Are Genetically Modified Organisms the only area of science where an hypothesis doesn't

[mmonk]

require proof, but acceptance for something as minor as labeling the fact of what it is should be determined an unreasonable burden?

[djean111]

1. Labeling falls under the quite frightening classification of "may affect profits".

Some people won't buy stuff labeled as GMO, and some people will buy stuff that says "every ingredient in this bag of cheesy crunchy things is both artificial and bad for you". Some people would, I think, buy food that had the same warning labels as drugs.
Very strange to think that, in a supposedly "free market", some feel that freedom only belongs to companies like Monsanto, not consumers.
So - I just have not bought corn in years, or anything else I suspect. I am not missing out on anything. The objections from the Monsanto-types are not based on people possibly not getting enough nutrition, but on profits.

Added - I sometimes wonder if the giant food manufacturers long for the chance to just issue food to us, we just queue up and take our prepackaged boxes of whatever they make the most profit on that week. No other choices.

[leftofcool]

2. Excellent post!

[GreatGazoo]

3. 93% of Americans want GMOs labeled. It is going to happen.

Vermont is due to start labeling in July of 2016.

Major players in the food processing and retailing industries are betting that labeling WILL proceed:

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/04/14/wal-mart-strikes-a-deal-with-wild-oats-to-sell-cheaper-organic-foods/

The 'snack food' lobby is suing Vermont to stop the labeling -- the burden of proof is completely on them. They must prove that consumers have no right to know what is in foods. The Anti-labeling side is desperate to stop Vermont because many believe that it will sweep the country from there. Some neighboring states have already passed laws that will piggy-back onto Vermont's labeling so the stakes are high.

A Federal judge in January rejected the idea that either side must prove the safety or risks of GMO food in this case:

At another point in the hearing, Reiss told the attorney representing the Grocery Manufacturers Association that whether Vermont's law is the result of the Legislature caving in to an "ill-informed minority," as the lawyer had implied, was irrelevant.

"Who cares?" Reiss said to Catherine Stetson of the Hogan Lovells law firm in Washington, D.C.

Reiss was clear at the outset of the hearing that she would not be deciding whether GMOs are harmful to health or the environment.

"I am confident it is not my job to determine if genetically engineered foods are safe or unsafe," Reiss said, adding she was not going to act as a "super science expert.""

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/judge-considers-halting-vermont-gmo-law/21422959/

[Cha]

7. Good on Vermont! Keep back the monsanto monsters that don't want you to be able

label gmo products when it was voted in by the People. Fucking fascists.

[Fumesucker]

4. The sheer level of nasty rhetoric that gets used against those who favor labels is remarkable

The anti-label crew are their own worst enemies in some cases, when someone tells me I'm anti-science because I'm skeptical of the motives and methods of a giant corporation it doesn't serve their own argument well.

[sendero]

9. The "benefits"..

... of GMO foods accrue only to the manufacturers/producers and the risks accrue only to the consumer. Folks who really want to eat this stuff might be "pro-science" but might also not have the best judgment.

[laundry_queen]

10. Bingo. nt

[Fumesucker]

15. Privatize the profit, socialize the risk...

It seems to be a fairly popular business model these days, I can understand why people who are benefiting from it would be reluctant to have that model significantly changed.

[GreatGazoo]

14. the strategy supported by Bill Gates is to shut down debate, portray the issue as settled

and portray those who want debate or labels or proof as "brainwashed."

Sound familiar?

This article explains a lot: The War on Genetically-Modified-Food Critics

[KittyWampus]

5. GMOS as practiced by Monsato are the perfect illustration of science used against society

to benefit a very few.

Please note- not all GMOs are the same. Not all are used the way Monsato is using their system to crush local farmers and environmentally beneficial farming.

[mindem]

6. I don't know what the problem is.

If GMO is so wonderful they should be happy to state so on labels. Maybe even in bold print. It won't matter anyway, we are just supposed to become good little consumers and never, ever, ever question any product, ever. We have to remember that we should never even consider drawing any line in the sand that may interfere with profits. In truth, when someone says "trust me" there should be all kinds of red flags and alarms going off. I don't need any reason or justification for wanting to know where my food comes from or what is in it. It's my fricking money they are trying to grab.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Good Point

While i have no objection to them personally, i agree with you that labeling should be no big deal. It wouldn't stop me from buying something, but that's a choice. If others choose to avoid them, perfectly reasonable.

So, if they're ok (and so far, i think the personal risks are extremely low), then label it and folks like me won't care anyway.

I don't understand the reluctance to label.

[alarimer]

11. GMO crops reduce pesticide use

And increase yields, according to the following study:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Labeling is fucking ridiculous because people are ignorant. They don't understand that EVERYTHING they eat is modified in some way. Might as well label it "contains DNA" or chemicals because both those things are certainly true. Water is a chemical, as is just about everything else.

[calikid]

17. Did you forget your sarcasm thingy?

According to my fields and crops, it's taking more and more poisons every year to get less and less yields.

[Nye Bevan]

12. Just put "may contain GMO products" on every single food item.

Similar to "may contain nuts".

[Adrahil]

13. Well, first, we must establish what a GMO is legally.

Right now, I think it is whatever the reader WANTS it to be.

[Rex]

16. Good question.

That does make it odd. Why not just label what is in foods? Is it really that hard to do? No. I think some here have something invested in defending GMOs. Otherwise, what is the big deal? Just label the stuff and be done with it.