former Ag Secretary,or a bunch of old hippy,crackpot activists? Mr Block backs his opinion up with real facts,not a bunch of internet scare tactics. Who's right? Which food should carry a warning label?
John Block says
 
Well, you go to the supermarket and buy fresh blueberries in Feb., I'd say it's a safe bet they are coming from outside the country. (smile) We seem to be getting a lot of fresh friuts and such from Chile in the winter. I would expect they are buying the same from us during their winter???
 
It's amazing how this went from an "environmental" scare to a "food" scare. The whole thing started because the militant environmentalists didn't want genetically engineered crops released in to nature because "we didn't know what it would do to the ecosystem". Some brain dead celebrity chef got ahold of the issue and turned it in to a food scare until it grew to the hysteria that it is today.
It's no different than that sea salt thing that some celebrity misread.
 
I think we export a lot of raw grains and meats, and we import a lot of fish, fruits, and the more exotic of the foods, more labor intensive foods, as well as tropical stuff.

I think we do import a fair amount.

COOL is not getting much attention in the media, but has become a thorny issue as well in the international scene, some folks in USA want it, those in Canada and Mexico don't, and it guess I can understand why not.


I think the gmo issue is about a few overbearing crackpots wanting to throw their weight around, and scare folk into be living whatever they think people should belive.

That is the type of people I have run into, unfortunately. And most of those in the anti gmo camp are also in the no spray at all camp, the organic only camp anyhow, so it appears to be just a smear campaign, nothing the anti-gmo folk would even use because non gmo crops are still generally sprayed and fertilized and hybreds and so on.

People seem to be in the don't care or rabidly organic side of things, just non-gmo is a middle ground that very, very few occupy or identify with.

This does not mean im against the organic ways or farmers markets or the many reasonable folk that sell or buy along the natural/ organic way.

It is a tough issue to define well in a short space of typing.

I dislike Dr Oz so much it is nearly a hatred, but I like what you are doing, and I can make that all work real well in my head, if sometimes it doesn't come out that way when I get on a roll.....

Hope you all can figure out the differences there. ;)

I've considered going partially organic on my farm, but transportation costs stop me. Regular coop is less than a mile from my driveway; organic/ non gmo buyer is 22 miles away and requires contracts, which require more storage on farm, and much better transportation. Then I'm dependent on one market, which may be fickle, as opposed to the generic grain markets I can plan for.

The costs are more than I can get back out at my age.

Paul
 
They're the same people that don't want you to use pesticides either. Lot of people don't understand that a hand full of people are not going to feed the world farming the way our grand fathers did.
 
Or that any of us who did farm without herbicides would ever go back and live that way. I'd retire,flat out.
 
I am not standing on a soapbox preaching organics to anyone, and I sure do not think that I am a crackpot. I would just like to know what the big scare is to the people fighting labeling. It makes me no difference one way or another, I am too old to have anyone do my thinking for me. As far as the past secretary of agriculture, he is just another politician and their wind goes in one ear and out the other...
 
I have never found your posts offensive to me in any way, and I am a true believer in do your own thing. Every ones situation is different and I am a big believer in do your own thing.
 
I'm not calling YOU a crackpot,but as far as labeling,what's the point? It safe and legal. What else should we label? Do steers that are implanted have to be segregated from heifers and non implanted steers and that meat labeled separately? Does food from crops sprayed with atrazine need to be labeled as being so? Where does it end? There are six crops that can be GMO. All this brainless political crap has people believing that there is a choice of GMO or non GMO no matter what the food that they are buying and eating and it just flat out ain't so. Just like this "factory farm" BS. There are people who actually believe there are three story brick buildings where animals are raised in cages and slaughtered on site. I've just had all I can take of these pointless lies.
 
ROFLMAO I saw that episode,hilarious! If I remember right they ended up staying on that farm until the cult leader died didn't they?
 
The pet food issues from the pet food imported from China a few years ago was kinda interesting. Melamine was in the food because it made the stuff test higher in protein. Also killed a few pets, but hey the protein tested high right?

Wonder if that shows up in human food, something fed to fish and then imported here to the USA?

Hum.

