80% of Americans...

JeffDG

JeffDG

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
17,509
Location
Oak Ridge, TN
Display Name
Display name:
JeffDG
Think that food containing DNA should be labeled:
http://io9.com/80-of-americans-supp...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

My favourite proposed label:
WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children.
Click to expand...

I'm also taking this opportunity to demand labeling for all foods containing Hydrogen Hydroxide.
 
JeffDG said:
Think that food containing DNA should be labeled:
http://io9.com/80-of-americans-supp...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Click to expand...

Didja actually read all the way to the bottom of the story you linked to? Or did you just stop at the headline?

Whether you think the percentage of Americans who fail to recognize the DNA content of food is closer to 15% or 80%, the truth is a lot more subtle than "Ha! 4 in 5 Americans are scientifically illiterate!" ... [T]he response to the survey's findings reminds us to resist drawing facile conclusions from extraordinary results.
Click to expand...
 
Jim_R said:
Didja actually read all the way to the bottom of the story you linked to? Or did you just stop at the headline?
Click to expand...

Spin it any way you want, but 80% of people still answered that they want all food containing DNA labelled.

That said, I defy you to find food that is not genetically modified in any way. Ever since human beings started planting crops and domesticating animals, we have genetically modified them. Even wild game is selected based on human pressures.

For example, every single apple you've probably eaten is the result of cloning.
 
I'm all for it. You ever tried to figure out what was in an unlabeled can? About the only thing you can really know for sure is if it's a ham.
 
JeffDG said:
Spin it any way you want, but 80% of people still answered that they want all food containing DNA labelled.
Click to expand...

I suspect what they're worried about are GMO's, or genetically modified organisms. Lots of anti-science in the rhetoric against them as well.

JeffDG said:
That said, I defy you to find food that is not genetically modified in any way. Ever since human beings started planting crops and domesticating animals, we have genetically modified them. Even wild game is selected based on human pressures.

For example, every single apple you've probably eaten is the result of cloning.
Click to expand...

Also true. Practically every plant or animal in which you come in frequent contact has been genetically manipulated by humans to the point of unrecognizability, far mores than the most heavily manipulated GMO.

Just another aspect of the anti-scientific sentiments that pervade our culture. Just heard about a measles outbreak somewhere. Yeesh.
 
steingar said:
I suspect what they're worried about are GMO's, or genetically modified organisms. Lots of anti-science in the rhetoric against them as well.



Also true. Practically every plant or animal in which you come in frequent contact has been genetically manipulated by humans to the point of unrecognizability, far mores than the most heavily manipulated GMO.
Click to expand...

The current "gene splicing" stuff that happens is just the latest tool humans have used for genetic manipulation. The big difference is, it's far more precise than prior tools (artificial selection and such).

steingar said:
Just another aspect of the anti-scientific sentiments that pervade our culture. Just heard about a measles outbreak somewhere. Yeesh.
Click to expand...
Don't get me started on the anti-vax maroons.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I'm all for it. You ever tried to figure out what was in an unlabeled can? About the only thing you can really know for sure is if it's a ham.
Click to expand...

My Grandmother used to buy unlabeled cans occasionally from the local grocery store. Pretty sure she once fed herself cat food for a few weeks:)

Brian
 
And humans have been manipulated by bacteria and viruses.
 
JeffDG said:
The current "gene splicing" stuff that happens is just the latest tool humans have used for genetic manipulation. The big difference is, it's far more precise than prior tools (artificial selection and such).
Click to expand...

Utterly correct. More precise, and makes our organisms even more useful to us.

JeffDG said:
Don't get me started on the anti-vax maroons.
Click to expand...

I like Penn and Teller's take on it, despite the profanity.
 
As long as they label any foods containing lipid bylayers, I'd feel safer.
 
JeffDG said:
Think that food containing DNA should be labeled:
http://io9.com/80-of-americans-supp...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

My favourite proposed label:


I'm also taking this opportunity to demand labeling for all foods containing Hydrogen Hydroxide.
Click to expand...

What these deals are is people taking advantage of the stupid to drive agendas. This is to make it look like people wanting labeling for GMOs, a legitimate if questionable concern, are idiots by creating an impression that this is the same thing.

