- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 18, 2013 at 12:53 am #788960
VBDParticipantWorldCitizen, I think there’s possibility a win for I-522 could be worse for the “Label It” movement than a loss would. Here’s my reasoning:
I don’t think it would hold up to a legal challenge.
I have no doubt that somebody is going to sue if this gets passed. I also think there are a number of legal angles that would hold up.
Your inquiry about rBst illustrates one of the angles. It is illegal to put a warning on food if there is no hazard (which is why the I-522 campaign is so careful about saying it’s NOT a warning). The FDA takes fraudulent health claims very seriously. A label on the front of the package is perceived as a warning. JoB has given us plenty of evidence of that.
Another possibility is the inevitable claim from a small grocer that the law puts an unreasonable compliance burden on them.
When these issues get to court, the science will be introduced as evidence that a warning or compliance cost is warranted, and that argument will fail. The science has consistently shown GE food products are not harmful.
So when the court decision declares that the label law is illegal, it would set a precedent more powerful than a narrow loss in an election. All labeling efforts would be lost.
So why don’t I just shut up and let it win??
For 2 reasons: First, as I said above, I’m not anti-label. I think the FDA is caving in to public pressure and may adopt a national labeling scheme everybody can agree upon. And second, the whole legal circus is going to cost the state a fortune, and I don’t want to have to pay for it.
May 18, 2013 at 1:38 am #788961
WorldCitizenParticipantI don’t understand this paragraph:
“Your inquiry about rBst illustrates one of the angles. It is illegal to put a warning on food if there is no hazard (which is why the I-522 campaign is so careful about saying it’s NOT a warning). The FDA takes fraudulent health claims very seriously. A label on the front of the package is perceived as a warning. JoB has given us plenty of evidence of that.
“
Is the rbst thing currently on labels not a warning? I fail to see how there’s a difference, after all, the science behind rBst is definitive in that it is not a hazard to human health.
May 18, 2013 at 1:44 am #788962
VBDParticipantYeah, sorry that came off as a bit of a non sequitur.
My reference was a bit loose, but the FDA requirement for the additional phrase was because they believed the claims of milk being healthier because it’s rBst-free were misleading and fraudulent. I used it as an illustration as to how seriously they take nutrition claims. I didn’t mean to imply they were the same.
May 18, 2013 at 3:44 am #788963
WorldCitizenParticipantSo, if they (the FDA) takes labeling so seriously, AND they allow the rBst label with a qualifying statement, then I fail to see why it would be different with the same format for GMO products.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
May 18, 2013 at 4:49 am #788964
VBDParticipantPerhaps… I would think, however it might be more aligned with something like high fructose corn syrup. There was a time when “sugars” was an appropriate ingredient name for any sweetener. But when people wanted more information about what type of sweetener is used, the FDA approved mandating the disclosure of HFCS on the ingredient label. Personally I think that is the better way to go. If we choose to put a special label for each ingredient, we would be setting ourselves up for a ridiculous amount of independent statements.
Allergens could have prompted a front of the box label, but instead the method of disclosure was to add the allergen statement after the ingredient label. Now, anyone concerned about food allergies have a consistent place to look. I think that works to provide the information reliably at a minimal cost.
May 18, 2013 at 4:56 am #788965
VBDParticipantTake a look at the examples of the European labeling. I think this is FAR better than a statement saying “may be partially produced with genetic engineering” . It tells you definitively what is there, and does it in a way that we are all familiar with.
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/90.gmo_labelling.html
May 19, 2013 at 5:57 pm #788966
JoBParticipantVBD
Does David Suzuki qualify as an educated source?
We have no way of knowing what the long term effects of genetically modified foods will be on our population…
http://www.antigmofoods.com/2013/05/we-unwittingly-part-of-massive.html
funny.. i think that is pretty much what i was saying when you labeling my argument emotional ;->
May 19, 2013 at 6:42 pm #788967
VBDParticipantI’m a fan of David Suzuki. I agree with much of what he had to say in that video too. I think he absolutely qualifies as an educated source.
I didn’t hear anything he said that would be in conflict with what I have been arguing for.
He says, “So at the very least, surely, you can put on the label whether or not there’s genetically modified organisms in it.”
I have said several times “I think it’s important to list the ingredients so we can decide what GM food sources are acceptable to us.”
