Since a lot of people want to label GMO food here is what I propose.

Lots of bacteria on/in GMO foods too, FYI.

and GMO foods need less that should be a boon. Less bacterial infections.

that is not what the science has said. http://acsh.org/2014/11/meta-analysis-shows-gm-crops-reduce-pesticide-use-37-percent/

argue the point. Non GMO has killed people, GMO has not.

half the cases, which are rare, were from meat products.

because it was GMO. Show me.

I would think bacterial contamination that causes food-borne illness would likely be in a list of shared risks.

The "food that killed" didn't do so because it was "organic", y'know....


Or maybe you don;'t know.... because your argument is so stupid as to be a joke.


And I'm no anti-GMO hysteric. ALL food is "organic", unless it's made of plastic or paper mâché.

You are welcome to make your case for the other half. I will not hold my breath.

Pesticide Use Ramping Up As GMO Crop Technology Backfires

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/13767-pesticide-use-ramping-up-as-gmo-crop-technology-backfires

US farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.

Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide use decreased by 123 million pounds.

Benbrook's paper -- published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe over the weekend and announced on Monday -- undermines the value of both herbicide-tolerant crops and insect-protected crops, which were aimed at making it easier for farmers to kill weeds in their fields and protect crops from harmful pests, said Benbrook.

Herbicide-tolerant crops were the first genetically modified crops introduced to world, rolled out by Monsanto Co. in 1996, first in "Roundup Ready" soybeans and then in corn, cotton and other crops. Roundup Ready crops are engineered through transgenic modification to tolerate dousings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

This is the major problem with GMO: their effect on natural selection processes in the nearby surrounding ecosystem.

its biology 101, sheesh, and since GMO's require less pesticides it will help stop that.

Natural selection in neighboring species populations is affected by the presence of the GMOs (yes, and any domesticated and non-domesticated species) themselves. In the case of GMOs engineered to be particularly pest-resistant, the pests evolve, so as a consequence new pesticides tend to get developed and/or pesticide use tends to increase in the context of the industrialized, energy-inefficient, corporate-controlled agriculture, horticulture and animal-'husbandry' in which such technology is being employed in a way always designed to benefit corporate controllers, owners and shareholders long before any thought might be given to the consequences, proven or yet to be proven, for the human population at large, its social wellbeing and its natural environment.

Non GMO foods kill people every year, gmo has killed no one, ever. Cant we label non gmo with "kills people"? Its the truth.

"GMO food may cause long term harmful side effects" while non GMO food "may cause death". That is the truth. Period.

it's one of the reasons why we should pay food service employees a living wage.

You show me where GMO food is more dangerous than non GMO food via record of deaths.

It's danger is the same as introducing a foreign species on a landmass that didn't evolve with it, like Kudzu in the south, or like when cane toads got introduced to Australia. Take a native plant and change it enough through genetic modification, and it could have unintended consequences which I have never seen anyone pro-GMO even consider as possible, since they've been deemed safe for human consumption.

so lets label GMO's with "may have unintended consequences" while we label non GMO with "can kill you".

no.

and you cant show me any from GMO and I am supposed to be scared of GMO? Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, show me where GMO's kill more than non GMO's. Ridiculous. Boogeyman indeed.

Jul 23, 2015: Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) calls for common-sense labeling of GMO foods and urges colleagues to vote against the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, also known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, which would roll back years of progress in ensuring that food with genetically engineered ingredients is properly labeled.

"The DARK Act actually stands in direct contradiction to the wishes of almost 90% of Americans across the country. This legislation makes a mockery of transparency and leaves U.S. consumers in the dark."

Official House Page: http://gabbard.house.gov/
More videos https://www.youtube.com/user/tulsipress
More info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
Website: https://www.votetulsi.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard #TeamTulsi


Best thing to happen to Democrats since JFK

I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks

I believe that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks.
By Jonathan Latham, PhD

http://www.alternet.org/food/i-used-work-scientist-gmos-now-im-having-serious-second-thoughts-about-risks

No GMO's in my kitchen. None. No Beet sugar, contaminated corn syrup, none. zero.

while non GMO's have. Not one. Hyperbolic bogyman indeed.

no doubt..