What makes me wonder is why is there so much resistance in the industry to resist GMO labeling? Seriously, it will not end up with a positive outcome on their part, at least not economic. In the end people will assume if not labeled as Non GMO voluntarily by the originator of the product, it is a GMO containing product. The also lose a lot of public confidence with this. It creates the appearance of having something to hide...like alien takeovers and getting the food supplies ready for them.
 
Jim_R said:
Didja actually read all the way to the bottom of the story you linked to? Or did you just stop at the headline?
Click to expand...

Exactly! See, not until the very end do they disclose the intent, to link the issuing of labeling to stupid people to trivialize it. Why?:dunno: Much less effort to just label, same economic result.:dunno: Unless the "certifying" of non GMO and organic is a profit center of Cargill and Monsanto, then it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
What these deals are is people taking advantage of the stupid to drive agendas. This is to make it look like people wanting labeling for GMOs, a legitimate if questionable concern, are idiots by creating an impression that this is the same thing.

What makes me wonder is why is there so much resistance in the industry to resist GMO labeling? Seriously, it will not end up with a positive outcome on their part, at least not economic. In the end people will assume if not labeled as Non GMO voluntarily by the originator of the product, it is a GMO containing product. The also lose a lot of public confidence with this. It creates the appearance of having something to hide...like alien takeovers and getting the food supplies ready for them.
Click to expand...

If there is a market for non-GMO then any company can label their compliant product as such and capture that market. Industry is opposed to mandatory labeling for many valid reasons.
 
Tell us some valid reasons, please. I assume it will end up like peanut warnings where everything except intentionally peanut free stuff carries the warning, but hey if it is in there it should be labeled.
 
James_Dean said:
If there is a market for non-GMO then any company can label their compliant product as such and capture that market. Industry is opposed to mandatory labeling for many valid reasons.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I mean having no economic effect. It will cost next to nothing to just comply with the labeling, it is super simple with modern tech. Eventually everything not Non GMO labeled will be assumed GMO.

Seriously, I would love to hear the valid reasons, because in the light of the bad will and suspicion being generated in the consumer market, it would take something pretty fundamentally serious in a First Amendment sense to make it a valid reason to resist the will of the market to have simple information.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Tell us some valid reasons, please. I assume it will end up like peanut warnings where everything except intentionally peanut free stuff carries the warning, but hey if it is in there it should be labeled.
Click to expand...

Yeah..... People die from the peanut thing. Literally trillions of meals containing GMOs with zero documented negative effects.
 
James_Dean said:
Yeah..... People die from the peanut thing. Literally trillions of meals containing GMOs with zero documented negative effects.
Click to expand...

This has no bearing on labeling. Labeling is about providing the consumers the information they demand. Remember, the market is supposed to serve the consumer. What is a valid reason for not providing this information?

The big question it raises in my mind is, "What does the industry hope to accomplish by resisting?":dunno: Under any normal pretext it just makes no sense. Worse, it creates the appearance of nefarious intent. It just doesn't make sense. It is either stupid hubris, or there is nefarious intent.

Please give me some facts to help rationalize this course of action.
 
The fact that industry believes it has the right to resist consumer requests for information is saddening.
 
James_Dean said:
Industry is opposed to mandatory labeling for many valid reasons.
Click to expand...

ClimbnSink said:
Tell us some valid reasons, please.
Click to expand...

  • Ah. So it is now up to those affected by a law to find valid reasons why it should not be enacted, rather than it being up to the those proposing the law to find valid reasons why it should be enacted. Fundamental inversion of the onus, making it easier to enact more laws. (Pretty odd coming from someone I thought understood the origin of the erosion of freedoms by the collective.)
  • "Organic" farmers are funding GMO labeling law efforts to gain a competitive advantage; once the "neutral" label is applied they will hit on the emotion-laden "Frankenfood" to drive consumers to their more costly brands.
  • GMO foods in the more modern sense have been around for years and been consumed by millions and no one has yet to claim any specific health hazard that consumption may have caused.
 
Yes, you should have a valid reason to deny the consumer information.
 
