Bill Would Require Labeling of GMOs

How much does it cost to revise a label to say GMO?  Some excuse. 

The only reason they are arguing against labeling is that there would be few consumers buying their products.

Another boutique issue from people who are afraid to address the real problems.

It’s about time something is done about this since the USDA doesn’t seem to care about the food safety in this country. 

the right to know what you are ingesting or even if you are ingesting it is NOT a “boutique issue”.  The tendrils to this basic human right to decide what you eat are far reaching.  Somehow GMO’s have remained a shadowy fringe issue in this country while elsewhere in the world it is addressed with caution. From an economic standpoint, especially considering the large amount of food grown in Washington state for export, a requirement for the labeling of GMO foods would increase the marketability of our agricultural products to nations that do not allow GMO food (Japan for instance).  I say let the market decide.  Obvioulsy the pushers of GMO foods want to avoid that at all costs because research shows consumers do not want to buy GMO products if they can help it.  This is a basic right to know.  If you don’t care or worry about eating GMO foods, be my guest and eat with abandon.  But as someone with a fragile immune system, I have a right to know what the hell is in my breakfast cereal.  Pig genes?  Frog DNA?  Pesticides?  Wake up folks.  

Is this going to require clear marking of these on the shelf as well? That’s the real trick; rather than making you hunt down and read for some 2px size font on the size of the bottle. Put a distinct mark on the tag or external packaging.

“Fragile immune system,” huh? I bet you’re also a vegan with a dozen food allergies that you won’t shut up about, and that you can smell an offensive cigarette a half-mile away.

Only if Seattle Smugsters are required to display a warning tattoo on their foreheads.

Gluten attack!

What study found rice RNA in human DNA? That doesn’t even make sense. If it’s in DNA, then it’s DNA, not RNA, even if the source was originally another creature’s RNA (as far as I know, the only lifeforms on Earth that regular absorb RNA from other lifeforms are bacteria). So where did you find this? Could you include a link?

Now, there was a recent study involving RNA and rice. But it found (surprisingly) small fragments of RNA from consumed rice survived the digestion process and was found in the subjects’ bloodstream. It wasn’t, however, *GMO* rice — it was just regular rice. The subjects studied were mice and not humans. The interesting part of that study has nothing to do with GMOs but rather the possibility that the specific things we eat may affect us in ways beyond the nutrients in them being taken into the body. This would be revolutionary and interesting all by itself.

You get a lot of criticism on this site for inaccuracy in your stories and I’m sorry to say that this “GMO RNA in human DNA” paragraph is so inaccurate that I can only assume you didn’t actually look up the study at all and must have relied on a misleading story about this study. That it’s “scary” is I assume why you included it without further investigation, but we don’t need more scaremongering around GMOs. The commonly used GMOs have no demonstrated harms to those who eat them. The most common problems with certain GMOs (such as Bt corn or “Roundup Ready” plans) involve possible impacts in the eco-system where the crop is growing (e.g. breeding Bt toxin resistent insects and excess herbicide applied to fields). GMO crops are in general just an extension of what humans have been doing for thousands of years, only we know a lot more now and can be smarter about it. We need people to be more educated about the complexities of genetic modification of plants, not told they should fear every modification no matter what it is or why. I highly recommend Tomorrow’s Table which talks about the complexities of “genetic modification” and agriculture in general.

What would labeling accomplish? Saying “this contains GMO” tells me as a consumer nothing about whether the crop was grown sustainably or responsibly.

One of the most common GMO plants grown in the United Status is Bt corn. This corn variety was engineered to produce a toxin that kills certain insects (specifically lepidoptera larvae). The same toxin (in the form of a spray of bacteria that produce the toxin) is generously applied to many organic corn fields in the United States to achieve the same end. If a package of corn chips told me it “contained GMO”, it doesn’t tell me the GMO is Bt corn. I personally might still avoid it, since almost all GMO corn in the US is grown in large monoculture fields (a problem regardless of the GM status of the crop). But would most consumers consider these possibilities? Should we label the specific GMO trait? If we label Bt corn as containing “a Bt toxin producing gene”, does organic corn have to be labeled as being sprayed with “Bt toxin producing bacteria”? Should we require both GMO Bt corn and organic corn producers to label what percentage of the field is inter-cropped with non-Bt-treated plants (this is critical to reducing the risk of breeding Bt-resistant insects)?

Labeling food is fraught with difficulties. Will it be effective? Does it present enough information for the consumer to make an informed choice? Is it fair to all producers of similar crops? Just labeling foods as “contains GMO” is nearly useless since it doesn’t let a consumer know what kind of GMO it is and whether they personally consider that GMO to be an acceptable crop to grow. It also leaves out other information like: what kinds of herbicides or pesticides were applied (and in what quantity), what is the soil quality of the fields, how much run-off of soil occurs, and so forth. All of these things are important to making an environmentally-aware food choice, but none of them are proposed to be labeled. “Contains GMO” by comparison says very little and is nearly useless to an informed consumer.

didn’t we genetically modify rye and barley and wheat genetically modified?  Can’t a caveman get credit for anything?

What a fucking moron you are. “Me as a consumer” means different things to different people, none of whom are you except you. Nobody, ever, is going to label any food at any time to your satisfaction.

And in case you are wondering, I support labeling, just not to the ridiculous extremes that you want to take it.

Normally I wouldn’t respond to someone who calls me names for no good reason, but in case anyone else misunderstood me, my comment was not to specifically advocate for detailed labels like “uses X pounds of pesticides per acre”. It was to point out the complexities of labeling in general — why isn’t “contains GMO” helpful? If we think “contains GMO” is helpful, then what other labels would be more helpful? Once you start thinking about what kinds of labels would help a consumer make informed choices, you realize that just slapping a short list of vague and inconsistent labels on food products is a waste of money.

