Invalid Document Request
The result is a slightly sweet, reduced-calorie only one calorie per gram because it is poorly digested bulking agent. I tried to google the first name on that list and came up with… that list. Any advantages of selecting one party over the other because of say, a policy in your favour or advantage, such as a tax cut, will only be a short-term payoff. More trouble for Google as employees resign possible Human Rights violation. I am in favor of that technology.
There were more than valid certificates and 66 organic certification bodies until in China. With these recognitions, Indian organic products duly certified by the accredited certification bodies of India are accepted by the importing countries. This was revised in November and all JAS certifiers were required to be re-accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture.
It is a nationwide private organization working for the promotion of organic and sustainable agriculture in Cambodia. COrAA has developed both organic and chemical-free agricultural standards and provides third-party-certification to producers following these standards. Organic cert is not without its critics.
Some of the staunchest opponents of chemical-based farming and factory farming practices also oppose formal certification. They see it as a way to drive independent organic farmers out of business, and to undermine the quality of organic food. Originally, in the s through the s, the organic food industry was composed of mainly small, independent farmers, selling locally.
Organic "certification" was a matter of trust , based on a direct relationship between farmer and consumer. Critics  view regulatory certification as a potential barrier to entry for small producers, by burdening them with increased costs,  paperwork, and bureaucracy .
In China, due to government regulations, international companies wishing to market organic produce must be independently certified.
For example, figures from Australian organic infant formula and baby food producer Bellamy's Organic indicate export growth, to China alone, of 70 per cent per year since gaining Chinese certification in ,  while similar producers have shown export growth of 20 per cent to 30 per cent a year following certification .
Peak Australian organic certification body, Australian Certified Organic , has stated however that "many companies have baulked at risking the money because of the complex, unwieldy and expensive process to earn Chinese certification. Manipulation of certification regulations as a way to mislead or outright dupe the public is a very real concern. Some examples are creating exceptions allowing non-organic inputs to be used without loss of certification status and creative interpretation of standards to meet the letter, but not the intention, of particular rules.
For example, a complaint filed with the USDA in February against Bayliss Ranch, a food ingredient producer and its certifying agent, charged that tap water had been certified organic, and advertised for use in a variety of water-based body care and food products, in order to label them "organic" under US law. Steam-distilled plant extracts, consisting mainly of tap water introduced during the distilling process, were certified organic, and promoted as an organic base that could then be used in a claim of organic content.
The case was dismissed by the USDA, as the products had been actually used only in personal care products , over which the department at the time extended no labeling control. The company subsequently adjusted its marketing by removing reference to use of the extracts in food products. In the Australia Consumer Competition Commission said that water can no longer be labelled as organic water because, based on organic standards, water cannot be organic and it is misleading and deceptive to label any water as such.
The label itself can be used to mislead many customers that food labelled as being organic is safer, healthier and more nutritious.
Critics of formal certification also fear an erosion of organic standards. Provided with a legal framework within which to operate, lobbyists can push for amendments and exceptions favorable to large-scale production, resulting in "legally organic" products produced in ways similar to current conventional food.
In the United States large food companies, have "assumed a powerful role in setting the standards for organic foods. In December , the agricultural appropriations bill was passed with a rider allowing 38 synthetic ingredients to be used in organic foods, including food colorings, starches, sausage and hot-dog casings, hops, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, and gelatin; this allowed Anheuser-Busch in to have its Wild Hop Lager certified organic "even though [it] uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. University of California, Berkeley. Organic foods are not necessarily pesticide-free. Organic foods are produced using only certain pesticides with specific ingredients. Organic pesticides tend to have natural substances like soaps, lime sulfur and hydrogen peroxide as ingredients. Not all natural substances are allowed in organic agriculture; some chemicals like arsenic, strychnine and tobacco dust nicotine sulfate are prohibited.
Becoming a Certified Operation". United States Department of Agriculture: Retrieved 4 November Archived from the original PDF on A Review of Organic and Fair-trade Certification. Building on the Comparative Advantage of Poor Farmers.