I need er said there should be a law. I posted asking fir examples after James said there were many valid reasons. Silence so far. Nevermind it being law why shouldn't they label? Smart companies would have voluntarily labeled and set up their own labeling standards org with their own standards of what GMO is so they could weasel out of labeling more things. On its face the food industry looks super dumb or super evil. So those many valid reasons are?
Jim Logajan said:
  • Ah. So it is now up to those affected by a law to find valid reasons why it should not be enacted, rather than it being up to the those proposing the law to find valid reasons why it should be enacted. Fundamental inversion of the onus, making it easier to enact more laws. (Pretty odd coming from someone I thought understood the origin of the erosion of freedoms by the collective.)
  • "Organic" farmers are funding GMO labeling law efforts to gain a competitive advantage; once the "neutral" label is applied they will hit on the emotion-laden "Frankenfood" to drive consumers to their more costly brands.
  • GMO foods in the more modern sense have been around for years and been consumed by millions and no one has yet to claim any specific health hazard that consumption may have caused.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
The fact that industry believes it has the right to resist consumer requests for information is saddening.
Click to expand...

YGBFSM!


You of all people are demanding something with zero scientific basis that has been exhaustively and empirically proven to be safe to be foisted upon the public because a minority of anti-science zealots think it *might* be a good idea.


Making basic food staples more expensive?


I respect you Henning, but this is a hypocritical position for you to take.
 
ClimbnSink said:
And the valid reasons are?
Click to expand...

A guess, from someone who has visibility of my employer's efforts to validate its "green" content:

Certifying that all of the 20 ingredients that go into your can of Campbell's soup are non-GMO is a nightmare from a documentation and cost perspective. The plants come from multiple farmers, who used multiple sources for their seeds. The meat comes from multiple farms with a variety of herds and management procedures. Try and keep all of that straight, all the way into the can of soup, even if everyone in the supply chain is being honest..

People (mostly nut-cases) are going to line up and say "prove it" when you label stuff as non-GMO, and the first time a vendor made a mistake, you're gonna get crucified. Think of the additional expense we in aviation suffer for parts traceability. Then apply that to the foodchain...

This is a no-win for the manufacturers.
 
kyleb said:
A guess, from someone who has visibility of my employer's efforts to validate its "green" content:

Certifying that all of the 20 ingredients that go into your can of Campbell's soup are non-GMO is a nightmare from a documentation and cost perspective. The plants come from multiple farmers, who used multiple sources for their seeds. The meat comes from multiple farms with a variety of herds and management procedures. Try and keep all of that straight, all the way into the can of soup, even if everyone in the supply chain is being honest..

People (mostly nut-cases) are going to line up and say "prove it" when you label stuff as non-GMO, and the first time a vendor made a mistake, you're gonna get crucified. Think of the additional expense we in aviation suffer for parts traceability. Then apply that to the foodchain.

This is a no-win for the manufacturers.
Click to expand...

That and a few more I'll give you tomorrow from my office.
 
kyleb said:
A guess, from someone who has visibility of my employer's efforts to validate its "green" content:

Certifying that all of the 20 ingredients that go into your can of Campbell's soup are non-GMO is a nightmare from a documentation and cost perspective. The plants come from multiple farmers, who used multiple sources for their seeds. The meat comes from multiple farms with a variety of herds and management procedures. Try and keep all of that straight, all the way into the can of soup, even if everyone in the supply chain is being honest..

People (mostly nut-cases) are going to line up and say "prove it" when you label stuff as non-GMO, and the first time a vendor made a mistake, you're gonna get crucified. Think of the additional expense we in aviation suffer for parts traceability. Then apply that to the foodchain...

This is a no-win for the manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Hilarious they are just afraid of the label. No way in heck any food in a can or box isn't GMO.
 
James_Dean said:
YGBFSM!


You of all people are demanding something with zero scientific basis that has been exhaustively and empirically proven to be safe to be foisted upon the public because a minority of anti-science zealots think it *might* be a good idea.


Making basic food staples more expensive?


I respect you Henning, but this is a hypocritical position for you to take.
Click to expand...

Please, labeling GMO or Non GMO, would not add one iota to the price of the food. Label screens get redone all the time anyway, and most to the labeling anymore doesn't even use a screen, it's an inkjet process. Labels are under continuous redesign anyway.

The science behind the issue is another factor completely, and in that the industry has utterly failed at educating the consumer, treating them like idiots who don't deserve to know. Well, if you treat people like they are stupid idiots, then you will get stupid idiots. All of this is a problem caused by the corporate attitude of entitlement and superiority over the idiot consumer. We have the society our leadership has created, and we have the leadership we deserve.