He spoke out about the unscrupulous business practices of Monsanto, and the excessive use of herbicides some of their products promote.
I said, “If you want to go after Monsanto, then go DIRECTLY after them. Lobby to outlaw Roundup ready crops, or Bt modified crops.”
You seem to be stuck on the idea that because I’m against I-522, that automatically makes me a anti-label, pro-GMO corporate shill.
I’m not against the stated objective of I-522; which is to give consumers the information necessary to make their own choice about whether to purchase and consume GE foods. What I’m against is the method proposed.
Imagine an initiative that stated it would reduce violence against kids. We could all get behind an idea like that, right? I mean, who’s in favor of violence against kids?!?! But how would you feel if you read the proposed law, and it said the way to prevent violence is by giving them all guns? Some people think that really would make kids safer. I don’t. And I’m betting you wouldn’t either.
May 19, 2013 at 10:59 pm #788968
JoBParticipantVBD..
bad analogy. a label that states a product may contain GMOs will not put anyone’s life at risk..
i agree that this is not the best legislation possible.. but it is far better than no labeling at all.
how many will engage in the great American experiment to see whether GMOs actually have long term health effects while we are waiting for the perfect legislation to come along…
wait….. !
not labeling might fit your analogy because people could die as a result of consuming foods that turned out to be hazardous to your health
kind of like not putting a warning label on cigarettes because the “science” wasn’t conclusive yet…
good analogy after all ?
if only you had made the right argument with it?
May 20, 2013 at 3:16 pm #788969
VBDParticipantThanks for the debate JoB. It has been very enlightening.
May 21, 2013 at 2:39 pm #788970
JoBParticipantVBD.. you did make me take a closer look at the legislation… but with Monsanto moving to put federal law in place that would prevent any labeling… passing this becomes more important than ever for me since it is likely to end i court challenges.
i can only hope it takes so long to get there that the court swings back towards at least neutral before it is heard.
May 23, 2013 at 4:32 pm #788971
VBDParticipantI had made the argument that a state by state labeling drive would lead to conflicting requirements for food manufacturers. Well, Connecticut has helped reinforce my assertion.
The CT State Senate passed a label bill, and the phrase to be mandated for packaged foods would not be legal under Washington’s or Vermont’s proposed rule (or California, if it had passed).
From the text of CT HB06519:
(B) in the case of food for retail sale contained in a package, by the manufacturer, distributor or retailer of the food, with the clear and conspicuous words: “Produced with Genetic Engineering”;
I-522 allows only 2 versions of the message; “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering”. I know that seems like a subtle difference, but it IS different, and again, the Washington message must be on the front of the package, and the others could be on the back.
They also specifically allow either the manufacturer, distributor OR retailer to add the message. That would likely mean the retailer would be the one saddled with the task, since out of state food producers would be given a loophole to exploit. VERY confusing compliance rules nationally.
If the states are going to add label rules independently, they must figure out a way to do it consistently. This is ridiculous.
May 23, 2013 at 5:13 pm #788972
JoBParticipantVBD…
which makes my point. all of that confusion is likely to lead to standardization…
which is a good thing :)
May 23, 2013 at 5:18 pm #788973
TanDLParticipantIt IS ridiculous! I agree. But in the face of constant federal arse-dragging on issues the majority of people want to see resolved, maybe it takes the states moving, however imperfectly, to wake up the bureaucrats.
May 23, 2013 at 5:41 pm #788974
VBDParticipantYes, having the public tide sway in support of labeling will send a message. I have no opposition with that argument, nor do I oppose grass roots efforts generally.
But, as I suggested in post 51, there is a substantial risk of label laws being declared illegal if we pursue such sloppy paths of legislation.
Making compliance confusing, inconsistent, and costly, will without a doubt, enable challenges to the laws. Monsanto sues somebody every other day. They would waste no time either suing, or contributing to a legal fund to overturn the laws.
The claim of “unreasonable compliance burden” does have legal precedent, and with the health issues of GE foods still in question within the scientific community, there is a pretty good chance the challenge would succeed. Following that, ANY label law would be likely overturned.
May 24, 2013 at 1:14 am #788975
TanDLParticipantHere’s the list of U.S. Senators who this morning voted down S. Amendment. 965 to S. 954 which would “permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.”