My dog is allergic to GMO corn starch. Label all dog food!

Um, ivan? She made the argument against labeling. Now tell us who the “fucking moron” is.

Facts? Publicola? Think GMO oil and GMO water.

Your statement wants the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I can appreciate your argument and your seemingly understanding of the situation, but progress should not be thwarted because your inability to understand one timeline from another.
If you can’t take one step forward because you are overcome with the plethora of reality that sits before you, you are doomed. Your thrashings will only further mire you in the tar pit of your demise.

PLANT!!!
 Your 3rd paragraph lead in wants to relate you to someone who actually reads this blog day in and day out and as someone who may be on the look out for the consumer.
You are not that.
Your arguement looks out for YOUR crops and YOUR bottom line
regardless of the consumer.
Your immersed in this and you’ve laid your values down for what you believe in and you expect the market to go along with the choices YOU have made.

No thank you.

I’ve been around a while. You can see my comment history in Discus.

I am in fact a software developer who lives in Seattle. The closest to “crops” that I have are some overwintering kale in my garden. I happen to have been at a talk by the authors of that book a couple years ago at a Long Now event in San Francisco. It was very eye-opening.

But you don’t care. You just want to dismiss a contrary opinion by asserting it is disingenuous. I doubt you bothered to even google my name before you decided I must be an industry shill.

Look in the mirror.

I’ve read a sizable amount of both the science of TRASGENIC plants. You are a GMO, as two things came together to make you.

The social opposition to them is now laughable, especially in Northern Europe and Scandinavia. I have come to hold the same exact opinion as Rachael. While initial skepticism and further researched was warranted, it seems there is enough health information now to support the idea that transgenic foods are fine to eat, incredibly useful at feeding both the developed and developing world, and ecologically beneficial through higher yields in arid conditions (using less water). This skepticism, though, has lead to dangerous places. “Dandelion rice”, or golden rice, was a fantastic invention putting dandelion genes into rice to produce Vitamin A to safe children from blindness. It works really well, was truly safe, and the Non-profit complex would not use it over regular, low Vit. A rice. This is a case of bad autocracy by people who don’t understand or respect the science behind it.

If you don’t like it stay out of the market and go eat dandelion weeds, deal with it, and please, STFU. (I’m talking to you Bill McKibben)

I would also like to recommend a book that describes this issue in depth in a style that most educated non-scientists can understand: Mendel in the Kitchen by Nina Fedoroff (molecular biologist).

I’ve read a sizable amount of both the science of TRASGENIC plants. You are a GMO, as two things came together to make you.

The social opposition to them is now laughable, especially in Northern Europe and Scandinavia. I have come to hold the same exact opinion as Rachael. While initial skepticism and further researched was warranted, it seems there is enough health information now to support the idea that transgenic foods are fine to eat, incredibly useful at feeding both the developed and developing world, and ecologically beneficial through higher yields in arid conditions (using less water). This skepticism, though, has lead to dangerous places. “Dandelion rice”, or golden rice, was a fantastic invention putting dandelion genes into rice to produce Vitamin A to safe children from blindness. It works really well, was truly safe, and the Non-profit complex would not use it over regular, low Vit. A rice. This is a case of bad autocracy by people who don’t understand or respect the science behind it.

If you don’t like it stay out of the market and go eat dandelion weeds, deal with it, and please, STFU. (I’m talking to you Bill McKibben)

I would also like to recommend a book that describes this issue in depth in a style that most educated non-scientists can understand: Mendel in the Kitchen by Nina Fedoroff (molecular biologist).

“not so simple” is either a simpleton who has drunk the GMO safety KoolAid or is simply a GMO business shill…

Read this article:  GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babiesRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-93-unborn-babies.html#ixzz1miVuaWCk

and this one:What You Eat Affects Your Genes: RNA from Rice Can Survive …

This “Of course it’s safe!” mentality reminds me of my grandfather swearing to me that there really was nothing wrong with using that dusty asbestos blanket he had in the barn.  And, I love how not introducing a new Vitamin A rich food is “dangerous”.  Let the public decide what they are eating.  It’s not too hard to print out the ingredients now.  And frankly, I don’t want to eat bt corn either.

Yes Walter, didn’t you hear about the stock options Monsanto started offering to people who post in favor of GMO crops on leftist news sites

Granted, I have nothing wrong with labeling GMO food – but what does that really tell you about it? Do you want a 5 page report attached about the specific genetic sequences used, or the methods describing what Recombinant DNA biotech used to produce it as well? Why don’t we have conventional and organic growers describing their breeding methods in depth as well?

I’m of the opinion that it’s good to be skeptical of everything, especially of things that are new, where we aren’t aware if they pose any long-term consequences. General public knowledge about “frankenfoods” is exceptionally low, and organizations like Greenpeace using scare tactics of biological catastrophe and cancer without providing any real information are only advancing their own self-aggrandizing utopian agendas.

Shouldn’t we aspire as an agricultural society to make more, high-quality, healthier food on less land; using less water and pesticides? Yes, when we involved a profit motive into the mix, we end up with agricultural conglomerates suing farmers for genetic patents over open pollinated corn, which is inane, but with proper oversight, is it possible that we can achieve something better?

The demonization of agricultural science in favor of organic “purity” is an argument that primarily only the Western world and the few agriculturally prosperous third world countries can afford to have without having to rely on food aid, or having the poor of their country face starvation.