6 ms·

This is a great argument to whip people into a frenzy, but it's a little bit of a straw man. The US has labeling laws as well - it's not that the government doe

This is a great argument to whip people into a frenzy, but it's a little bit of a straw man. The US has labeling laws as well - it's not that the government doesn't care, it's that they're nearly impossible to enforce at scale. Without genetic analysis of literally every shipment, how is a regulatory authority to know what's what if the paperwork is otherwise "in order?"

DasIch 10y ago
If you can't increase the number of tests, increase the punishment and let it affect the entire chain from supermarket to producer. You want being found guilty of a violation to be a nightmare scenario that will end people's careers and entire companies.
zzen 10y ago
Look, as somebody that's lived many years in Europe and in US, the situation is incomparable. I don't know why - either you have crappy laws, or you have crappy enforcement. If you read the article, it claims both. The FDA has super-low requirements to do anything - and manages to do even less than required to. The european market is significantly bigger than US one (380m people) but manages to have much better labeling standards.
- culturestate 10y ago
  The reality, as in so many other areas with regard to the US, is crappy enforcement. If inspection authority was enforced at the state level (while still being funded by the federal government) I suspect you'd see much greater results.
kbart 10y ago
EU does enforce food safety and labeling laws quite well. That might be because every EU country has its own FDA equivalent that provisions much smaller market. Sure, incidents happen, but fake food is nowhere such widespread in EU than USA.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal
  - kbart 10y ago
    As I said - incidents happen. And if the last scandal you have found is dated back to 2013, that only confirms my point.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      Sorry, I thought you were claiming that fake food was not widespread. ("because every EU country has its own FDA equivalent that provisions much smaller market") > if the last scandal you have found is dated back to 2013, that only confirms my point. Words fail me at your reasoning. How closely do you think I follow foreign food purity issues?
      - chappi42 10y ago
        Well if you don't follow foreign food purity issues (closely) then, please, try to comment a little bit more humble. Maybe asking instead of definitive statements?
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    The point is, which many commenters seem to be missing, is UK Trading Standards and equivalent EU bodies regularly test to see that foods meet claimed ingredients and are not adulterated. Prosecutions, sanctions and bans are frequent. The periodic outrages are relatively rare and become front page news. If you claim on the label that your product is 52% tuna it can be (and frequently is) randomly tested and if it's not tuna, or 52% you can be open to prosecution. By the sounds of the US system you're probably eating horse regularly, but no one ever tests to establish this. In the case of the UK, austerity has resulted in Trading Standards being stretched to breaking point or beyond as funding has sunk way below actual need. Presumably the Tories will soon point to this as proof that a state owned system cannot work so let's privatise it. Brexit leaves me deeply concerned the UK will resemble the US more.
Dolores12 10y ago
In USA you need not label GMO food as GMO. [1] Because "The FDA has determined that the fish is as safe and nutritious as nongenetically modified fish, and will therefore not require the company or retailers to label the fish as genetically engineered." [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19/fda-approves-genetically-modified-fish-no-label-needed.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19/fda-approves-genetically-modi...
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Which is fine (I say as European). Requiring GMO labeling is is about as sensible as requiring DHMO labeling - it's scaremongering not based on science.
  - Dolores12 10y ago
    No, it is not fine with me. I have to have ability to make informed decision.
  - mickronome 10y ago
    While I tend to agree that the actual food is probably safe , there are several valid ideological justifications for such labeling. I would also support seed variety labeling wherever it is reasomably practical, as consumer choice can only be choice if fact are available. The history should also have taught us that if the industry tries to avoid labeling, they should generally be required labeling. They are likely not afraid of ink expenditures, rather they want to sell me one thing and tell me it is something slightly different, for profit.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    Perhaps I choose not to buy GMO's because I find the notion of patenting the mechanics of life philosophically troubling. We're not all a bunch of anti-science luddites, you know.
    - sampo 10y ago
      If you think only GMO varieties are patented, you are very ill informed. For example, google 'BASF clearfield'.

DasIch 10y ago

If you can't increase the number of tests, increase the punishment and let it affect the entire chain from supermarket to producer. You want being found guilty of a violation to be a nightmare scenario that will end people's careers and entire companies.

zzen 10y ago

Look, as somebody that's lived many years in Europe and in US, the situation is incomparable. I don't know why - either you have crappy laws, or you have crappy enforcement. If you read the article, it claims both. The FDA has super-low requirements to do anything - and manages to do even less than required to. The european market is significantly bigger than US one (380m people) but manages to have much better labeling standards.

culturestate 10y ago
The reality, as in so many other areas with regard to the US, is crappy enforcement. If inspection authority was enforced at the state level (while still being funded by the federal government) I suspect you'd see much greater results.

kbart 10y ago

EU does enforce food safety and labeling laws quite well. That might be because every EU country has its own FDA equivalent that provisions much smaller market. Sure, incidents happen, but fake food is nowhere such widespread in EU than USA.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal
- kbart 10y ago
  As I said - incidents happen. And if the last scandal you have found is dated back to 2013, that only confirms my point.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Sorry, I thought you were claiming that fake food was not widespread. ("because every EU country has its own FDA equivalent that provisions much smaller market") > if the last scandal you have found is dated back to 2013, that only confirms my point. Words fail me at your reasoning. How closely do you think I follow foreign food purity issues?
    - chappi42 10y ago
      Well if you don't follow foreign food purity issues (closely) then, please, try to comment a little bit more humble. Maybe asking instead of definitive statements?
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  The point is, which many commenters seem to be missing, is UK Trading Standards and equivalent EU bodies regularly test to see that foods meet claimed ingredients and are not adulterated. Prosecutions, sanctions and bans are frequent. The periodic outrages are relatively rare and become front page news. If you claim on the label that your product is 52% tuna it can be (and frequently is) randomly tested and if it's not tuna, or 52% you can be open to prosecution. By the sounds of the US system you're probably eating horse regularly, but no one ever tests to establish this. In the case of the UK, austerity has resulted in Trading Standards being stretched to breaking point or beyond as funding has sunk way below actual need. Presumably the Tories will soon point to this as proof that a state owned system cannot work so let's privatise it. Brexit leaves me deeply concerned the UK will resemble the US more.

Dolores12 10y ago

In USA you need not label GMO food as GMO. [1] Because "The FDA has determined that the fish is as safe and nutritious as nongenetically modified fish, and will therefore not require the company or retailers to label the fish as genetically engineered." [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19/fda-approves-genetically-modified-fish-no-label-needed.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19/fda-approves-genetically-modi...

ptaipale 10y ago
Which is fine (I say as European). Requiring GMO labeling is is about as sensible as requiring DHMO labeling - it's scaremongering not based on science.
- Dolores12 10y ago
  No, it is not fine with me. I have to have ability to make informed decision.
- mickronome 10y ago
  While I tend to agree that the actual food is probably safe , there are several valid ideological justifications for such labeling. I would also support seed variety labeling wherever it is reasomably practical, as consumer choice can only be choice if fact are available. The history should also have taught us that if the industry tries to avoid labeling, they should generally be required labeling. They are likely not afraid of ink expenditures, rather they want to sell me one thing and tell me it is something slightly different, for profit.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Perhaps I choose not to buy GMO's because I find the notion of patenting the mechanics of life philosophically troubling. We're not all a bunch of anti-science luddites, you know.
  - sampo 10y ago
    If you think only GMO varieties are patented, you are very ill informed. For example, google 'BASF clearfield'.