Accessed 3 September Archived from the original on Research Institute of Organic Agriculture. Retrieved 30 October Archived from the original on 19 October National Center for Appropriate Technology. Retrieved 21 February Retrieved 15 June Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.
Retrieved 3 April United States Department of Agriculture. Loyola Consumer Law Review. The Organic Council of Ontario. Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network. Retrieved December 1, Questions and Answers" PDF. Retrieved 24 Jan Retrieved 5 August Retrieved 2 April We have also developed standards for areas not covered by government or EU regulations. These include conservation, fish farming, textiles and health and beauty care products.
Archived from the original PDF on 21 February Retrieved 4 March Retrieved 26 February Archived from the original on 7 January Australasian Political Studies Association. Archived from the original on 26 February Retrieved 1 September Therefore a more local system for trade in farm products and their certification brings a range of advantages for farmers Retrieved 27 March Retrieved 14 April Dietary protein is needed in small amounts to rebuild your body as you wear it out daily.
Dietary protein is a poor energy source. Excess causes leaching of calcium and other minerals in the bones, causing osteoporosis thinning of bones. Complex sugars burn slow best food. Only CO2 and H2O as waste product of digestion. Does not stress vital organs during digestion. Provides vim, vigor, vitality and energy for daily living and working.
Eat carbohydrates when you are hungry and don't worry about weight, it is used up for your energy needs. Prime sources of complex carbohydrates are: Fruits except coconut , vegetables except avocado , grains, rice, oatmeal, cream of wheat, shredded wheat, grape-nuts, nutri-grain, puffed rice, wheat millet, non-fat breads tzizel, pita, pumpernickel, bagels , beans, peas, potatoes Irish and sweet boiled or baked , salads non-fat dressings , pastas, whole grains, spaghetti, macaroni.
Skim milk, meat broiled, baked or boiled , fish best , chicken skinned white meat , 3 ounces a day. All fried foods, all fats, nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, sugar, honey, syrups, caffeine, salt, cheese, eggs, butter, oleo margarine, olives, coconut, red meat beef once a week , no PORK. In order to avoid weight loss, eat more potatoes, pasta, breads, rice, oatmeal and fruit. Vegetables, raw or cooked except avocados , beans, peas, salads non-fat dressings , vegetable soup without fat.
Potatoes, grains, rice, oatmeal, cream of wheat, skim milk, shredded wheat, grape-nuts, nutri-grain flakes, non-fat breads tzizel, pita, pumpernickel, bagels , pastas, whole grain spaghetti, macaroni, fruits no coconut , fish broiled or baked , chicken skinned white meat.
All fried foods, all fats, nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, sugar, honey, syrups, caffeine, salt, cheese, eggs, butter, oleo, olives, avocado, coconut, red meats beef one time per week , no PORK. These vegetables are high in fiber and contain a natural cancer preventative agent. Cooked carrots are better absorbed by the body than raw ones. The value of a Cadillac for the price of a Ford. Oats are a rich source of protein, and fiber in oats--the stuff that makes oatmeal gummy--helps reduce cholesterol and normalize blood sugar.
If you prepare your oatmeal with skim milk rather than water, you get a protein and calcium bonus. Instant oatmeal is not as good as cooked oatmeal because it's made with lots of salt and sometimes lots of sugar. Cauliflower, brussel sprouts, kale, kohlrabi: Not just for cole slaw.
A natural cancer preventive substance reduces the risk of colon cancer, a major cancer killer in the United States. Another super nutrient bargain. For calories in a 5 oz. Potato fewer than in many "diet" foods you get high percentages of vitamin C, protein, iron, riboflavin, thiamine, niacin, phosphorus and magnesium. Don't cook potatoes in fat or add sour cream or butter.
Sometimes I just put my cooked vegies on a potato--it's nutritious and attractive. Brown rice with vegies or beans cooked and placed on top of rice is great, pure energy. Baked sweet potatoes are great Milk contains protein, and the calcium helps to prevent weakening of the bones. Yogurt has some advantages over milk, although it's more expensive.
