5 ms·

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

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'.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Patenting mechanics of life and GMO are two separate issues not really connected to each other. There's plenty of plant development, for instance, that is covered by patents or patent-like protections, even if it's not GMO in the sense you talk about. (It's often GMO in the sense "let's take a bunch of seeds, expose them to radiation and carcinogens, and experiment with whatever comes out.) In some countries (e.g. mine), these rights are not called "patent" but are not substantially different from what they are where the name is patent.
    - throwaway7767 10y ago
      > Patenting mechanics of life and GMO are two separate issues not really connected to each other. There's plenty of plant development, for instance, that is covered by patents or patent-like protections, even if it's not GMO in the sense you talk about. You can maybe get a patent for the process, but can you get a patent for the resulting lifeform or its individual genes? My understanding is that you can not, but if that's wrong I'd love to be corrected. I agree that gene patents and whether to use GMO manufacturing are two different issues, but given that all of the GMO companies seem to be grabbing patents on their products, not buying GMO products seems like a good way to not support these practices. Especially since we already have GMO labeling in some places, whereas patent-information markings are very unlikely to ever be implemented.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        >...can you get a patent for the resulting lifeform or its individual genes? My understanding is that you can not, but if that's wrong I'd love to be corrected. Yes, you can get a patent. There are even organisations that aspire to patent organic plant variants that obviously aren't GMO. [0] >given that all of the GMO companies seem to be grabbing patents on their products No, not all are. First of all, not all developers of GMO technology are even companies - they may be universities or government agencies, for instance [1]. The widespread and misguided opposition to GMO technology works to the benefit for large companies (like Monsanto), though, because they have the resources to hire enough lawyers to manage the process where it matters. Secondly, there's nothing "grabbing" about filing for patents or equivalent IPRs for plant variants; it's what you need to do to protect your variant even when you plan to release it into public domain (so that a malicious party would not claim them). [0] https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challenging-myths-yes-seeds-that-grow-organic-food-are-often-patented/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challengin... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
- pizza234 10y ago
  The public is not made only/mainly of science-challenged people as you're subtly implying. There are other reasonable motivations for labeling GMO, ie. political and environmental (not all environmental reasons are "GMO is frankenstein food"). Moreover, the GMO scaremongering will last, as any other fad, for a limited amount of time. The part of public who rejects GMO for shallow (no) reasons, will quickly forget and move one to be scared of something else.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    I'm not so sure. People are still sure that MSG will slowly kill them, when it's actually been proven to be 100% harmless as far as we know. You still see "No MSG" labels on tons of food. Mandatory labeling gives the impression that it's relevant information. Whether your food is GMO is totally without consequence. I don't see why the government should burden and mislead the rest of us so you can more easily wage your political campaign from the comfort of your local Whole Foods. I'd actually be fine with mandatory labeling if it said something like "GMO. Totally harmless but the food hipsters wouldn't shut up until we forced everyone to read this stupid label."
    - sampo 10y ago
      If anything, GMO products should be be much safer than non-GMO, because they have gone through a much stricter approval process.
      - CalRobert 10y ago
        Surely the thousands of years of human civilizations consuming non-GMO products should count as a fairly strict approval process?
        ptaipale 10y ago
        A vast majority of what you eat has been developed, not thousands of years ago, but some years or decades ago, using processes such as induced mutagenesis and selection. The variance in genome produced by GMO technology is very small compared to the changes in developed plants, which is not researched at all prior to feeding to humans.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Do you think you should get to dictate to others what food they eat? It doesn't matter if you think how people choose their food is not sensible, what matters for GMO labeling is whether you think they should be allowed to choose. Don't know what you mean by DHMO in this context, are you trying to make a joke about water? FWIW we have labeling for food dosed with water, eg bacon, such labeling is perfectly proper.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    The problem isn't with labels per se. Sure, informed choice is best and all. But people are asking for GMO labels not because of a need to exercise informed choice - the campaigning is done because of irrational fears of GMO. Call it asking for an OK-ish thing for very wrong reasons. And DHMO in this context means the GMO fear makes about as much sense as DHMO fear. People are afraid because it sounds "chemically".
    - ajnin 10y ago
      You're assuming and generalizing what people think based on nothing but your own prejudice. Maybe GMOs pose no risk (even though the definition of 'GMO' is so vague that it is impossible to be so generally affirmative), but what if I want to eat traditional varieties, what if I don't want to support multinational companies which ruin the lives of small farmers around the world, don't I have a right to do so ? Should that right be taken away from me because you don't think personally it is something worthy of concern ?
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >the campaigning is done because of irrational fears of GMO. But not allowing be to have the data to make a choice because a certain undefined cadre of society considers that choice to be irrational seems exceedingly likely to have a chilling effect. So now you can't label your goods as phthalate-free because someone somewhere decided, perhaps with the help of a plastics manufacturer (yes I'm cynical), that "there's no rational reason to avoid them"? This prevents people from being more conservative with risk than the authority who decides we're not allowed to have that information; yes it also means people can make a decision that you wouldn't but we all have the information available.

