Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Judge Rules that Really Stupid Vermont Law May Be Able to Force GMO-Labels on Food Companies
Source:
Reason Magazine
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/28/j ... es-that-vermont-may-be-able-to
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: Ronald Bailey
Post Date: 2015-04-29 04:03:28 by A Pole
Keywords: GMO, food, Monsanto
Views: 26643
Comments: 115
In 2013, the idiots, uh, distinguished solons of the Vermont legislature passed a law requiring food companies to label their products containing ingredients derived from modern biotech crops. The "findings" used to justify the legislation is simply the litany of scientific disinformation that has been peddled by anti-biotechnology extremists for years now. [...] The food manufacturers oppose the legislation arguing, among other things, that it violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to engage in speech. In point of fact, the anti-biotech activists are not consumer advocates at all. What they are really aiming at is to confuse consumers so that they will misunderstand and treat labels identifying products as containing ingredients from biotech crops as warning labels. [...] As I pointed out in my article, The Top 5 Lies About Biotech Crops, every independent scientific body that has evaluated biotech crops has found them safe for people and the environment. ... As I have already shown above, the real purpose of GMO-labels is to deceive consumers. ... Is picking and choosing between producers really what you want your government to do? ... Finally, folks seeking kosher and halal foods are already well accomodated in the market, but I suppose some folks treat organic foods as a kind of sacrament. Of course, consumers who are bamboozled by the activist disinformation campaign against biotech crops have the perfect way to avoid foods of which they disapprove: Buy anything labeled organic. [...] However, the fight is not over. The case will now go to trial, where, let us hope, scientific evidence not activist lies will prevail. Or better yet, as the Washington Post editorial board has suggested, why not adopt the bill introduced in the House of Representatives that would establish a voluntary labeling system and prevent states and localities from going any further to indulge the GM labeling crowd.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 108.
#2. To: A Pole (#0)
Genetically modified foods, are they safe? The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food
The question is the public's right to know. The public has a right to know what is in the food being sold to them. It is difficult to see any purported competing right of purveyors of food to keep the contents of their product secret from the public, such that it outweighs the right of the public to know. The public has a right to choose whether or not to put Frankenfood in their body. Labeling of food products is a matter of the public's right to know. Considering the list of things that have been provided for years, it is difficult to see any justification for secrecy regarding whether a product contains something that does not occur in nature but which has been artificially created. Just because one or more studies hold something is safe to eat does not justify inserting it into the food stream in a manner to make it's presence unidentifiable to the public.
Like 330 insect parts in a jar of Skippy peanut butter?
Whatever they are selling, the buying public's right to know outweighs their lust for secrecy.
By "the public" you mean those opposed to GMO food. Well, they can kiss my ass. They give a FF about the buying public's right to know. It's their intent to force food producers to label the food in the hopes of scaring an ignorant and uninformed public away from GMO food in order to stop the practice of gene modification. It has nothing to do with the buying public's right to know and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell. Both they and you are hiding behind that phrase because misinformation is your only hope at stopping this practice. You're no different than Algore.
By the public I mean the general public. They have the right to know what is in the food offered for sale. They have a right to know if it contains pink slime, they have a right to know if it contains GMO, and they have right to be provided enough information to make an informed choice about what they choose to purchase and consume. The public has a right to know if smoking tobacco may endanger their health. They then have the right to smoke 'em if they've got 'em. Those opposed to GMO food have a right to know if the food offered to their purchase contains GMO. They have a right to choose whether to purchase it. Congress has the power to pass laws requiring such labeling of food for sale to the public, and to enforce the law with criminal statutes.
If GMO food is dangerous it should be taken off the market. Do you agree? Why f**k around with labels? The answer is that it's NOT dangerous, so you can't go that route. Your only hope is to scare the public into thinking it's dangerous by putting a label on food similar to that found on cigarettes. "Gosh", the public would say, "If it's safe, why are they labeling it?" I've had it with you fearmongers and your "scare of the week" -- be it red meat, egg yolks, alar, fluoride, arsenic in water, chlorine, carcinogenic bacon, hot dogs, or well-done hamburgers on the grill. Go ahead. Keep crying "wolf".
If GMO food is dangerous, it should be taken off the market. Agreed. Labels should continue so the public can decide for itself what it chooses to eat. Pink slime in ground beef may be safe. People may choose not to accept it. GMO may, or may not, be safe. People should not be forced to eat it by making its presence undetectable. Not all people will choose to accept the misterwhite standard of blindly accepting corporate sponsored studies declaring something safe. Let the market decide. Let the people choose.
Well, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this despite the fact that I have FDA studies saying it's safe and you have diddley-squat. Let's try a different tack. Is GMO safer than the alternative (ie., pre-GMO)? Before GMO, farmers used significantly more insecticides and more toxic (and less effective) herbicides. This is like the old DDT argument. Get rid of that nasty DDT in Africa because of "health risks". But doing so resulted in tens of thousands of deaths from malaria. (Note: They're using DDT again.)
