Overwhelming Majority of Americans Say: 'Just Label It!'

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Common Dreams

Published on Monday, June 9, 2014 by Common Dreams

Overwhelming Majority of Americans Say: 'Just Label It!'

New Consumers Report poll finds that 92 percent of respondents want the government to require labeling of genetically engineered foods.

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

An overwhelming majority of Americans think that genetically engineered (GE) foods should be labeled before they are sold, according to a new Consumer Reports poll released on Monday.

The nationally-representative phone survey found that 92 percent of respondents think that GE foods, or those made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), should be labeled accordingly. Further, 92 percent also think that the government should legally require the labeling of GE salmon—which may soon be approved and sold in stores—despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently requires neither labeling nor pre-market safety assessments of GE food.

The survey, taken in April 2014, assessed the importance of various factors that consumers weigh when purchasing food. According to the results, 72 percent said it was important or very important to avoid genetically engineered ingredients when making purchases.

“This poll underscores that, across the country, consumers want labeling of GE food, including GE salmon, and consider safety standards set by the government of such food imperative," said Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union.


Read more: https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/06/09-7

[Live and Learn]

1. I really don't understand why anyone would be against this.

Unless, of course, it was for nefarious reasons. Just label it and let us decide for ourselves.

[hedgehog]

2. But, but SCIENCE!

GMOs are perfectly harmless, so people shouldn't worry about them, and labels will only worry them and make them buy non-GMOs!



Up here in Central New York, there was a lot of discussion when Monsanto started marketing BGH to be adminstered to dairy cattle to increase production. The FDA said there was no difference in BGH milk from non-BGH milk. There were claims that BGH was harmful to cattle, that more infections would result, leading to more use of antibiotics, etc. The upshot was that dairies were allowed to label their non-BG milk as long as they added a disclaimer that BGH milk was no different. I've noticed recently that just about all the milk and dairy products I see are labelled non-BGH.

Poor Monsanto!

[Cha]

4. "Science!"

Agree.. poor Monsanto!

[CSStrowbridge]

11. The first part is correct.

"GMOs are perfectly harmless, so people shouldn't worry about them, and labels will only worry them and make them buy non-GMOs!"

This part is 100% correct. GMOs have been on the market for 20 years and the only time they've ever caused someone to be ill was when Genetically modified cattle feed was accidentally turned into nacho chips. Cattle feed has cellulose, which humans can't digest, so organic cattle feed would have had the same effect.

There are no known health risks with GMOs and there have been HUNDREDS of independent scientific studies.

Furthermore, without GMOs and the increased yields they provide, WE CAN'T FUCKING FEED THE HUMAN POPULATION WE HAVE.

The progressive movement must be a fact-based movement.

[on point]

12. Then time to work on reducing population

[rpannier]

13. You haven't made a compelling case for not labelling

Why oppose giving people information?
Why oppose letting them decide for themselves what they put in their bodies?
To say that it's safe and all studies show it, but we shouldn't label it is saying we don't trust you to decide what you should or shouldn't eat
Many countries do require labeling and many more will in the near future

[lunasun]

26. +1 !! exactly

[roody]

17. I want them labeled because I want

to choose them over non-GMO!

[TBF]

21. "WE CAN'T FUCKING FEED THE HUMAN POPULATION WE HAVE" -

Pardon my French but bull f*cking shit we can't.

We choose not to because we'd rather let billionaires have multiple homes, yachts, planes etc...

[CSStrowbridge]

44. With our current technology...

With our current technology, we can only sustainably feed 5 billion people. Agricultural practices damage the Earth. Going organic makes that situation worse, not better.

[TBF]

56. Do you have any sort of cite for that claim? nt

[CSStrowbridge]

58. Here's one...

Here's one...

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

Key quote:
"Currently, over 7 billion of us are consuming about 50% more resources than Earth is producing – during any given time period. For example, in the past twelve months we have consumed the resources that it took the planet about eighteen months to produce."