Since it takes time to consume, you really feel that you've eaten something. You can eat it with fruit or vegies and use it as a thickening agent in soups and other recipes. In desserts that traditionally are loaded with whipped cream or cream cheese, yogurt is a good, and unnoticeable substitute. Yogurt is a perfect ingredient for dips and salad dressings.
Frozen yogurt is better than ice cream from a fat standpoint--but it still has quite a bit of sugar. But watch out for the sauce! Pasta is not a fattening food. It contains protein, vitamins and minerals. Even white pastas are a good source of essential nutrients. You can make pasta sauces that are very low fat and calories. For the pasta gourmet: All varieties of fish have an ingredient that protects against heart disease by helping to lower blood cholesterol levels and prevent blood clots.
Sardines are among the easiest fish to buy and if eaten with the bones, are very high in calcium as good as milk. Do not add saturated animal fat in preparation. In restaurants order fish broiled without butter.
Poached fish is a good no-fat choice--order the fatty, high-calorie sauce on the side. Salmon is excellent as a really clean fish. The staff of life. I think the reason millions of Americans limp around all day is because they don't eat enough bread.
Bread should be a part of every meal, and it's a good snack food. Of course, I prefer whole grain bread it has 18 more nutrients than white bread. Bread that isn't white in color is not necessarily whole wheat. The first ingredient should be a whole grain, such as oats or usually whole wheat. If you eat a slice of bread with calories, you absorb only 70 calories. You get something for nothing. Brown rice is high in fiber and other nutrients.
Very nutritious and versatile. An excellent source of vegetable protein, the lentil family has a cholesterol-protective substance. Lentils are high in fiber which is why dried beans leave a gassy legacy, a testimony to the fact that you are eating a healthful diet. Try them in soups, salads and casseroles.
For the lentil novice, lentil soup is the best place to start. Beans over brown rice are a great meal. By calling fresh fruit natural means to say that refined sugar is not natural -- it is. What I mean is -- The sugar in fresh fruit comes in a package loaded with things that are really good for you: A fruit is better than a juice because it is more slowly absorbed by the body and more substantive.
Use fruits or fruit juices, concentrated-frozen, to sweeten other foods. Great for snackers and ex smokers who want to put something healthful into their mouths. Unbuttered, unsalted popcorn contains fiber and a lot of hot air which is why it has only 23 calories per cup.
You eat an immense amount of popcorn before you reach the calorie equivalent of a single cookie. Great as sweeteners for oatmeal and rice. High in potassium, vitamins and other minerals. Great as a spread on a sandwich with whole-grain breads. The epitome of nutritional bankruptcy.
This includes all the soft drinks, carbonated or not, sugar sweetened or artificially sweetened. If you are desperate for something sweet, you're better off having fruit juice. A travesty on the name of potatoes. A wonderful nutritious food acquires calories of fat when fried and in a fast-food restaurant you're probably getting dangerous beef fat.
You might as well eat butter. They contain a large amount of added fat, as well as lots of salt. It's not really meat. It's high in salt and full of nitrates, which may cause cancer. Micro-waved bacon, which seems drier, is just as high in fat. Drowning in a sea of fat. People order pasta thinking it is healthful, then destroy its benefit by ordering it in fatty sauces, and pasta does require a great deal of dressing.
Try the no-oil Italian dressing. Interestingly, the plain burgers are not particularly high in fat. But when you throw in the dressing, the cheese, and the extra beef, it adds up. Whoever said they are healthful?
Granola is high-fat, high sugar cereal. I use it only as a garnish, sprinkling a little bit of it on an unsweetened cereal.
Granola bars are simply high-calorie cookies. The latest version -- the granola candy bars -- are no better for you than a Milky Way or Snickers, and they cost more. There is no advantage to eating a granola bar. Probably the worst cereal ever produced. If you went to camp, you know that s'mores are a campfire confection of graham crackers, toasted marshmallows and chocolate bars. And that's exactly what is in s'mores cereal.
More than half the calories come from sugar. You're really eating candy with milk on it. Worse than no breakfast at all.