Few decades ago there was a feed mill a ways away from me. All of a sudden they went out of business, and cows were dying. Got traced back to the cow feed. Took a long time to sort out. Eventually figured out, bags labeled for antifreeze and bags labeled for cow feed got interchanged somehow and the contents got mixed between and mistakes were made.....

Yikes.



The gmo labeling deal is problematic for me.

We have these huge fields of grains through the Midwest of the USA.

We have big storage facilities, and mile long trains and barges to move these big piles of grain around.

It all gets stored and then shipped to where it gets processed into food, a few parts of a corn kernel or soybean are used, not the whole kernel but the protein or the sugar or the starch of the grain is used and combined with other parts into food.

And people complain the food costs too much.

But now a few want us to label if food contains gmo or not.

How do we do that???

Do we now need to build a whole new set of storage facilities, and new train cars, duplicate what we have, so there can be 2 different distributions of grains?

How foolishly expensive for everybody!

Then what about sugar. For example? Sugar is processed out of beets, cane, or corn, it isn't just 'natural' grains of sugar appear. We cook it out of any of those crops. The gmo used in corn is not attached to or around the sugars in corn - so if you use corn sugar, you are not really around any of the gmo portions of the crop. So. Does a beverage with corn sugar in it actually contain a gmo or not? Really and actually?

Same for the sugar beet - the gmo is not in the sugar from the beet.

Hum.



After the county commissioner meeting this morning, I went to the food coop in that town. Had the southwest turkey sandwich. It is good, piled high with veggies. Most of the store is devoted to organic or natural labeled foods, quite a bit of vegan if you look for it tho they have a large meat section and no one beats you with canvas belts if you walk in wearing leather boots or belts.... ;) Always enjoy browsing the shelves while I wait for my sandwich to be made, and see what's new. Bought a few things from time to time. Neat grocery store. Prices are high, but that is the nature of those products. I stop there the few times I'm doing business at the court house.

Paul
 
Talk about food labeling, how about getting the amount of sugar that is put into our food. Anyone else noticed it is not on the label. It is scary to know the amount put in just to make it taste better. And everyone is worried how to stop child diabitets (sp). Watched a show called "Fed Up"the other day about this, and the sugar industries lobbied congress not to have the info on the label because it would hurt their business over money. Big money and pay offs.
 
In my mind it's kind of a grey area. Where is the line drawn on what's been genetically modified? Anytime you select two parent organisms that produced a desired offspring such as hybrid plants, or select a specific bull for a certain cow, you've technically genetically modified that organism. It's no longer natural selection. Of course that will be allowed. I'm guessing it's more of a gene splicing deal that they're worried about.

It's just like Angus Beef. More than 51% black. That doesn't necessarily make it Angus, or better beef. It's just a marketing ploy. It won't guarantee safer or better food. It's just politics, and the agenda of the masses whom are usually pushing issues dealing with their feelings on a matter rather than the science.

Corporations fight it because it will inevitably cost them money dealing with the additional labeling requirements. There might be some loss of sales, but probably not much. It's kind of like the California lead warning on all the stuff you buy that might contain lead. Doesn't really stop me from buying lead wheel weights, or fishing weights. Just my feelings on it.

David
 
To me, it's all in the wording and it's implications. GMO's have been proven safe over and over, regardless of the "science" that has been done on them. (The fellow that started all the hoopla over GMO's has recanted and tells his followers now that they are 100% safe.) However, when you see "non-GMO" the implication is that GMO's are bad. It's the same thing if they said "non-Angus" beef. It implies that Angus beef is bad. Simple as that. The uninformed go nuts and think the world will come to an end because of such statements. THAT has been proven. Mike
 
as you all know I'm an organic farmer so here's my take on the GMO label. As a consumer I wish to know if my food is GMO or not. Just like I want to know if it's fresh, or loaded with additives. The GMO label also is not going to cost the producers anything. Every trip to the grocery store you see new promotional packaging on items. if it cost so much to add a label you wouldn't see the words natural, fresh, juicy, goodness or any other trendy words to inform a consumer on our packaging. Now for the gmo is the same thing as hybrid discussion. First off the difference between a hybrid watermelon or your sweet corn and round up ready corn is the fact mother nature helped produce one and the roundup ready product was produced using a gene gun with bacteria from the soil. so sorry but you're not going to tell me that the GMO corn producing it's own fungicide and the organic open pollinated corn saved from a native american variety is the same thing and is the same to my digestive system or body in general. If the residents of my state wish and vote to pass a GMO label law it's no different than a sugary candies could cause cavities label law and should be honored. Now does that mean I'm going to run away from products containing the GMO label, sorry but I can't say no to a bag of gummy worms or chilly cheese fritos and I'm pretty sure both have GMO products.
 