This is bloody obviously, consider how much fossil fuel we are using. Right now it takes a huge amount of oil to grow food and that oil isn't coming back. We need GMOs that take less maintenance to grow, because the less you need to drive a tractor, the less oil you use.

This doesn't mean we should let Monsato do what it wants. I fucking hate that company, but the science shows the paranoia over GMOs isn't based on facts.

[KurtNYC]

60. Poorly written and vague, not science

GMO is not sustainable because it relies on petroleum based inputs. One GMO crop, the corn for (worthless) ethanol purports to be an alternative fuel yet it relies on petroleum for its own production. So it is basically like using the deck of the Titanic as the bottom of your lifeboat.

Many other good and "bloody obviously" (sic) reasons to doubt GMO and this bogus argument about feeding the world.

[MindMover]

22. Which scientifically based organization are you associated with . ?

[rhett o rick]

23. "The progressive movement must be a fact-based movement." I cant disagree with that.

But along with that goes transparency.

You intimate that the argument for not labeling is that the consumers arent smart enough to make the best decision for themselves. And therefore Monsanto knows best and we should just trust them. That certainly doesnt go with your "fact-based movement" statement.

I do agree we need to know a lot more facts to make good decisions. But until we have those facts, let us choose not to eat GMOs if that's what we choose.

[CSStrowbridge]

59. If you have a beef with Monsanto...

If you have a beef with Monsanto, I'm right there with you. They are a horrible company. However, the anti-GMO side has poisoned the well so much that a real debate is nearly impossible.

I posted a video where the host reported on HUNDREDS of INDEPENDENT scientific studies and what do I get? "Bought by Monsanto."

"But until we have those facts, let us choose not to eat GMOs if that's what we choose. "

Hundreds of independent studies. How much more do you need?

[rhett o rick]

61. I will tell you what I need. To make the decision for myself in spite of my ignorance.

Trying to hide the information from me (by not labeling) is not the way to win my trust.

[BrotherIvan]

25. Brought to you by Monsato

[lunasun]

27. true dat !

[CSStrowbridge]

43. So...

So I link to a video that says there have been hundreds of INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES and you think it was bought by Monsato.

The Progressive movement must be a fact-based movement. Clearly you are not interested in that.

[upaloopa]

29. I don't want to eat them! That should be my right !

No corporation should have the right to forever modify our food.
I by tomatoes at the grocery and put them on the window sill to ripen. Two or three weeks later they are still there. Never ripening never rotting just sitting there like they were rubber balls or something. I buy tomatoes from the farmers market. There get soft and start to rot in a few days. They taste and smell like home grown tomatoes. The store bought remain hard with no smell and no taste.
Our whole food delivery system is shoving processed crap they call food. It looks like food but is a bunch of chemicals you can't even pronounce.
My body my choice what I put into it not Monsanto's!

[JackRiddler]

42. What an outrageous lie you are pushing.

Hunger on this planet is not caused by scarcity, there is an overproduction of food. It is a question of distribution and incomes. Nothing about GMO production addresses that. Meanwhile, how much of your GMO grain is going into gas tanks as ethanol, for a net energy gain of nothing?! For shame to pimp such lies and then say you are presenting facts. Only those that Monsanto approves, apparently.

[sabrina 1]

45. If they are perfectly safe, then there should be no problem labeling them. As far as the claim that

this is the 'only way to feed people', that is incorrect. Big Corporations like Monsanto have destroyed the way of living of millions of people who are capable, or were, of farming their own land, feeding their own populations by various nefarious tactics.

And I doubt that 'feeding people' is the altruistic goal of these Corporations. PROFIT and control of the world's food distribution, POWER iow, is the goal.

The world survived for milleniums without GMOs, so I have faith it can continue to do so.

The very fact that they work so hard to prevent people from knowing what they are eating, is proof enough that they are afraid if people DID know, they would not choose to eat them. That is our right, to know what we are eating. To deprive people of that right, IS HARM ENOUGH.