May 24, 2013 at 2:58 am #788976
JoBParticipantVBD
every state attempt at legislating GMO labeling runs the inherent risk of having GMO labeling as proposed by that state declared illegal…
but the only only way GMO labeling would be declared illegal nationally is if several state’s legislation are grouped and heard by the supreme court… and GMO labeling was specifically declared illegal…
or our lovely national representatives craft laws making GMO labeling illegal…
something that is less likely to happen if GMO labeling laws … in any form … pass in several states.
In the meantime.. processed foods imported from Europe are likely to do really well in the states :)
June 12, 2013 at 11:38 pm #788977
TanDLParticipantMaine senate unanimously endorses labels for genetically modified foods.
August 9, 2013 at 8:26 pm #788978
DESMemberI realize that I’m a little late to the party here. 1st off I am a cell and molecular biologist. I have never and never plan to work for or accept money from Monsanto or other so called agrotech giants, my specific research interests lie outside of their technologies. My interests here are 2-fold: (1) I am a consumer and (2) I want the general public to be informed about science, in particular when that knowledge impacts societal issues such as GE foods.
I basically endorse everything VBD has been saying on this thread. I do not oppose labeling at all, but I do oppose worthless labeling, and I-522 is worthless labeling. I think we need to step back and really ask why there should be a label. For example, there are in fact some significant environmental impacts to growing different GM crops (the particular crop and trait matters, I’ll illustrate below). But should environmental impact of production, even if its bad, be a reason food makers or providers need to be COMPELLED to label food? Surely then, anything that “might contain components derived from petroleum” should be labeled as such. Similarly, should a dislike for Monsanto (who makes many but not all GM seeds, some are even given freely to farmers, eg Hawaiian papayas)be a reason to COMPEL labeling?
No. A food label should be used to convey health information about that food. Myriad credible organizations from around the world have endorsed all GE foods as safe. Every individual trait goes through rigorous testing and before release is subject to scrutiny by at up to 3 agencies (FDA, EPA, USDA). There are no credible studies linking any GE foods to adverse health effect or difference in nutritional content. The often cited Seralini or Carmen papers have been thoroughly debunked as terrible science. BUT EVEN IF THOSE PAPERS ARE TRUE OR THE GOV STUDIES ARE WRONG, each trait is different because the engineered genes each encode a different protein. In cells, proteins do the majority of the work: they carryout chemical reactions, provide structure to the cell etc. A gene is a segment of DNA that codes for the protein. The gene is the information the plant uses to make the protein that confers the trait, insect killing, herbicide resistance, etc. Further the one very minor health risk is allergic reaction. Again the trait matters because allergies are responses to specific proteins (wheat gluten in celiac disease, a shellfish or peanut protein in those foods, etc). There would be no use to a label that said “May contain allergens”. So if we want the label to mean anything, each individual trait should be labeled. I will now describe the 2 most common GE traits and I hope you will see what I’m talking about. Again, I could fully support informative labeling, but I-522 does not do that, it labels technology (the same technology by the way that enables us to make insulin and other recombinant drugs as well as recombinant thymosin (rennet, that allows one to make vegetarian cheese – natural rennet comes from cow stomachs)
RoundUp ready. Plants with this trait are tolerant to the herbicide glyphosphate (RoundUp). Glyphosphate interferes with the plant version of an enzyme (one type of protein) involved in making some necessary amino acids. In the presence of glyphosphate the plant version of the enzyme does not work and the plants die. The human version is not sensitive to glyphosphate, nor is the bacterial version. Most of the roundup ready crops express (make) the bacterial version of the enzyme. In the presence of glyphosphate the bacterial version keeps working so crops with the RoundUp ready trait survive but weeds die. Widespread usage of glyphosphate enabled by RoudUp ready crops has lead to the evolution of glyphosphate resistant super-weeds. The resistant weeds mutated their own plant version of the enzyme so that roundup can no longer interfere with its function. Glyphosphate residue is also behind the claim of increased herbicide usage in GMOs Further it is the glyphosphate that is most linked to adverse health effects and glyphosphate usage is what leads to environmental consequences. It turns out that conventional breeding has created glyphosphate resistant (RoundUp ready) versions of the plant enzyme (just like super-weeds). These plants can be used just like the Monsanto ones with just as much RoundUp but wouldn’t have to be labeled because they are not GMO. The enzyme encoded by the RoundUp Ready gene is called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS).