GMO vs non GMO has to be a pain the neck and an expense for companies buying grain if they are required to keep them separate and it does cost money to change anything around labeling for somebody. If as you say you will eat the product regardless then why go through the trouble. If the science is continuing to say GMO is not a health issue then labeling GMO is just one more regulation to meet on top of the hundreds of others already on the books. If the science says they are different then I get the need to label. I'm not up on the science as the issue doesn't matter to me so I can say which way is correct. It does bother me to pay more for something so some politician somewhere can brag about taking action so they feel good about doing something.
 
yes I'll eat some items that are GMO. most of the items on my table are certified organic and are thus not GMO. if there was a such thing as organic chips or snacks in small town north Dakota I would purchase those also organic but I'm limited to organic fruits, veggies, whole grains and the organic lamb I produce on my farm. it comes down to the right of the consumer in the state to have a personal right to know what's in there food. If the state residents want a GMO label and you want to sell in that state then you have to abide by there laws. Just like if your going to sell your grain to europe or asia you better be GMO free because neither will take in any GMO grain. Mexico to the south I believe also restricts some GMO products such as seed.
 
well I think people want the choice and I can't really blame them considering how corporations have behaved with regards of food safety recently.

By not labeling GMO's you take that choice away from them. Not only that but those people are willing to pay a premium for that stuff and if a farmer can make a little extra dough catering to them then so be it. Personally I'm offended by a corporation owning a plant through a patent, You know one day they could require a license for people to eat it. There is precedent for this already but not with food yet.
 
Consumers have the right to know what is in their food. The current food labeling laws are already not transparent enough so adding GMO as a ingredient is certainly a step in the right direction.
 
People all ready have a choice if they want gmo free it's called organic. It's all ready labeled.
What's next? Do we need to have an open pollinated or hybrid sticker on a package. Do we need to go down to what variety of tomato is in that sauce?
It's ridiculous. GMO products have been around for almost 30 years. There is no real scientific evidence that they cause problems. The AMA says there hasn't been one issue healthwise from them.
 
(quoted from post at 00:55:33 11/07/14) Do we need to have an open pollinated or hybrid sticker on a package. Do we need to go down to what variety of tomato is in that sauce?

Why not?
 
(quoted from post at 06:39:51 11/09/14) if something like that is that important, folks can buy their own tomatoes and make their own sauce.

sorry it sounded like you were against the idea of labeling as much information as possible
 
I've got a Masters degree (and working on Phd) in Crop Science. While working on these degrees, I'm exposed to just about every possible piece of promotional propaganda, both pro and con, from both sides of this issue. A number of key points stick out like a sore thumb if you take the time to notice.

1. NO...NONE...ZERO....fact based evidence of a GMO crop EVER causing ANY human health issues. NONE. The "anti's" would be all over that if there were the first case. All they use is rumors, innuendo, and straight out lies.

2. 4 states have placed on their ballots, GMO labeling laws for public vote. In those 4, a little over $150,000,000 has been WASTED spreading propaganda with ALL 4 CASES being voted down by the public. That 150 mil could have just as easily been spent feeding the hungry, etc.

3. While "GMO" isn't the same technology as selective plant breeding, it IS essentially the same end result. (ie, breeding desired traits into a plant, only on a far more accurate and controlled manner) GMO's have no more risk involved than with conventional "hybrid" crops.

4. The same "activist's" who clamor and complain about GMO's also clamor and complain about "excessive pesticide use". GMO's GREATLY REDUCE pesticide use....proven FACT. So they get what they ask for and they aren't happy.

5. There is roughly a 7 to 1 ratio of contamination resulting in human health issues from "organic farms" as opposed to non organic, due primarily to the heavy use of (often untreated) manure.