[Enthusiast]

5. It's for nefarious reasons.

They do not want consumers to be able to decide for themselves. That is nefarious enough.

[Nihil]

7. You have stated the only reason. (n/t)

[closeupready]

18. You would oppose labeling if it were likely to lead to loss of market share

of your product. Or if you were paid to spout 'opposition to labeling' loudly in public.

[Tippy]

55. Monsanto dosen't want it to happen..

[merrily]

3. That is a good and necessary step. However, I am not of the view that

disclosure is all that is necessary in every situation, be it credit card agreements or home mortgages for residential buyers or cans of food.

As to food in particular, it takes a lot of time and effort to shop if you are reading every label and also a lot of googling beforehand if you want to know what each ingredient is and the potential harm it can do.

After doing a lot of that, my rule of thumb is, if you have to google, or if you cannot picture the ingredient, odds are it causes cancer or something else you really don't want to have. But I put in that kind of time only after a severe physical issue.

Everyone cannot and/or will not put in the time and effort. A lot of people, if they think about it at all, still assume that it must by okay if it's in their supermarket or convenience store. So, disclosure is a good and necessary step, but not necessarily enough. The public has to be educated, too. Our government is not about to do that. Neither are the people who make money from GMOs or from making ingredients that kill or food that kills. The vendors aren't going to do it, either.

Organic farmers and most others don't have the money to out-publicize all of the above--not to mention out-muscle Monsanto and others like them, so, like most things, it's up to the real grass roots.

Thanks for this post!

[nolabels]

9. If you read into all the labels of foods you buy it would make most grocery stores a vast waste land

This is of course with the understanding that is not only what the ingredient is but also your understanding of what it is, how it will effect you and your body and how it got to that state in your grocery store

[sabrina 1]

46. Europeans seem to be able to handle reading the labels. Maybe make them understandable, like

'warning, this product has some weird stuff in it that might not be safe for you to eat it could in fact kill you and your loved ones'. Or, 'this is a natural product with no artificial garbage that could cause cancer so go right ahead an buy. Bon appetit'.

And, 'this chicken has traveled all the way to China and back. What they did to it in China is anyone's guess. It's up to you, but I wouldn't take it if they gave it to me free'!

[nolabels]

47. Chickens are a favorite

Really fun interesting pets and do wonders for micro-ecosystems around large homesteads to even small urban yards. It's sad to watch those poor birds, going down the interstate, being shipped all crowded and caged upped heading to the food processors. Knowing what they feed and how they treat livestock, i try to stay away from that industry and it's products.

What you might want to consider about artificial ingredients and other human interventions into our food-stocks is the other side of that equation. Things that help your body flush out and eliminate those harmful ones and ones that build health and boost the immune system. Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure :soap-box off:.

Have fun and live long

[mglamb]

14. Michael Pollan's advice

Michael Pollan has said that when checking out the labels on the food you buy, if a third grader can't read the list of ingredients, then don't buy it. I pretty much use that as my guideline.

[merrily]

15. I have to learn some things for myself.

I don't necessarily eat healthy, though I certainly should. However, I did stop paying to ingest 40 or 50 carcinogens every day. It's more expensive to avoid them and surely less convenient, since almost everything in the super market outside the produce section contains them, even most "organic" cream contains carrageenan.

[merrily]

16. I forgot to add that, even in the produce section, you can get into trouble because of GMOs.

And shopping organic alone doesn't necessarily save you because GMOs are airborne and, to the extent that we still have bees, bee-borne as well. Also, the fight by Consumer Reports and others to keep the "organic" label truly meaningful tells us that organic farmers can be corrupt, too. Not as corrupt as Monsanto, but still.

[upaloopa]

30. Who gives a shit what everybody else does

Everybody else has heart disease, diabetes, cancer because they don't know crap about nutrition. I am not like everybody else I want to know what I am eating!