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'.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Patenting mechanics of life and GMO are two separate issues not really connected to each other. There's plenty of plant development, for instance, that is covered by patents or patent-like protections, even if it's not GMO in the sense you talk about. (It's often GMO in the sense "let's take a bunch of seeds, expose them to radiation and carcinogens, and experiment with whatever comes out.) In some countries (e.g. mine), these rights are not called "patent" but are not substantially different from what they are where the name is patent.
  - throwaway7767 10y ago
    > Patenting mechanics of life and GMO are two separate issues not really connected to each other. There's plenty of plant development, for instance, that is covered by patents or patent-like protections, even if it's not GMO in the sense you talk about. You can maybe get a patent for the process, but can you get a patent for the resulting lifeform or its individual genes? My understanding is that you can not, but if that's wrong I'd love to be corrected. I agree that gene patents and whether to use GMO manufacturing are two different issues, but given that all of the GMO companies seem to be grabbing patents on their products, not buying GMO products seems like a good way to not support these practices. Especially since we already have GMO labeling in some places, whereas patent-information markings are very unlikely to ever be implemented.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      >...can you get a patent for the resulting lifeform or its individual genes? My understanding is that you can not, but if that's wrong I'd love to be corrected. Yes, you can get a patent. There are even organisations that aspire to patent organic plant variants that obviously aren't GMO. [0] >given that all of the GMO companies seem to be grabbing patents on their products No, not all are. First of all, not all developers of GMO technology are even companies - they may be universities or government agencies, for instance [1]. The widespread and misguided opposition to GMO technology works to the benefit for large companies (like Monsanto), though, because they have the resources to hire enough lawyers to manage the process where it matters. Secondly, there's nothing "grabbing" about filing for patents or equivalent IPRs for plant variants; it's what you need to do to protect your variant even when you plan to release it into public domain (so that a malicious party would not claim them). [0] https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challenging-myths-yes-seeds-that-grow-organic-food-are-often-patented/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challengin... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
pizza234 10y ago
The public is not made only/mainly of science-challenged people as you're subtly implying. There are other reasonable motivations for labeling GMO, ie. political and environmental (not all environmental reasons are "GMO is frankenstein food"). Moreover, the GMO scaremongering will last, as any other fad, for a limited amount of time. The part of public who rejects GMO for shallow (no) reasons, will quickly forget and move one to be scared of something else.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  I'm not so sure. People are still sure that MSG will slowly kill them, when it's actually been proven to be 100% harmless as far as we know. You still see "No MSG" labels on tons of food. Mandatory labeling gives the impression that it's relevant information. Whether your food is GMO is totally without consequence. I don't see why the government should burden and mislead the rest of us so you can more easily wage your political campaign from the comfort of your local Whole Foods. I'd actually be fine with mandatory labeling if it said something like "GMO. Totally harmless but the food hipsters wouldn't shut up until we forced everyone to read this stupid label."
  - sampo 10y ago
    If anything, GMO products should be be much safer than non-GMO, because they have gone through a much stricter approval process.
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      Surely the thousands of years of human civilizations consuming non-GMO products should count as a fairly strict approval process?
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        A vast majority of what you eat has been developed, not thousands of years ago, but some years or decades ago, using processes such as induced mutagenesis and selection. The variance in genome produced by GMO technology is very small compared to the changes in developed plants, which is not researched at all prior to feeding to humans.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Do you think you should get to dictate to others what food they eat? It doesn't matter if you think how people choose their food is not sensible, what matters for GMO labeling is whether you think they should be allowed to choose. Don't know what you mean by DHMO in this context, are you trying to make a joke about water? FWIW we have labeling for food dosed with water, eg bacon, such labeling is perfectly proper.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  The problem isn't with labels per se. Sure, informed choice is best and all. But people are asking for GMO labels not because of a need to exercise informed choice - the campaigning is done because of irrational fears of GMO. Call it asking for an OK-ish thing for very wrong reasons. And DHMO in this context means the GMO fear makes about as much sense as DHMO fear. People are afraid because it sounds "chemically".
  - ajnin 10y ago
    You're assuming and generalizing what people think based on nothing but your own prejudice. Maybe GMOs pose no risk (even though the definition of 'GMO' is so vague that it is impossible to be so generally affirmative), but what if I want to eat traditional varieties, what if I don't want to support multinational companies which ruin the lives of small farmers around the world, don't I have a right to do so ? Should that right be taken away from me because you don't think personally it is something worthy of concern ?
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >the campaigning is done because of irrational fears of GMO. But not allowing be to have the data to make a choice because a certain undefined cadre of society considers that choice to be irrational seems exceedingly likely to have a chilling effect. So now you can't label your goods as phthalate-free because someone somewhere decided, perhaps with the help of a plastics manufacturer (yes I'm cynical), that "there's no rational reason to avoid them"? This prevents people from being more conservative with risk than the authority who decides we're not allowed to have that information; yes it also means people can make a decision that you wouldn't but we all have the information available.