Tobacco was safe to smoke until it wasn't. Thalidomide was safe until it wasn't. This list could go on and on. It matters not whether the product is food, smokes, or drugs, the public has a right to know what something is before they put it in their body. A declaration by some agency that is safe so the public has no need to know is not sufficient. Whether some agency pronounces GMO more safe or as safe as natural or organic food does not negate the public's right to know what they are being sold for the purpose of putting into their body. You may choose to ingest products based on blind acceptance. This does not negate the public's right to use their own judgment in whether to put something in their body. I would not advise eating the old DDT. It is still under a worldwide ban except for limited use as a disease vector control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle (the national bird of the United States) and the peregrine falcon from near-extirpation in the contiguous United States. http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx Status on Ratifications of the Stockholm Convention Text:
Some, not all, smokers got lung cancer, so a warning was put on the cigarettes. If GMO foods caused cancer in some people, yeah, I'd want a similar label. Does it? "Thalidomide was safe until it wasn't." Thalidomide IS safe and is still being prescribed today for treating cancer. It is not safe for pregnant women. The FDA did not approve it when it came out (although some doctors did pass out samples). "Whether some agency pronounces GMO more safe or as safe as natural or organic food does not negate the public's right to know what they are being sold for the purpose of putting into their body." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where were you when the Cry1Ab protein was (and still is) being sprayed on fruit or vegetable crops as a “natural insecticide” and transferred to humans? But when Cry1Ab is claimed to be transferred to humans via GM foods, all of a sudden it's important? I smell an agenda, sir, and you are being dishonest with me. You want a label? What would it say? "This food may cause _______?" "Studies have shown this food ________ ?" No. You don't know. You just want a big, fat red label reading "GMO FOOD! EAT IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!"
Through the decades when the public was assured that cigarettes were safe, were they safe or not? - - - - - - Used as prescribed, thalidomide caused birth defects. You consider that safe? Considering where your head is stuck, that's not an agenda you smell. I want a label that tells the consumer whether a product contains GMO. If people want to eat it, that is their choice. You want to deprive the people of a right to know what is in the product they buy.
Back in the 50's we called them "cancer sticks". Who said they were safe? The FDA? "Used as prescribed, thalidomide caused birth defects." Thalidomide was never approved by the FDA. Now I'm repeating myself. "I want a label that tells the consumer whether a product contains GMO." Because GM food is known to cause __________. Fill in the blank. Second request. "You want to deprive the people of a right to know what is in the product they buy." Nope. I want to deprive you of the ability to run a fear campaign. Booga-Booga! GMO bad! Tell me why you want it labeled.
Tho I agree with you, I feel that the scientist that develop and use GM technology, should be spending billions selling its safety... try and squash the professional fear monger groups. However on the other hand, people deserve to know what they are eating.
Monsanto should spend billions of dollars selling the safety of GMO food? You'd believe that -- the manufacturer telling you the product is safe? You don't think that would be a waste of billions of dollars of shareholders money? Or is that your intent?
If a manufacturer is gonna reap the benefits of a GMO... then if should be up to them to prove its safe before they line their pockets with a genetic mutation that grows faster, bigger, more resilient to bugs, weather and drought... not the FDA.
#109. To: GrandIsland (#108)
I would prefer a third party telling me it's safe or not safe.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest...every independent scientific body that has evaluated biotech crops has found them safe for people and the environment. ...
#46. To: Deckard, A Pole (#2)
Genetically modified foods, are they safe?
#48. To: nolu chan (#46)
"The public has a right to know what is in the food being sold to them."
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
Like 330 insect parts in a jar of Skippy peanut butter?
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
(Edited)
"Whatever they are selling, the buying public's right to know outweighs their lust for secrecy."
#55. To: misterwhite (#50)
By "the public" you mean those opposed to GMO food.
#58. To: nolu chan (#55)
(Edited)
"They have the right to know what is in the food offered for sale."
#84. To: misterwhite (#58)
If GMO food is dangerous it should be taken off the market. Do you agree? Why f**k around with labels?
#85. To: nolu chan (#84)
"GMO may, or may not, be safe."
#86. To: misterwhite (#85)
Well, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this despite the fact that I have FDA studies saying it's safe and you have diddley-squat.
Let's try a different tack. Is GMO safer than the alternative (ie., pre-GMO)? Before GMO, farmers used significantly more insecticides and more toxic (and less effective) herbicides.
This is like the old DDT argument. Get rid of that nasty DDT in Africa because of "health risks". But doing so resulted in tens of thousands of deaths from malaria.
A worldwide ban on its agricultural use was later formalized under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day and remains controversial, because of its effectiveness in reducing deaths due to malaria, countered by environmental and health concerns.
#87. To: nolu chan (#86)
"Tobacco was safe to smoke until it wasn't."
#89. To: misterwhite (#87)
Some, not all, smokers got lung cancer, so a warning was put on the cigarettes.
Thalidomide IS safe and is still being prescribed today for treating cancer.
I smell an agenda, sir, and you are being dishonest with me.
#91. To: nolu chan (#89)
"Through the decades when the public was assured that cigarettes were safe, were they safe or not?'
#92. To: misterwhite (#91)
Nope. I want to deprive you of the ability to run a fear campaign. Booga-Booga! GMO bad!
#104. To: GrandIsland (#92)
"should be spending billions selling its safety"
#108. To: misterwhite (#104)
Monsanto should spend billions of dollars selling the safety of GMO food? You'd believe that -- the manufacturer telling you the product is safe?
Replies to Comment # 108. "then if should be up to them to prove its safe"
End Trace Mode for Comment # 108.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]