Not only do doughnuts have the sugar and white flour that we should be cutting back on, but they're fried. They give me heartburn. Doughnuts put your blood sugar out of whack, and they don't stay with you. By the end of the morning you'll be in bad shape. Not at all a wonder food. Cheese has some redeeming features, and I do use it in my recipes, but in small amounts. Many people who have stopped eating meat because of their concern with fat and cholesterol are substituting a huge amount of cheese.
They would be better off with the red meat. Cheese has the same amount of fat and cholesterol as red meat -- and far more salt. Cottage cheese, part-skim mozzarella, skim milk ricotta and feta. Grated parmesan goes a long way. Best hard cheese is swiss. I explained that I was there to lecture on exactly that subject.
Formic acid is the poison found in the sting of fire ants. The methanol toxicity mimics multiple sclerosis; thus, people were being diagnosed with having multiple sclerosis in error. The multiple sclerosis is not a death sentence, where methanol toxicity is. In the case of systemic lupus, we are finding it has become almost as rampant as multiple sclerosis, especially with Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi drinkers. Also, with methanol toxicity, the victims usually drink three to four 12oz.
The victim continues its use aggravating the lupus to such a degree, that sometimes it becomes life-threatening. Affordable food is no priority for the anti-GMO lobby. The reason is very simple. They have come up with a winning argument. It may be bad science, but it is good politics. Who can disagree with the right to know what is in your food?
On just about any issue, if you stood on a street corner and asked people whether they wanted to know what was in their food, most people would sign up. It is also a triumph of framing. The framing of the issue is exactly the one the antis want — secretive big business lining up against consumer advocates trying to deny ordinary people the right to information about that most basic of human necessities, food. They were already fighting a rearguard battle on ground established by their opponents.
So in both California and Washington State we have Monsanto and others pouring tens of millions into a campaign that to all outward appearances is desperately trying to stop people knowing where their products are being used. Can you imagine a better opportunity for the fearmongers: What are they trying to hide?
Just think of the psychology this provokes: Academic work on social psychology is absolutely clear here, and to me is the killer argument: And attempts by experts at reassurance may even be counter-productive because they heighten the sense that people themselves are not being allowed to judge, and that men in white coats in their laboratories have something to hide. So people are getting increasingly scared of GMOs precisely because the industry is fighting a rearguard battle not to tell people which foodstuffs contain them.
This has to be the worst PR strategy ever: Does anyone here think this is a winning strategy? If so, please raise your hands. Just how failing an argument this is was brought home to me dramatically after a recent talk I gave in India. I had been making a strong pro-choice argument: With the single very successful exception of cotton, GMOs are banned in India. After my speech an Indian scientist, who worked in biotech himself for a public university, came up to me and said: You cannot oppose labelling, because that is inconsistent — choice goes both ways.
Consumer right to know, however unjustifiable on scientific grounds, is an argument that — once a critical mass of people are demanding it — it is be political suicide to oppose.
However, simply giving in is not an option either. Having different laws in every state would indeed be a short-cut to prohibition, which is exactly why the labelling activists have chosen it as their strategy. So those of us who want to defend science and who understand the true potential of biotechnology have no option — we have to change the game. My challenge to the biotechnology industry — the whole food industry in general in fact — is very clear.
You have to stop opposing labelling. Instead, you have to embrace the consumer right to know. To lose this entire debate to a motley coalition of anti-vaccine quacks, organic food charlatans, naturopathic nutjobs and magic soap manufacturers would not just be a tragedy for humanity, it would be frankly rather embarrassing. This cannot be allowed to happen. What consumers want is transparency — and you must deliver this to them. Do not dig yourselves deeper into the wrong side of a winning argument.
Transparency is the only way to rebuild trust. Trust cannot be bought via PR campaigns, trust can only be earned. The best way to earn trust is through full transparency, and — this point is crucial — this transparency cannot only be on terms that you set yourself. That means that if sufficient people say they want to know something, you must tell them. If enough people say that GMOs should be labelled, then labelled they must be.
And maybe, just maybe, the most powerful weapon the antis have in their arsenal will ultimately turn out to be their Achilles heel. The first thing to get clear is that labelling must be industry-wide, and to my mind that means it must be operated at the federal level, and it must be mandatory.