6. Often cited as "proof" by anti GMO activist's is the denial of certain "non approved GMO grains" by China in recent months. Strangely, after those shipments were denied, and the prices dropped, China began accepting the SAME GMO technology. They had contracted delivery at high prices when commodity prices were much higher. When prices dropped, they were looking for any "political excuse" to terminate those contracts. Once that end was achieved, game on....Business as usual. Except anti GMO activist's then used the situation, along with their spin, as "evidence" GMO's were being rejected world wide.

Bottom line is, NO ONE'S science can show a legitimate risk involved with GMO technology. Neither pro OR con can muster ONE SINGLE VERIFIABLE PROOF there is a risk.

And meanwhile, we have the largest corn crop on record, with grain stocks ample for world wide consumption. No risk, plenty reward. Seems like a no brainer......
 
I know I'm not about to change anyone's mind on this, pro or con. Pass the popcorn. I'm pretty much gonna sit back and watch how it all unfolds.

That said, here's my opinion only. YMMV.

If some bureau-rat says a legally defined pickup truck will get you and a half ton of feed from the mill to your chicken coop, what difference does it make if it's powered by a straight 6 Ford, V6 Chevy, Hemi Dodge, 3206 Cat, 1200cc Yamaha, or 1.1L Yugo? Why fret over the contents under the hood? What if the drive trains were pieced from salvage? Should that be labeled? The law (drafted by the truck makers) says it's all "substantially equivalent" and it doesn't matter. Would you feel reassured or queasy if the truck makers got a special exemption from Congress making them immune to prosecution should [i:360b7b1164]anything[/i:360b7b1164] go wrong in the future (as Monsanto et al have)? Or should the user (consumer) have the right to make an informed and educated choice based on the "facts" that are important to them, regardless of the "facts" that are important to someone else (like a truck makers profit margins and calls for replacement parts)? Why should choosing clearly labeled food, something we need every day of our lives, be any different than choosing a clearly labeled truck that we may need to rely on every day?

The fact that the anti-labeling side outspent the pro-label side by roughly an order of magnitude, yet overall among the 4 states that voted no, that the votes are often marginally close to passage is telling. So why did the ballot initiatives fail in 4 states? The "food will cost a lot more" fear mongering by the industry; essentially just a smoke screen, as the same global corporations funding the anti-labeling laws are required to label for GMO's in much of Europe, where yes,in some places they are allowed. These corporations already have the mechanisms in place for a separate supply chain and production, so what's the big deal? Fear that the public will vote with their dollars rather than with the hard science ("it makes no difference what's under the hood") that the ag chemical giants conveniently provide. Some consumers don't and won't care either way. Some care deeply, and are already shopping accordingly for "Certified Organic". Others might care if the contents were spelled out on a label and if the burden of proof for "clean" food borne by Organic producers, was equally required for the burden of proof and paper trail for GM foods borne by those producing and using them. Oh, and versions of labeling laws have passed in Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont, with referendums pending in about 20 other states.

That being said, I've done a LOT of study on both sides of the issue, and the more peer reviewed data I see, the more questions I have, and the more it looks like a repeat of the tobacco industry denial of any harm by tobacco products. Matter of fact, for decades there was "hard science" (funded by the tobacco companies, of course), proving several benefits to smoking. Anyone remember that? And remember, not everyone that smokes dies of cancer. Some die of emphysema, or aneurysms, or heart attacks. Some live long lives. This is part of what made the "hard science" with tobacco so difficult, as there wasn't a single effect on all people at a given dose over a given period of time. It took decades (closer to 3 centuries) for the effects to be clearly proven in a substantial number of people who smoked, and it's only recently that the full effects of second hand smoke are becoming known, in part because we now have far better testing procedures, we know a lot more about what to look for (though maybe not all, even yet), and are still gaining understanding of what a complicated set of related organisms the biome of the human body is.

Also remember according to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (as amended), that essentially the only testing required of ANY new product for human use beyond inherent toxicity (LD50), is for cancer. No deaths below the threshold dose? No proven cancer? It's practically an automatic approval, especially if you have former (Monsanto) employees working in the FDA to make sure that any qualms are quashed.

Because Monsanto's testing on rats for 60 days did not reveal any increased risk of cancer (within that time frame), the assumption is automatically made that there is no other possible health hazard or risk worthy of consideration. The Seralini study on the same strain of rats as the Monsanto study (flawed as it may be), tends to indicate that on a rat equivalent 20-30 year human time frame, there may be an increase of cancer and other organ problems. More INDEPENDENT studies need to be done. Tough to do when the industry has trillions of dollars at stake, and hundred of billions to throw around to make sure their POV is well heard (and others are not).

