Home › Forums › Open Discussion › GMO labeling
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 22, 2013 at 2:41 pm #609995
JoBParticipantThe Grocery Manufacturer’s Association barely won their fight against GMO labeling in Washington after spending a boatload of money..
so how do they respond?
they ask the FDA to label GMO products natural..
https://www.facebook.com/Cornucopia.Institute
cute, huh
December 23, 2013 at 5:42 pm #801831
VBDParticipantThe term “natural” really has no meaning.
At the two extremes, one could say that no food we eat is truly natural, since humans have manipulated nearly every part of the food chain.
On the other extreme one could suggest that all food is natural, since it relies on biology and processes created by evolution, including humans.
What most people think of as “natural” is actually organic.
Even GMO is a misnomer…
December 23, 2013 at 5:51 pm #801832
wakefloodParticipantDon’t disagree with your technical note, VBD. I DO wish there was a reasonable way to prevent Big Agra from pulling the con, though. I’m sure what you describe above is the argument they’ll use to push the agenda of regulatory semantics and fooling the well-meaning.
Which essentially forces consumers to continually educate/reeducate themselves as to what is going on and what it all really means.
I guess the only short cut is “organic” as you described but I’m sure that Big Agra has and will continue to attempt to make that term meaningless over time, too.
December 23, 2013 at 8:28 pm #801833
metrognomeParticipantwakeflood — that was either a very bad intentional pun or a very good unintentional pun …
http://www.conagrafoods.com/our-food/brands
notice ConAgra owns ‘all natural’ Alexia frozen potatoes and ‘100% Natural’ Hunts.
and, ConAgra isn’t even on this chart:
December 23, 2013 at 8:36 pm #801834
metrognomeParticipantand, speaking of organic …
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/05/25/who-owns-organic-brands-and-why-you-should-care/
December 23, 2013 at 8:36 pm #801835
wakefloodParticipant:) The “Big Con Agra”???
I don’t see what the big problem is? Having a small handful of companies owning and manipulating our food chain from seed to plate can’t be a bad thing. I mean, what could go wrong?
December 24, 2013 at 5:28 am #801836
VBDParticipantI agree. Diversity in our food supply is a good thing. We don’t want anyone to control it all.
As for food labeling, I think specificity is the answer. Trying to lump a category of food into a “natural” or “organic” box leads to problems; not the least of which is deciding which foods comply with the definition of the term.
Organic has gotten better at achieving a consistent definition but it’s still not without problems. Something like “Kosher” that is rigidly defined is pretty good I guess…
The best solution would be to just say something about the food that the consumer might be interested in, like “grown without synthesized fertilizers or pesticides.” Or “produced from irrigated crops.”
If it turns out a lot of people are suddenly interested in whether or not food was produced with immigrant labor, that could be put on a label. Really, the possibilities are endless…
Nutritional information, on the other hand, is much easier. It’s not so conditional or driven by public concerns and fears. Either it has 8 grams of protein or it doesn’t.
December 24, 2013 at 5:57 am #801837
JoBParticipantVBD..
if the FDA rules it “natural” there won’t be any specificity :(
the reason that the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association wants GMO foods labeled natural is two-fold
1)the fastest growing segment of food products is those labeled organic and natural
it’s what people who have money to spend on specialty foods purchase
2)truth in advertising claims make for costly lawsuits.. which have already started.
if GMO foods get the natural label from the FDA
they still get their piece of the pie and the lawsuits go away
December 24, 2013 at 6:00 am #801838
JoBParticipantVBD..
“Nutritional information, on the other hand, is much easier. It’s not so conditional or driven by public concerns and fears. Either it has 8 grams of protein or it doesn’t.”
your last statement might be true
but it says nothing about the quality of the protein .. which impacts it’s nutritional value
the fact of the matter is that the nutritional values placed on the foods we consumed are based on nutritional averages for like foods that were actually grown or raised a long time ago…
not that produced today by today’s methods.
not really the same thing..
not really so very accurate :(
December 24, 2013 at 6:10 am #801839
VBDParticipantSure, I agree with you as to why manufacturers would want to get the “natural” statement. It’s marketing. This has nothing to do with nutrition. It’s all about getting money from gullible consumers.
