Originally Posted by
salmoned
Along the line of GMO labeling, why shouldn't every genetic variation be labeled in our food products? There's nothing special about GMO over natural variation. Sure, a GMO may have harmful characteristics, but it's just as likely that a natural variant has similar harmful characteristics. In fact, it's more likely that a GMO may have harmful characteristics removed than inserted, since modifications are intentional and safety tested. GMOs are patented, which means liability can be assigned in case of damages - that's a safety-net bigger than any non-GMO product carries.
A lot of the modifications being introduced to the seeds are to allow the crop to be resistant to certain pesticides and herbicides such as roundup. That is why Monsanto has an active role. You buy their seeds and you can spray with roundup and kill all other weeds, spray with specific insecticide and kill desired insects and not harm the crops. The crops will still absorb the insecticide and herbicide and you will consume them. Now, because the crops are resistant, you can use less to be effective. But now they're finding out that the insects and weeds too are becoming more resistant to the specific herbicide and insecticides. So now they will need to use more chemicals defeating the original purpose. Crops will absorb more pesticides and herbicides as a result . (By the way, I don't know if this is better or worse that what is currently being used in Non-GMO crops at this time). In other cases they modify the crop such that when the insect ingests the crops, they die, now, what happens to humans who ingest large quantities of this crop for 5 - 15 years on almost a daily basis?
My position is for voluntary labeling of non-GMO products - not mandatory labeling of GMO products. The cost will go up a bit for non-GMO labeled products (costs are already presumed higher or GMOs wouldn't be used in the first place), but it will be a cost that is voluntarily absorbed (or not) by the consumer. Here's the BIG question - Why won't activists be satisfied with the same voluntary system used for 'organic' products? Organic products usually carry a premium that includes the extra cost of labeling, why shouldn't non-GMO carry that extra expense as well? Organic production came first, just as non-GMO production came first, so let the cachet adhere to the 'original' products, not the more recent and economical products.
As Mark Fergusson tried to explain last night, that works for organics. And it may work for basic crops (although I learned last night that if there is cross pollination, then an originally non-GMO crop is pollinated from a bee that just came from a GMO farm, then that non-GMO crop could now become a GMO crop, although it appears that farms communicate with one another to try to prevent this from happening). But when you try to make a non GMO meal commercially, you need to find out if all of your individual ingredients are GMO or not, in order to claim non-GMO. This still works for items such as Tofu, where there is only one check and that is the Soy Beans. But what about a vegetable soup where you're using 8 or 9 different vegetables plus an additional dozen spices (some of which could be derived from vegetable crops). Without GMO being identified, then it becomes a costly endeavor. If GMOs are labeled at the start, then he GMO chain will be easily identified.
[Next thing they'll want is a statement of fossil fuel consumption to produce and transport each product to market - ugh!
'This banana was hand-grown with natural soil supplements produced on site, then bicycled to market - that'll be $12, thank you!']
Re: GMO Labeling in Hawai'i
.jpg)
Reply With Quote
Re: GMO Labeling in Hawai'i
Re: GMO Labeling in Hawai'i
Bookmarks