What isn't well enough known among most people, is the correlation of the advent of GMO crops in the food supply, and the astounding rise in autism (about 1:1000 in 1980, now about 1:63), and in digestive problems, in auto-immune problems, in food sensitivities and allergies. While it's axiomatic that "correlation does not equal causation", the science keeps coming back to what appears to be a common thread to some of those issues: the human gut and the bacteria therein.

2old2care, as a crop scientist, you should well know that the reason the BT bacteria works, is it perforates the gut lining of the corn root worm (and cotton boll weevil, and other pests), killing them. Numerous studies are now indicating that "leaky gut syndrome" is largely responsible for the nearly exponential growth of autoimmune disorders in humans.

There was also a recent study which found elevated levels of BT toxin in humans even after GMO BT crops are removed from the diet. Cause unknown. A theory has been floated that with the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus "gene activator" used to insert desired gene segments into crops, that the BT trait is getting inserted into human gut bacteria and we become walking BT factories. Cleaning out the gut bacteria for a fresh start is nearly impossible, because GM seed producers use an antibiotic resistant strain of bacteria as a "marker" to prove gene insertion, which also appears to get passed along to the gut bacteria. These hypothesis' might seem almost logical on the surface if food was eaten raw, but in most cases it's processed or cooked, and at least in theory, the genes (a mix of plant, viral and bacterial) are "dead". In a similar vein, Mad Cow should not have effected people because beef is (supposedly) cooked before consumption (as the sheep scraps were supposedly cooked before being dried, ground and fed to cows). I'm not going to claim the elevated BT/GMO connection as "fact", because I still believe there are a lot of things we don't know, and there is far more that needs to be tested and understood, though there are good and sound reasons for concern.

Again, I personally can't prove that GMO's are immediately hazardous to human health (as in having an LD50 – the smoking gun no one will ever find), and I believe the long term evidence is still a ways out.

However, I DO know that GMO technology is not a long term answer to growing crops, and suspect that eventually that methodology will prove to be too toxic to use because of the increasing need for higher doses and higher toxicity of chemicals to control the rapidly evolving weeds and bugs to keep the "chemically kill everything but the crop" system going. ("Scotty, I need more BT and Glyphosate." "But Cap'in, the bugs an' weeds are adaptin' an' takin' all we can give!") The millions of tons of chemicals used in these production systems don't just magically become unicorn pharted rainbows. Roundup persistence is acknowledged, long past it's supposed breakdown window. Roundup is showing up in the umbilical blood of infants. What's with that? What actually happens in some soils in some seasons in some weather, doesn't match what happens in a lab? Go figure... 2-4D is even more persistent and environmentally toxic to more than just weeds. Will wait times have to be 3 or 5 or 7 years for sensitive crops? Or will all crops have to be engineered to withstand 2-4D? What happens when that system fails in 20 years? And what will that do to the rest of fauna, flora, and microbial life in the global ecosystem when a few billion tons are spread around the planet? What will be the long term cost in the effort to keep us fed cheap for another couple years?

The few people who are looking at really long term (1,000 year) solutions are derided as Quixotic idiots. Much as it seems Luddistic, despite over 100,000 years of evolutionary pressure, there isn't a weed ever bred that is immune to a hoe, and that alone could put tens of thousands back to productive work. (As if THAT would ever happen – a lot of people would die before they'd work dirt and tend critters, and that, I'm afraid, WILL happen).

If there is no substantial difference in GMO foods, let the people decide. If it costs more, it should, as Americans have about the cheapest food as a percentage of gross income of any nation in the world. If there is something to hide, as it increasingly looks like there is, the Ag giants are following the exact program the tobacco industry did to keep their skeletons in the closet for as long as possible. The truth will eventually out, one way or another.

Everyone that eats has a horse in this race, and the winner isn't going to be the fastest, but the one with the most endurance. It's looking like the new comer, the one with every advantage technology can give him, is already failing. Could be another couple shots will keep him going another few furlongs, but beyond that? We'll see.
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top