5 ms·

> Why block the nutrition label from saying that a product is GMO? Who has ever tried to do that? Opposing mandatory labeling and trying to forbid labeling are

> Why block the nutrition label from saying that a product is GMO? Who has ever tried to do that? Opposing mandatory labeling and trying to forbid labeling are very different things.

bpodgursky 13y ago
Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason. Labeling is supposed to be informative to the consumer, and alert them to nutritional information about the food which could impact their health--and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact. If food manufacturers were free to advertise the absence of irrelevant nutrients, they would immediately begin barraging consumers with useless or harmful information-- "now free of pyridoxal phosphate!" "no phylloquinone used in the production of this cereal!" Should the average consume have to know that these are actually vitamin K and B6? Of course not, the nutrition facts are there to inform them, and the FDA makes sure it cannot be used just for branding purposes or to confuse the consumer. Since GMO food is unequivocally proven safe, the manufacturer will not be helping the consumer make an informed decision by advertising the absence.
- glibgil 13y ago
  Food is advertised as GMO free. Were you lying about a ban or just mistaken? Here is an example. http://i.imgur.com/9I5aPHe.jpg http://i.imgur.com/9I5aPHe.jpg
  - fludlight 13y ago
    Just look at this: organic, gluten free, wheat free, whole grain, nature's path, happy panda! Yet the nutritional info shows 2g protein, 2g fiber, 3.5g fat, 7g sugar (almost 2 teaspoons!) per 30g serving. Also no vitamins. Not much nutrition there. Imagine dropping 2 teaspoons of sugar into a child's glass of milk. You wouldn't do that, would you? http://us.naturespath.com/product/panda-puffstm-cereal http://us.naturespath.com/product/panda-puffstm-cereal
    - JackFr 13y ago
      On top of that, they call it 'Panda Puffs' and it actually contains NO panda! How do they get away with this?
  - a_bonobo 13y ago
    A fun sidenote: There's also salt with the GM free label. http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/facepalm-of-the-week-non-gmo-salt http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/facepalm-of-the...
- lotides 13y ago
  The science is never done. I hate, HATE, hate when people treat science like we already have all of the answers. > and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact. No, the studies done thus far, with specific controls they've used and the ideas they've test for, haven't found anything. There is no such thing as decisive in science. The science could change tomorrow. What's harder to change is the laws we've put in place because of industry interests. The United States has a long history of taking the side of big business. Even with food. Look at the food pyramid that I was taught as the "healthiest" way to eat when I went to school. Today things have changed and we've learned a lot of backstory on how much of what we learned during that period was based on industry lobbying and not science. I don't want us to make the same mistake again. Genetic engineering is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our food yet. I'm not saying we should ban GMOs. But I think it's fair to label foods that have GMOs in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial. At one point we were all cool with asbestos in our homes, lead in our paint, chemicals in our water and doctors endorsed smoking. Stop pretending like this isn't a big gamble.
  - insensible 13y ago
    I only get one upvote, but +100.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Genetic engineering is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our food yet. I'm not saying we should ban GMOs. But I think it's fair to label foods that have GMOs in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial. Electronic computing is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our homes yet. I'm not saying we should ban computers. But I think it's fair to label products that have computers in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial. Wireless telegraphy is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our air yet. I'm not saying we should ban wireless communication... The electric car is a very young science. It doesn't belong on our roads yet... At one point we were, as you pointed out, "all cool" with asbestos, lead paint, etc. Stop pretending like the inventions above aren't a big gamble! etc., etc. At this point, for all of the "young" inventions above, we have at least a decade and typically more of evidence showing either that the "young" inventions are not biologically harmful to human life, or are no more biologically harmful to human life than what they're replacing. And the same is true of GMO food. The track record is solid, and the "wait and see" approach is essentially an infinitely-shifting goalpost (no matter how long we wait, and no matter how much data we get, it miraculously never seems to be quite long enough or quite enough data for those folks, and they impose standards of "safety" which would require essentially infinite time and data to comply with). Thus the urge to label when the data does not support classifying GMO as a risk is essentially the urge to push people to give in to blind fear rather than evaluating available evidence, and encouraging reactions out of blind fear does not make good public policy.
- dools 13y ago
  Ummm so enforce the labelling of foods as containing GMOs. Hence the absence of a label is an indication that foods contain no GM ingredients. I don't think mandatory labelling is undue administrative burden, the only reason manufacturers would object is because it would affect people's purchasing choices, which is the point.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason. Labeling is supposed to be informative to the consumer, and alert them to nutritional information about the food which could impact their health--and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact. But labeling food as kosher is informative?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason. Well, except that it isn't banned (plenty of foods are advertised as GMO free [1]), and if it was, the reason you state would be bunk. > and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact. No, they haven't, though regulatory approval of individual GMOs for food use does require a number of steps intended to minimize the risk of health impacts. > Since GMO food is unequivocally proven safe Nothing is "unequivocally proven safe", and newly-engineered foods (whether actual traditional breeding methods, or the advanced modern techniques that are called traditional breeding rather than GM, or actual GMOs) are most emphatically not "unequivocally proven" safe before being introduced, though GMOs (and pretty much only GMOs) actually have to have some evidence that certain particular source of risk are addressed. [1] See, e.g., http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-seal/ http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-se...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