Bt. There are actually several Bt traits each expressing a different version of genes called Cry from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. These proteins are toxic in the gut of insects and each one is toxic to different subsets of insects. This bacteria the Cry genes come from is harmless. In fact, it is an approved organic pesticide. Organic farmers get a vat of ground up bacteria and spray it on their fields trade names (DiPel and Thuricide). Use of Bt crops actually reduces the amount of synthetic pesticed sprayed on conventional crops.
So as you can see one trait produces an enzyme called EPSPS involved in making amino acids, and increases herbicide spraying. The other trait produces a protein called Cry that crystallizes in insect guts and reduces insecticide spraying. Absent any value statement on corporations, environmental consequences, cost of labeling, etc, these are clearly different traits and if one chooses to label, wouldn’t that be useful information?
October 17, 2013 at 5:13 pm #788979
VBDParticipantIt’s been quite a while since this thread cooled off. With election time here, I thought I’d resurrect it to see if there is any energy left in this debate.
For the record, I’m still as against it as I was 4 months ago, if not more so.
So if anyone wants to bounce off some last minute decision points before casting a ballot, I’d love to offer my take.
October 17, 2013 at 6:34 pm #788980
wakefloodParticipantVBD, I’m indebted to DES on post #69 for helping me understand why I had some gut issues with 522. That being I’m more concerned with Round Up Ready and the significant reduction of genetic diversity in seed crops as I am with the concept of GMO’s specifically.
I’m still reviewing information so a repost of your issues wouldn’t bother me at all…
October 17, 2013 at 7:07 pm #788981
blblParticipantThanks, VBD. You are not the only sane, educated and informed voter against I-522. I oppose it for all your reasons, but mainly because I respect and value science. Labeling food to say that it may contain or does contain GMOs implies that there is something wrong with GMOs, and that is simply misleading. That type of labeling dilutes other information that is based on science and does have the potential to improve people’s health. If the I-522 proponents put their campaign money into more research and actually do find health risks associated with GMOs, I will be the first to demand labeling or prohibition. But after 20 years, that hasn’t happened. I-522 is about marketing and politics, not health or science. It’s supported by huge corporations like Unilever and Whole Foods. I-522 is not about educating the public, it’s the exact opposite. I-522 says, who cares what the studies show, lets regulate it anyway? We don’t need objective, analytical support, we just need to scare enough people.
October 17, 2013 at 7:14 pm #788982
blblParticipantOh, and I realize that DES posted a couple months ago, but yes. YES, exactly!
October 17, 2013 at 8:26 pm #788983
VBDParticipantblbl, I agree with you in as much as labeling would not be consistent with scientific findings, and would be perceived as little more than a scare tactic.
However, there are some compelling arguments that listing GE ingredients might be helpful to some people. For them, doesn’t matter if there is a health issue or not. It’s that they don’t like the method, and don’t want to promote it. They feel they have the right to know what’s in the food they buy. That’s not an unreasonable thing to want.
Ultimately, the law should be judged on whether or not it will do what it claims it will do. The I-522 campaign claims the law would give consumers the information they need to make an informed choice. This is false. The law would NOT give consumers any useful information.
So even if you are in favor of labeling for GE, you should vote against I-522. It simply will not deliver what it promises.
October 17, 2013 at 10:34 pm #788984
blblParticipantI disagree with you VBD about proponents’ reasonableness. Taking away health and safety, I don’t think it is a compelling argument to demand labeling simply because some people don’t like the method and don’t want to promote it. Because the labeling isn’t benign, it is inherently misleading. When one package says “made with GMO” and the other package doesn’t, a reasonable consumer does not go home and research the issue then come back to the store to make the purchase-he or she will likely just buy the not-labeled package if he can afford it, assuming incorrectly that there is something bad about GMOs. That is a cost to the company that does have the label, and if the company goes out of business because too many made that same decision, then that reduces my choices at the store and increases my food bill (not to mention just put a bunch of people out of work).
Health and safety are compelling reasons to require labeling. Simply not wanting to promote a particular farming method is not. Balancing the costs and benefits, I think it is a totally unreasonable think to want.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.