What is a legitimate reason to **** off the consumer?:dunno:
 
Henning said:
Yes, you should have a valid reason to deny the consumer information.
Click to expand...

You see two cans of corn on the store shelf. One says the corn in it is genetically modified. Based only on that, can you discern which is objectively safer or more nutritious? Did the label provide you with anything objectively useful?
 
Jim Logajan said:
You see two cans of corn on the store shelf. One says the corn in it is genetically modified. Based only on that, can you discern which is objectively safer or more nutritious? Did the label provide you with anything objectively useful?
Click to expand...

Sure. The consumer decided they do or don't want to risk feeding their family or themselves a product they are uninformed about that may have unknown effects coming from an industry that has no great history of caring about health, only profit. Industry is at fault for this, they bought it with the karma they have created over the last couple of centuries. This is in evidence all the way back to The Jungle's expose on meat packing.

The food industry has no right whatsoever to expect any trust from the consumer. They have done nothing to earn that trust especially when you look at the track record of contaminated food and vegetables.
 
Lets ask it from the other perspective. Do you believe that industry should be able to feed us whatever they desire?
 
Jim Logajan said:
You see two cans of corn on the store shelf. One says the corn in it is genetically modified. Based only on that, can you discern which is objectively safer or more nutritious? Did the label provide you with anything objectively useful?
Click to expand...

If it is in a can it is GMO. None of these players complaing have anything nonGMO.
 
Wow. Pretty intense feelings here. Why not just agree that if it contains GMO, say it and if it's 100%, documented, organic, them say that. Oh yeah, also put a warning on the organic that says fertilized with pure horse/cow/donkey/whatever s**t that can kill you just as easily as anything else can. And put all of it in unsterilized mason jars, adding a warning for the risks that poses. And ad freaking nauseam for the whole production to consumption chain.

I respect that everybody can be emotional about anything, but it's getting to the point where we've forgotten that nothing is pure, and it never has been. The human species has existed for at least five thousand years without mandatory labeling. Why start now? Oh, yeah--it's a first world thing.

We should also label our planes as cancer causing, death inducing, impediments to hearing conservation while we're at it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Funny how we complain about the FAA paper shuffle that turns a 10 cent bolt in to a 100 buck part yet we want similar requirements applied to a can of beans and don't think that there will be an impact.
 
Henning said:
The consumer decided they do or don't want to risk feeding their family or themselves a product they are uninformed about that may have unknown effects coming from an industry that has no great history of caring about health, only profit.
Click to expand...

Turns out the can that wasn't labeled GM contained Clostridium botulinum. The consumer thought they were informed when they chose it.

Industry is at fault for this, they bought it with the karma they have created over the last couple of centuries. This is in evidence all the way back to The Jungle's expose on meat packing.

The food industry has no right whatsoever to expect any trust from the consumer. They have done nothing to earn that trust especially when you look at the track record of contaminated food and vegetables.
Click to expand...

Oh my. Most current cases of food contamination appear to occur because of poor practices or inadequate training at the food service (e.g. restaurant) level, not at the wholesale level. Companies stupid enough to cut corners at the wholesale level get clobbered if they screw up, and they know it. Eventually the better run firms have survived there.

By the way, the FDA already requires food producers demonstrate food from genetically modified organisms are safe. They apply the same criteria to all foods.

One last note: Monsanto, who is often invoked as the evil corporation pushing GMOs, already labels all its seeds as to which are GMO and what traits are affected by the modifications. They generally don't sell directly to the consumer and would only be indirectly affected by GMO labeling laws; nothing of their business practices are affected as far as I can tell. Farmers and grocers are the ones who are affected the most and the consumer yields the least useful information possible.
 
Last edited:
No, a lot of contamination occurs at the processor level, most often rinsing vegetables with water from ecoli or salmonella contaminated stock tanks.

Asking people to trust an industry that is known hazardous and operates under a mandate of only "Maximize profits, protect capital". We have not built a society based on trust, so we cannot expect trust to exist. Labeling is cheap.
 
Labeling is cheap but documenting and cataloging every ingredient from a variety of vendors is not. Imagine the field day a lawyer could have if a company didn't have proof of origin and composition for every ingredient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top