> Why block the nutrition label from saying that a product is GMO? Who has ever tried to do that? Opposing mandatory labeling and trying to forbid labeling are very different things.

bpodgursky 13y ago

Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason. Labeling is supposed to be informative to the consumer, and alert them to nutritional information about the food which could impact their health--and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact. If food manufacturers were free to advertise the absence of irrelevant nutrients, they would immediately begin barraging consumers with useless or harmful information-- "now free of pyridoxal phosphate!" "no phylloquinone used in the production of this cereal!" Should the average consume have to know that these are actually vitamin K and B6? Of course not, the nutrition facts are there to inform them, and the FDA makes sure it cannot be used just for branding purposes or to confuse the consumer. Since GMO food is unequivocally proven safe, the manufacturer will not be helping the consumer make an informed decision by advertising the absence.

glibgil 13y ago
Food is advertised as GMO free. Were you lying about a ban or just mistaken? Here is an example. http://i.imgur.com/9I5aPHe.jpg http://i.imgur.com/9I5aPHe.jpg
- fludlight 13y ago
  Just look at this: organic, gluten free, wheat free, whole grain, nature's path, happy panda! Yet the nutritional info shows 2g protein, 2g fiber, 3.5g fat, 7g sugar (almost 2 teaspoons!) per 30g serving. Also no vitamins. Not much nutrition there. Imagine dropping 2 teaspoons of sugar into a child's glass of milk. You wouldn't do that, would you? http://us.naturespath.com/product/panda-puffstm-cereal http://us.naturespath.com/product/panda-puffstm-cereal
  - JackFr 13y ago
    On top of that, they call it 'Panda Puffs' and it actually contains NO panda! How do they get away with this?
- a_bonobo 13y ago
  A fun sidenote: There's also salt with the GM free label. http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/facepalm-of-the-week-non-gmo-salt http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/facepalm-of-the...
lotides 13y ago
The science is never done. I hate, HATE, hate when people treat science like we already have all of the answers. > and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact. No, the studies done thus far, with specific controls they've used and the ideas they've test for, haven't found anything. There is no such thing as decisive in science. The science could change tomorrow. What's harder to change is the laws we've put in place because of industry interests. The United States has a long history of taking the side of big business. Even with food. Look at the food pyramid that I was taught as the "healthiest" way to eat when I went to school. Today things have changed and we've learned a lot of backstory on how much of what we learned during that period was based on industry lobbying and not science. I don't want us to make the same mistake again. Genetic engineering is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our food yet. I'm not saying we should ban GMOs. But I think it's fair to label foods that have GMOs in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial. At one point we were all cool with asbestos in our homes, lead in our paint, chemicals in our water and doctors endorsed smoking. Stop pretending like this isn't a big gamble.
- insensible 13y ago
  I only get one upvote, but +100.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Genetic engineering is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our food yet. I'm not saying we should ban GMOs. But I think it's fair to label foods that have GMOs in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial. Electronic computing is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our homes yet. I'm not saying we should ban computers. But I think it's fair to label products that have computers in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial. Wireless telegraphy is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our air yet. I'm not saying we should ban wireless communication... The electric car is a very young science. It doesn't belong on our roads yet... At one point we were, as you pointed out, "all cool" with asbestos, lead paint, etc. Stop pretending like the inventions above aren't a big gamble! etc., etc. At this point, for all of the "young" inventions above, we have at least a decade and typically more of evidence showing either that the "young" inventions are not biologically harmful to human life, or are no more biologically harmful to human life than what they're replacing. And the same is true of GMO food. The track record is solid, and the "wait and see" approach is essentially an infinitely-shifting goalpost (no matter how long we wait, and no matter how much data we get, it miraculously never seems to be quite long enough or quite enough data for those folks, and they impose standards of "safety" which would require essentially infinite time and data to comply with). Thus the urge to label when the data does not support classifying GMO as a risk is essentially the urge to push people to give in to blind fear rather than evaluating available evidence, and encouraging reactions out of blind fear does not make good public policy.
dools 13y ago
Ummm so enforce the labelling of foods as containing GMOs. Hence the absence of a label is an indication that foods contain no GM ingredients. I don't think mandatory labelling is undue administrative burden, the only reason manufacturers would object is because it would affect people's purchasing choices, which is the point.
darkarmani 13y ago
> Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason. Labeling is supposed to be informative to the consumer, and alert them to nutritional information about the food which could impact their health--and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact. But labeling food as kosher is informative?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason. Well, except that it isn't banned (plenty of foods are advertised as GMO free [1]), and if it was, the reason you state would be bunk. > and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact. No, they haven't, though regulatory approval of individual GMOs for food use does require a number of steps intended to minimize the risk of health impacts. > Since GMO food is unequivocally proven safe Nothing is "unequivocally proven safe", and newly-engineered foods (whether actual traditional breeding methods, or the advanced modern techniques that are called traditional breeding rather than GM, or actual GMOs) are most emphatically not "unequivocally proven" safe before being introduced, though GMOs (and pretty much only GMOs) actually have to have some evidence that certain particular source of risk are addressed. [1] See, e.g., http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-seal/ http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-se...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]