If it is voluntary, then no-one will do it. Which food company is going to offer their lead brand as a sacrificial lamb to test the market for consumer preferences on GMOs? They would suffer a first-mover disadvantage which would stop this ever happening. So it must be brought in at federal level, not just for this reason, but also to supercede the patchwork of state-level regulations that will otherwise cause havoc across the entire food sector.
Second, there must be a way to design labelling so that there is no implication that there is a health and safety case for it. In other words, this is not a warning label.
It is an information label purely to support choice and the exercise of consumer preference. Thirdly, labelling must be across the board. It must be process-based — it does not matter whether there are any residues of modified DNA in the finished product. So it must include derivatives: Yes — this means we would be labelling beer, cheese, drugs even. It means we would be labelling meat and dairy if the animals were fed with GM feed.
It means, according to estimates I have heard, that 80 percent of food products on the shelves would be labelled. Why will this work?
Because it is the only option which satisfies the basic demand of consumer right to know. There would be no more hidden GMOs, nothing for the conspiracy theorists to scaremonger about, no more fears to play on. Consumers could choose, based on labels clearly identifiable on the packaging of all foods on the supermarket shelves. I believe that this could radically change the game on GMOs. Suddenly they would be ubiquitous — as indeed they already have been for 15 years.
Familiarity brings acceptance and understanding. Halfway houses mean that products and sectors could be picked off one by one by determined activist campaigns. If soy products are labelled but oils are not, then the brand risk will be too high, and manufacturers will go non-GMO. That is what the activists want, of course, and is precisely why the state initiatives contain so many exemptions — not to make them workable, but to make them unworkable, and therefore trojan horses for prohibition.
Some have proposed non-GMO labelling, which already exists as a voluntary standard. Perhaps, analagous to the organic sector, this could be brought to the federal level via USDA standards, perhaps combined with some legislation that would supercede future state laws. To my mind, this is both illogical and unworkable.
It merely implies that anything without a label is almost certainly GMO — but in that case why not go the whole hog and simply be explicit? Moreover, anything which appeared to supercede state laws without satisfying the right to know demand would be a political minefield.
I predict that it would take less than five minutes for it to be dubbed a Monsanto Protection Act mark II. The only way state law can be superceded is if the essential demands underlying the electoral ballot initiatives are satisfied at federal level, making further state action both unnecessary and obtrusive.
Then we can start to move into a different space, one where once consumers are familiar with the fact that GMOs are in most of their foods, they realise that this technology is both safe and that it can deliver some things they really want. These include, as I said at the beginning: Instead of hiding biotechnology and hoping people forget about its purported pitfalls, we could bring it out into the open and begin to sell it on its merits.
The truth is that biotech is probably the only way to achieve what organic advocates want — to produce food sustainably without the use of increasing amounts of agrochemicals.
That is why in the longer term I want to see the industry restructured, so that biotech can be a truly disruptive technology, undermining the markets for crop protection chemicals. I want to see the biotechnology industry separated from the crop protection industry. Let the biologists and the chemists fight it out in the marketplace! But we can only do this once open-ness and transparency is established, and where the benefits and risks of different technologies can be assessed and discussed in an evidence-based and scientific way.
To get to that point will require a game-changing plan, one which gets biotechnology out of the shadows and into the limelight where it belongs. If we truly believe that this technology has so much potential, we should be shouting about it from the rooftops. Labels, therefore, can be our friend. Perhaps the labelling debate, therefore, presents not risk, but opportunity. Never was that more apposite than in the case of GMOs.
Today everyone I speak to, whether scientists, food industry, farmers or whatever, are scared of the fears of others. That, after all, is what not just free markets, but surely also democracy demands. I would take it one step further. Label ALL breeding methods. Do I have the right to know who composted the manure and whether or not it was done properly?
Can I see a test result that assures me that the organic corn chips are free of mycotoxins? If not, why not? These, by the way, are established safety issues. The process is somewhat expensive, however. That organic is bad for us? That if we were scientifically literate we would understand what organic contains and be scared?