Definitely not as enlightened as the USA, that's for sure!

Labeling Around the World | Just Label It

Below is a full list of countries that require labeling (courtesy of The Center for Food Safety):

Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritius
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vietnam

-----> http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-around-the-world/

Nope edit to lower ele grade school i was

insulting middle schoolers

When you press them for a reason why they want labeling, it's inevitably winds up being "because I want it" or "other countries already do it". When there are exactly zero people who have died or even sickened by anything that is directly attributable to GMO after decades of use, there simply is no rational argument for it.

If you really want to hear the sound of crickets, just mention mutation breeding. If the anti-GMO crowd were genuinely afraid of GMO, they would be scared shitless of mutation breeding, yet surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) there's zero effort to label it. Some products produced by mutation breeding are even labeled organic because they are fully eligible to be certified under the NOP, while GMO is not. Very telling that. When you find out about things like that you realize the "organic" label is really nothing more than a marketing term which is now fully under the control of moneyed interests and the effort to label GMO is really nothing more than the attempt at using the power of government to grab market share for those moneyed interests. Science, reason, and the public interest has exactly zero to do with it.

People want labeling along with other information so that they can make informed choices.

You cannot prove no people have died from eating food including GMO ingredients. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. So there is no rational argument in your favor on that count, sorry.

Genetic engineering can be simply described a a process of 'cutting and splicing' genetic material to and from anywhere in the gene pool of life on this planet, under total human (corporate) control. Breeding can be described as a process whereby natural selection is influenced by human intervention in this natural process, selecting for desired traits as they emerge. There is a great difference. Some extreme forms of mutation breeding (the process of exposing seeds to chemicals or radiation in order to generate mutants with desirable traits to be bred), especially if in breeding animals, could well be considered inappropriate.

If corporate interests are corrupting and contaminating truly organic products in the USA then, you are right, labeling products 'Organic' would be of little use to the discerning mind. Labeling products as 'GMO', by contrast, would be both unambiguous and useful to people who want to know.

Like I said, "because I want it" is the best answer you get.


Nor is this what I claimed, which means you either didn't read or comprehend what I wrote, or you are simply making strawman gibberish here.


Sure, nothing more natural than bombarding seeds with ionizing radiation to produce completely random mutations.


What is that use? Just like everyone else who "wants" labeling, you have failed to provide anything that approaches a rational reason. And no, appeal to nature fallacies don't count.

and reasonable in a democracy. This is DU and that is what labeling would enable.

My personal rational reasons, as, amongst other things, an environmental sciences graduate from the 1970s, include the desire to be able to make choices which might help to avoid or mitigate possible ecosystemic risks from predictable and unpredictable effects on the modified and associated species arising from the use of genetic engineering, and a desire to resist the control and contamination of food chains, human beings, their societies and the natural environment by monopolistic and corrupt crony-corporations.

Your rational reasons against labeling?

It regulates the food and drug supply based on health needs. So if you can articulate a reason that's within the scope of what the FDA regulates, then do so. As yet I haven't seen you or anyone else supply anything remotely approaching a reason based on a rational health risk. The FDA and the USDA should not be used to promote mandatory labeling for political or moneyed interests that have nothing to do with public health concerns, so the reasons you supplied are actually an excellent reason why such labeling should not be supported.



As I told another poster, I feel no obligation to argue against something that was never justified to begin with. That's a fool's errand. For further reading see...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Food product labeling does not fall within the scope of what the FDA regulates. Agreed.

It is a political issue requiring a political executive decision and not within the set of subjects amenable to scientific analysis (beyond political, economic and associated social sciences, that is). If the FDA has indeed been formally empowered to decide, unscientifically, on the issue of labeling, then that power has been delegated, I would suggest improperly, by the political executive and should be recovered by the same.

Sorry, try again.

For further reading see....

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

the import of a lot of food items that are grown with non-FDA processes. That is why they do not want labeling.

that would cut through to the real issue -- the "RoundUp Ready" thing.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/05/monsanto-syngenta-merger-45-billion-pesticides

In fact, you'd think they'd be anxious to promote it. Even compete. i.e. Wheaties has even more Super Healthy GMO grain than other brands!! "Get more GMO in Cheetos!!"