You are characterizing a right to know so I can have a choice with racial profiling. Um… Rediculous to say the least.

The issue is that GMO foods are NOT labled here in the united states.

They are labled in other first world civilized nations and the only reason they are not here is because michael taylor (Monsanto lobbyist and lawyer) has been appointed to the FDA as deputy! Conflict of interest much?!?

Bottom line is that we have a right to know and monsanto and other poiosn manufacturers are concerned that their product may be unsafe so they dont want people to know as they may lose revenue.

Do you care more about knowing whats in your food and having a choice or poison manufacturers profit margins?

Ask yourself why.

I feel I have a right to know if its in there. No need for a warning lable just put it in the ingredients list like everything else. If nothing else GMO’s have bio-engineered poisons in them that explode insect livers (cant be good for us) OR they are sprayed with much more pesticides as the crop has been engineered to resist the poison. (Cant be good for us as its poison that kills living organisms). I dont need proof. Im just not an idiot who is going to wait for his liver to explode to believe that poison may not be good for my health and its my right to know if these poisons or GMO’s are in my food and its my right to choose weather or not I want to put it in my body.

anyone who says different is a tool for monsanto.

To equate a right to know with demonization is a dishonest characterization at best.

Worse yet, the standard must affect *all* levels of the food production chain, down to the packager — who will have to use a separate processing line for non-GMO foods to avoid cross-contamination. All this means significant investment on the producers’ part, both in terms of process separation and in terms of testing. How much of a premium are you prepared to pay for your non-GMO foods? How much is the average consumer prepared to pay?

It doesn’t matter a whit whether you label food as GMO or as non-GMO; both require significant expenditure. Without monetary incentive, whether positive through higher margins for a niche products or negative through government-imposed fines, this won’t happen.

This labeling proposition is an anti-GMO tactic. It is only superficially about consumer benefit.

Labeling sounds like a good idea (and probably could be if done right – e.g. labeling ALL species used in foods, not just ones that have been constructed using one particular narrowly-defined technology).

However there’s no denying that this proposition is created as part of an anti-GMO scare campaign by pressure groups which, though they may not be as big or well-funded as Monsanto, nevertheless prove that Big Agrobusiness holds no monopoly on propaganda and misinformation.

If you really think all labeling is an unqualified and unquestionable good, ask yourself why we don’t insist on mandatory labels for the presence (as opposed to elective labels signifying the absence) of all sorts of other things, e.g. use of factory machinery, use of pesticides, use of allergenic ingredients, use of synthetic additives, etc. Several of those have a much better scientific basis for concern than genetic engineering, while others (e.g. factory machinery) are equally neutral.

And the point about picking & choosing your science is valid. You’re welcome to deviate from scientific consensus in your own personal opinions – most people do, in one way or another. But policy should be set by good science – and despite what opponents of genetic engineering say, there really is no convincing evidence that genetic engineering has systematic ill effects.

It seems to me that you just don’t think this is a big deal. I’d go along with that – I don’t think it’s a *huge* deal – but I don’t think you should use nonsense arguments as a proxy for that (not meaning offense, but none of those arguments really stand up: labels DO influence behavior, often negatively, and it IS worth debating bad regulatory legislation)

This proposition, however, is built on using fear to try and stop genetically modified foods. It calls for a noticeable label on the front of the box, which is meant to connect with uninformed media hysteria over the health effects of GMO. It also has a large list of exemptions from the mandatory labeling.

I mean, I just want to know? How is knowledge demonizing? 

Yours is the same argument used in Dover when it came time to slap labels on Biology textbooks about their content on evolution.

I see it as something very similar to Kosher labeling. The government doesn’t handle kosher certification, because there isn’t a sound scientific reason to do so. A GM crop has made it past FDA, USDA and EPA certification. It is safe, as far as our regulatory agencies has been able to determine.  That not good enough? I have no problem with third party certification.

I actually support people knowing that their food is GM. What I don’t support is forcing producers to use a scientifically unsound label.

So assume maybe 10 years from field testing to actual marketing and that’s ’97, so about 15 years. You’d think SOMETHING would have shown up.

How many decades did it take for margarine or the carbohydrate revolution to be debunked?

GMO techniques with many commercial plants are performed by inducing mutation in a large batch of seeds, the seeds are germinated to see if any interesting and useful traits popped up, and then they’re selected for by… breeding. Source of the mutation doesn’t matter, you’re not eating seeds soaked in mutagens – that gets you random crap, not a stabilized commercial product.

Introducing foreign genetic material from another species via an organized process can hardly be considered more risky than by “natural” hybridizing, when in both cases there’s a “and see what comes out” step.

The process isn’t magical.

I really disagree with even linking/referring to GMO as “GMO may have caused tumors”.  If anything, and there appears to be much evidence against it, it is appropriate to say that the particular variety of corn was likely to cause tumors.  Focus on the product, not the process.

And don’t argue that natural selection is better than artificial selection.  Natural selection is great for life in general- there is absolutely no reason to think that natural selection is great for mankind.  There is no reason to think there is some evolutionary rule that plant-life wants humans to flourish and live a long life.  There’s also no reason to think that natural selection would vet out negative effects in a plant over several human generations.  We need to actively use science to anticipate and measure as opposed to “wait and see”.

This is so simple it freaks me out that someone would fight against it. I deserve to know what I am eating. That it’s being hidden from me – for any reason – is insulting to the intelligence of the public and takes away their right to know. Why could you possibly want to keep that information out of people’s hands? 

Are you afraid they won’t buy your GMO product? Well, that’s the free market for you. If people decide they don’t want to eat that totally-safe™ GMO chicken, then some other entrepreneur will come along to offer a competing product and may the best brand win and be profitable. This is what america promises with it’s free market economy. But here you are saying that it should be run another way… are you a socialist?

I think education will have to come first otherwise you’ll end up with a witch hunt, though it might be too late for that.  Hysteria seems to be catching.  I do think that genetically modified crops will become more important in the future, so demonizing them would probably not be a great plan.

(admittedly, this was in a two minute Google search).  So assume maybe 10 years from field testing to actual marketing and that’s ’97, so about 15 years.  You’d think SOMETHING would have shown up.