Got no real argument then. And if mycotoxins are something to be worried about, perhaps you should be scared of organic. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my food free from quasi-religious dogma. But I still think that fear-based policy is not something that should be encouraged and supported. That said, if there will be labels, then I want everything touched by biotechnology to have them. Marker-assisted breeding, grafting, hybrids, embryo rescue—all of them.
Lab-generated Bt organic sprays. If a label was based on the scientific facts in all cases, it would at least be consistent if still largely ignored and useless to most people. And then I will laugh my ass off at the ensuing marketing campaign that convinces people what the environmental benefits of biotech are. There was a genetically-modified Jeep ad that I thought was hilarious. It will only be the beginning. Whatever my preferences — I have right to know what I am eating.
I agree with you that labeling should take place so why are Monsanto spending millions of Dollars on trying to prevent GMO labeling? If as you, and Monsanto, claim there is nothing to be worried about with this technology why are they so concerned about labeling? If they are so confident about their technology and the resultant crops surely they would be lauding it and not trying to hide it.
Nut job activists have used this imbalance in the legal system to delay and inflate costs at nuclear electricity generator construction sites for more than a generation. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, ] in the appropriations measure that is derided as the Monsanto Protection Act. The issue is what is the process is if a court revokes a deregulated status for a GMO crop variety due to a procedural defect found in the NEPA review.
In no case where groups have legally challenged a deregulation, have groups proven or even alleged a known threat to public health and safety or environmental harm. They have only raised theoretical issues and allege that NEPA review was incomplete by not fully addressing them. Nothing prevents anyone from continuing to challenge USDA deregulatory decisions or the courts from ruling in their favor. And in no case to date has a court decision to revoke a deregulated status and remand the application back to USDA for further consideration been decided on an alleged or known threat to public or environmental safety.
The regulatory relevance of a court decision revoking a deregulated status is the crop reverts back to regulated status, meaning that its planting and disposition is once again subject to USDA regulation. The question that the provision answers is what happens to farmers and crops already planted and in the commercial chain during the period the crop was deregulated and while further review is pending. Anti-GMO groups want the courts in every case to enjoin its planting and harvesting, and to even order destruction of crops in the field.
Part of the reason for this is to intentionally create an uncertainty for producers and impose actual economic hardships on producers to scare producers away. What the biotech rider says is to expressly authorize USDA, where appropriate, to impose restrictions on the planting and use of a crop, i. USDA already arguably has and has exercised this authority. Furthermore, this reregulation remedy, rather than automatic injunction and court ordered destruction is precisely what the Supreme Court itself ordered in in Monsanto Co.
Also, the biotech rider does not, and cannot, impair the Courts authority to order injunction and even destruction of crops already planted in the event that revocation of deregulated status is based upon a finding of actual or imminent harm. Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: It is interesting that when you go to websites that decry the horrors of the provision, the language itself is not made available or linked to.
When you go to websites that explain how this provision has been misrepresented, they usually incorporate the text or provide a link to it. In this case, the pro-gmo site is quite transparent, but the anti-gmo sites are not. But, even if you are correct that the so-called Monsanto protection act grants tort liability to Monsanto, how is it that a series of tort claims have been filed against Monsanto following the discovery of regulated wheat variety in an Oregon wheat field.
This occured 2 months after the biotech rider had been signed into law. Followign the discovery, some nations temporarily suspended imports of American wheat. A series of suits have been filed against Monsanto by farmers claiming damages due to the disrupted markets. Surely, the attorneys advising these farmers would have informed them that the Monsanto Protection Act bars lawsuits against Monsanto, right? Apart from the right to know what we eat, we also have the right to know if an American multinational is discharging novel organisms into the biosphere without concern for future effects on something which is vital to sustaining life on the planet, including human life.
We ignore that small fact at our peril. That the US government is in the pockets of big business is a given, as is the bullying attitude of mega corp inc. I remain unpersuaded of the case for labelling, however I agree that if you go down that route it is better making it broad. This may speed up public acceptance in the end. If someone finds out that they have been drinking Budweiser every weekend for over a decade that contains GM ingredients they will probably worry a lot less about GM crops.