[merrily]

31. Yes, and I said that labeling was a good and necessary step. And I give a shit what everybody else

does. For one thing, that's one of the reasons why I registered a Democrat to begin with. For another, the more people who start demanding better food, the better off we'll all be, including in making the good stuff more readily available and in making it cheaper. That's a secondary reason for being a Democrat. When we all do good, we are likelier all to well, too.

[upaloopa]

34. I misunderstood what you were saying.

Good health does not make for good profits.
We could reduce health care costs by almost half if people didn't eat a diet that kills them. But the majority will never learn about nutrition.
Heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some cancers are the result of poor eating and life style habits

[merrily]

49. No worries. That comes with the territory of posting on message boards, especially if you

tend to post things that are even a little different from what everyone is expecting to read. And, since I tend to do that often, I'm used to it.

[greymattermom]

6. I suppose they can label GMO free foods

Just like the latest gluten free labels. If a food doesn't have a GMO free label, it has GMO. Why don't they just do this?

[yeoman6987]

8. That is perfect

It would be easy to add GMO Free or something like that to the label. It would not cost much and the way that food as skyrocketed in the last 5 years, at least we would get something out of the increase.

[merrily]

32. Because it's hard to know if something grown in this hemisphere is truly GMO free?

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/81486:gmo-contamination-in-mexicos-cradle-of-corn

[Divernan]

10. Manufacturers have been labeling exact same products in EU since 2004 & before!

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/93.new_labelling_laws_gm_products_eu.html

New regulations: Process-oriented

Today’s regulations are based on a different principle: All food products that make direct use of GMOs at any point in their production are subjected to labeling requirements, regardless of whether or not GM content is detectable in the end product.

For the vast number of products which are already marketed in the EU with GMO labels, the only cost to manufacturers selling the same product in the US would be adding two words to the label. Yet the Food Industry spent millions lobbying in Washington state to defeat vote on requiring labeling.

The EU recognises the consumers' right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice. Since 1997 Community legislation has made labelling of GM food mandatory for:

products that consist of GMO or contain GMO;
products derived from GMO but no longer containing GMO if there is still DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification present;

Latest regulation concerning GMO Labelling :

Regulation (EC) 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC were published in the Official Journal of the European Union. pdf

Previously, the labelling of genetically modified foods was based on the provisions of article 8 of Regulation (EC) 258/97 on novel foods and novel foods ingredients;

The labelling of GM maize varieties and GM soy varieties which did not fall under Regulation 258/97 are covered by Regulation (EC) 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms as amended by Regulation (EC) 49/2000.

In addition, all GM additives and GM flavourings have to be labelled according to Regulation (EC) 50/2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings.

In accordance with the general labelling rules of Directive 90/220/EEC, the labelling of 4 out of the 8 authorised GMOs for use in feed is mandatory.

Genetically modified seed varieties must be labelled in accordance with Council Directive 98/95/EEC.

Information link to : Food Labeling
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm

[lunasun]

28. in a store I picked up a product and read the label It was from People's Republic of China

Made in Beijing, and labeled : contains GM ingredients

Yes communists have it labeled for the consumers but not good 'ol U$A!!!![/b

[marions ghost]

19. There are reasons

not to support GMOs other than health reasons. We need to know what's in our food and not be treated like pigs at the end of the trough.

[woo me with science]

54. Thank you. nt

[KansDem]

20. The so-called "free market" has always been about "free choice."

At least that's what we've been told for decades. Leave government out of it! You want "free choice" so don't let "big government" tell you what you can and can't have!

BULLSHIT!!! The very last thing the "free market" wants is "free choice." And this controversy proves it.

[rhett o rick]

24. Can we rely on this Admin to represent the People or the Corporations? nm

[merrily]

33. The FDA and then Solicitor General Elena Kagan sided with Monsanto even though

the EPA had not yet weighed in on what Monsanto wanted, as required by law.

Does that answer your question.

[DeSwiss]

35. rhett o rick?

- Get it?