Don’t fool yourself into thinking “natural” or “organic” gets you higher quality protein or anything else. Nutrition depends on a LOT more than just a marketing phrase.
December 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm #801840
JoBParticipantVBD..
yes, nutrition does depend on a lot more than a marketing phrase..
natural could and often does mean just about anything.. including high fructose corn syrup
but no matter how you spin it,
certified organic does mean something…
December 24, 2013 at 4:40 pm #801841
VBDParticipantTrue, organic is been defined to mean some very specific things. And that does help people looking for those qualities.
However, because of marketing, many people believe that organic always means small, local, fresh, and the healthier choice. That is becoming less true as big food companies (many of whom are often demonized as being unhealthy) are buying up organic brands.
December 24, 2013 at 6:05 pm #801842
JoBParticipantVBD..
yes.. i know people i don’t want to do business have been buying up profitable organic producers
but at least those brands have to be produced to organic standards to keep their certification
until of course the Grocery Manufacturers Association manages to “assist” in restructuring those standards
in which case i will have to look to Oregon Tilth for certification i can trust :)
truth be known.. i already do
December 26, 2013 at 9:52 am #801843
WalkerParticipantOrganic means nothing any more. Diesel fuel is an organic pesticide. Cows can eat all the gmo feed on earth and still make organic milk and beef. Actually there is no major milk producer on the west coast that does not use gmo feed.
December 26, 2013 at 3:49 pm #801844
JoBParticipanthere we go again
in the pursuit of the concept of perfection
we will help those who would prefer that all standards mean nothing achieve their aims
because if it isn’t perfect it isn’t useful
AAARGH!
December 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm #801845
JoBParticipantSo walker.. did you exclude pasture fed producers like Organic Valley when you said “there is no major milk producer on the west coast that does not use gmo feed.”
http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/research-library/pasturing/grass-is-greener/page-1/
in your rush to condemn.. you ignore those farmers who are making good faith efforts to produce truly organic products.
December 26, 2013 at 6:29 pm #801846
WalkerParticipantThey still use feed corn. Sure it’s mostly grass fed, but there is no way the can keep up with quantity of milk the need all year long and not feed their cows grain. It’s probably fine. Probably.
I’m not saying to stop using the organic label. I’m saying it got watered down once it was taken over by the dept of ag. Sure the greens you get from a local farmer are going to be great, but the big food corps are able to label things organic that are not even close to what normal folks would consider organic.
December 26, 2013 at 7:01 pm #801847
wakefloodParticipantYup. I remember even 15yrs. ago a guy from Cascadian Farms was telling me how rigorous the process was to certify a field as organic-capable. Something like 7 yrs. of effort, if memory serves.
Even then, Big Agra was already hammering the regulatory agencies to loosen up what they could have used on the fields and for how long, etc., etc. And they were making cracks in the dike…
‘Twas always thus. If you can’t win by the rules…change the rules!
January 3, 2014 at 6:45 am #801848
metrognomeParticipantmaybe there’s hope …
‘Considering General Mills has spent millions of dollars to combat labeling GMOs, the move [to make original Cheerios GMO-free] is somewhat unexpected. In 2012, the company paid $1.1 dollars to fight Proposition 37 in California, which called for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food. The company clarified its stance on labeling on its website, however. It is behind a “national solution” for GMO-labeling, but against state-by-state legislation.’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/cheerios-gmo-free_n_4533079.html
January 3, 2014 at 2:31 pm #801849
JoBParticipantmetrognome..
they want a national solution they can control
but in the meantime they are responding to our pocketbooks…
January 3, 2014 at 6:41 pm #801850
VBDParticipantI can’t imagine a “national solution” being any worse than I-522 was.
January 3, 2014 at 9:01 pm #801851
TanDLParticipantPressure is beginning to work.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/original-cheerios-go-gmo-free-2D11844100
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.