It sounds more like things environmentalists are concerned about. Insecticides, land use, carbon in soils etc. The cost of food and whether it might harm matter more.
Using GE technology to make food more nutritious is probably far more productive, simply from a PR point of view, than attempts to improve soil carbon. After all, people gladly eat chicken meat from chickens grown in truly horrifying conditions. Yeah, I used enviro ads as an example, but there are actually 3 main things I hear about that people must have the right to know because of:.
But if you want this, the presence or absence of the specific trait has to be noted. However, GMOs are not required for either herbicides or monocultures. They are very incensed about this and want to use the label to avoid this somehow. No matter how many times I explain that this is also not unique to GMOs, that myth persists. Will this end the shouting? The goalposts will only move. I understand the appeal of wanting the shouting to stop. And people smoke cigarettes for decades until lung cancer gets them.
GMOs have been in our food supply for less than 20 years, who knows the long term consequences. If you want to take that risk with your health, more power to you, but I do not.
We have so many examples of products being released for public consumption and only recalled after it is too late; Thalidomide, DDT, Vioxx, Celebrex. I have seen enough short-term animal studies to give me pause. I am actually a little disappointed with this post.
I think a fair scheme for labeling GMOs could be devised, but to be fair it would have to include all breeding methods. Arbitrarily picking out GMOs for labeling—even a fairly benign labeling scheme—just sees like the wrong path to head down. I think it is more likely to embolden the anti-GMO crowd than neutralize them. If consumer awareness is really our goal then I think we should remember that it is just as misleading to treat irrelevant information as important as it is to treat relevant information as unimportant.
When irrelevant information is treated as important it does not add to consumer choice, because consumers are making an uninformed or misinformed choice. They think certain consequences are there when they purchase a product that actually are not, and believe that other consequences are not there when they actually are. How is a right to know a right to mislead?
Are you employed by Monsanto or just gullible? And already Roundup-resistant weeds are already appearing as those critical of this American capitalist experiment with the planet forecast decades ago.
We have to label whether someone named Bob drove a tractor on the farm. What is Big Bob hiding? I think the stand up comic forum is elsewhere though. How do you feel about blasting plants with nuclear rays and altering their genes randomly? Should we not label that also? Your Bob example demonstrates the absurdity. A more realistic example would be compulsory labelling of the geographical origin of all ingredients: A significant minority of consumers would be interested in this information, but compelling food companies to provide this would add extra bureaucratic costs that would also have to be paid by the majority.
But probably not whether any Bobs were involved! Think of this analogy. As a software developer I have a choice of tools with which to develop an application. For the consumer of an application the software language has no impact at all on how they use it.
What a spurious lack of reasoning! Comparing programming to producing food? There IS no comparison, and only a programmer could possibly think his work so important. Programs control pixels on a screen, GM is about not just the food we eat to sustain life, but also the ecology that produces the food. I suggest you try harder to look more deeply into the issue, and stop making spurious comparisons with something which is by comparison trivial.
Timothy, you hit this whole exercise by this Mark right on the mark; Just imagine a train going down the tracks; there is no way you are going to stop it. And with a little bit of Corruption here and there like within the FDA top management! The lawsuits against small farmers whose fields end up with small amounts of cross pollinated crops due to GMO production nearby, then being forced to pay for patent infringement.
That is not the appropriate activity of a group of people dedicated to feeding the world. That is why no one is buying the PR. Kristi, I believed this as well after I watched Food Inc. At the time, I was staunchly against them, until I started discovering that most of what is said within these communities is simply not true.
Monsanto, however evil they may or may not be, has never sued a farmer due to having Monsanto product unintentionally growing on their land. They have, however, been preemptively sued due to a fear of just such an event occurring, which was thrown out by the court system.
Not that it matters, because Monsanto has already made legally binding assurances that it will sue a farmer for those reasons. Interesting article but for me it comes down to something much simpler.
Is it not clear enough for you? As a nearly lifelong vegetarian, I have little sympathy for the inconvenience of reading labels. Thank you for this well reasoned article. I enjoyed reading it and I look forward to being able th share this with my students!! I think the labels should come with a link to independent, non-privately-funded website that collates all the information about GMOs.