[merrily]

37. As in rhetorical question?

But they're my favorite ones to answer!

[DeSwiss]

41. I know, I know......

...and yet answering them just seems to lead to more questions, not less.

- Like this one: Is it really that much greener on the other side of the fence???

[merrily]

48. Sometimes, it is. And sometimes, it only seems to be, mostly because

human tendency is not to be satisfied with the status quo. And sometimes, that is a bad thing, but sometimes, it's a great thing and the reason we are not all still nomad foragers.

See, I love it.

As far as leading to more questions, that is also so. I've gotten so that, almost every time I start to use an analogy in a post, to try to make my meaning more clear, I think better of it and delete. Because almost every time I have done that, (a) other posters act like I said something else anyway; and (b) the discusssion then becomes about the analogy and not about the main point. Sigh.

Remind me: Why was it that I first thought that posting on politics might be fun and a good way to relax? Wait, that's not fair. When I began posting, the message board was devoted to a TV show whose name I no longer even remember. But, it had this teeny sub-forum about politics and many Republican posters, praising the incumbent and talking about Democrats who had BDS. And the rest is history.

[DeSwiss]

50. !

I do the same thing!!!

We take little consideration as to how comprehensively we communicate to others with our body language and voice inflections when in-person. It's much harder (or maybe I'm just too lazy) to take the time to clearly elucidate what it is we're trying to get across when speaking solely using the written word.

Add to that regional concept differences. Outright language barriers. Age differences. Different ethnicities. Different sexes and sexual orientations. Outright prejudices because of what mom or dad or the priest taught us and we can't seem to shake it even now. And even the haired and the hairless have to treated with kid gloves sometimes. You name it! Yet in this age of instant mashed potatoes, no one wants to wait long to write or to read. In the video age I'm afraid we've become anachronisms.

- But it's worse when you do take the time and trouble, and they still don't get it.


je ne sais quoi!

[merrily]

51. And sometimes, they choose not to get it, or to change the subject deliberately.

The NSA thing is a perfect example, IMO. Keep people debating each other day after day, about whether or not Snowden and Greenwald are pure or evil, and there is almost zero danger that they will focus on whether the USG is violating our rights or not.

Even forget violating our Constitutional rights. How about discussing whether we WANT them using our money to spy on us in a mass way, even assuming the 4th Amendment doesn't say they have to have reasonable cause to suspect us before surveiling us. (Stalin's KGB called. They want another shot, using modern technology.)

And even forget discussing that. How about discussing what we can actually do about things we don't like? I don't mean emailing or signing internet petitions, either, though I am sure everyone in DC waits daily with bated breath, just dying to know what people who don't have hundreds of thousands to "contribute" to politicians think about current events. Especially when just about all they are willing to do about what they think about current events is sign an internet petition or send an email or vent in a post.

And then, after discussing what we might do that might actually make a dent, how about actually doing it?

No, better to discuss whether Snowden always intended to go to Russia or whether he did so only because the USG revoked his passport while he was in mid-journey. Because that's what REALLY matters here, not what we might do to stop the mass surveillance.

Sigh. Why did I go and do that? (Rhetorical question. Have at it, if you want.)

Now I have to do something that will make me laugh.

[rhett o rick]

38. I've been around for a while, you just now getting it? nm

[DeSwiss]

39. Just helpin' a newbie!

[rhett o rick]

40. Got it.

[merrily]

52. Thanks, but I did get the screen name and also get rhetorical questions in general.

Don't most people?

And long will it take before I am no longer considered a newbie?

I also got that you may have been telling me his or her post was consistent with his or her screen name and not only hinting at the meaning of the screen name.

[DeSwiss]

53. j/k

[merrily]

57. Me, too! Hence the two winking emotes in my post.

(One after each of my two rhetorical "questions.&quot

[DeSwiss]

36. If they HAVE to label it, they won't NEED to label it.

- Because they WON'T BE SELLING any of it and THEY KNOW IT.

K&R