For one, Chris MacDonald can: The right to know is different than a preference to know. This is an interesting, very clear and strong argument. The FDA does not require process-based labeling,and they have concluded based on the science available and the consultation data submitted by developers that GM food products are as safe as non-GM products.
So, having a federal mandate to label GM food products seems like it would mean a reversal of FDA policy for some 20 years of proclaiming correctly that there is no scientific justification for such. This would be quite a change for FDA, and would they do this voluntarily? How would this come about — congressional action or executive order that admits we are going to throw out the science in favor of the right to know?
It is an intriguing proposal, but seems like a steep climb to achieve. No man or institution is infallible, if we continue to allow persons or companies in charge to keep information to themselves and away from us then we are as equally to blame for our failing health and system. Looks from here that the FDA is in the pockets of not just Monsanto, but every other agrobusiness. The growers on the other hand seem like really nice, friendly, intelligent, educated, sharing, kind people, faced with American Rentathugs with guns.
Although the masters make the rules For the wise men and the fools I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. Do you want farmers to have complete freedom, or do you want a reasonable amount of safety to our food? As long as we desire a level of quality to the products we can be sold, we will have regulating bodies to determine said level and enforce that level being met. The government raid organic farms because they are not operating within normal food safety and health regulations. For instance, how many trans fats — a far greater health risk if you ask me — have been added?
How much buckwheat, pine nuts, lupin flour, all potential allergens? Ultimately the only way this is going to be resolved is through regulation.
Regulation balances the need for progress with that of safety. People can still get to work at a reasonable time without putting pedestrians at undue risk. But exactly how would you word the label on refined derivatives like oils and sugars or meat, which you already admitted do not contain vestiges of the plant DNA. I see a world of confusion erupting here. The single most aggressive, bullying, dishonest company in the history of capitalism. Monsanto caused the suspicion in people because they bahaved, and continue to behave, in a fascistic manner, so they were taken on at their own game, and lost.
America is a hopeless case as far as GMOs are concerned, long ago they should have been resisted, but now they cover the country and are in everything. Europe on the other hand was so much less subservient and has resisted and will continue to resist an unnecessary interference with the genetics of life. If America wants to sell food to Europe, it will have to be labeled.
It takes years for a once-chemical farm to revert to organic [as they all were until the fifties in the UK] as it takes that long for the soil to recover from the dead state it is in, lose the poisons and re-aquire micro-organisms and organic matter. The quick chemical-technological fix [how American is that! It cares nothing for the future and is all about profits. You are an inflammatory ignoramous. In fact, exactly the same argument you trot out every time a new aspect of this topic is discussed.
FFS change the bloody record. We the enlightened ones? What a lovely circuitous self-serving argument! But Monsanto has somewhat screwed it for the rest with their insatiable drive to conquer all and any opposition, if necessary by sueing, bullying, lying or other dirty tricks.
As a result people are suspicious of the technology, rather than just that particular mega capitalist enterprise. And still, after decades, there is no data that shows GM as anything but a means of creating plants capable of withstanding highly toxic sprays, leading to increased sales of these sprays and profits for the company.
That GM is about extending chemical-cosh farming which is destroying the ecosystem to such an extent that pollinators are in sharp decline. Someone should tell chemists the vital role pollinators play in our food chain. Yet this has all come about becauseof the attitude and behaviour of the GM companies, no one asked them to be secretive, or to lie about what their product did.
Yet we are to be blamed by you for this along with all else that you object to. I plead guilty to being anti-capitalist; the evidence is all there to see, capitalism is destroying the planet.
It has one impulse, to increase profits, and we have seen across a wide range of industries that capitalists care nothing for people, animals or planet nor of the damage they do. Anything less is fascistic control and must be implacably opposed. Mark, thank you for your comments about GMO labeling.
As a farmer an someone who is trying to keep transparency of what we do on our farm an important part of my job, I find you point of view very interesting. You have given me a lot to think about and a new perspective on what seems like a constant argument. So thank you and I look forward to hearing more! From what I know about this issue is that in many European nations labeling is already required.