Despite losses, GMO label backers aren't quitting

[Purveyor]

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- Not even Oregon's backyard chicken owners and vegan foodies had enough money and clout to persuade voters to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

Oregon is the fourth Western state where a GMO labeling measure has failed. A similar proposal also failed Tuesday in Colorado. Those two join Washington and California, which had earlier rejected labeling by a margin of about 2 percentage points.

But GMO opponents aren't giving up. They say their "social movement" is ready to continue the fight in legislatures, on ballots, and at the federal level.

Oregonians rejected the measure by about 1 percentage point. Voters in cities like Portland supported labeling, but rural voters overwhelmingly opposed it.

Opponents of the measure raised about $20 million in Oregon, while labeling proponents brought in $7.5 million.

MORE...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ELECTION_GMO_LABELING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-06-01-38-03

[Prophet 451]

1. Keep trying

I'm undecided if GMOs are a good or bad thing since I don't know enough to make a judgement. But putting more information into the hands of the consumer is always a good thing.

[bananas]

2. They are very bad for a number of reasons.

Nassim Taleb points out they risk global ecocide.

[HuckleB]

3. His fear-mongering has been debunked repeatedly.

GMOs are safe, and the technology is safer than the other seed technologies in use, including the ones that are allowed to be used to develop "organic" seeds. If his theory is correct about GMOs, then it would be far more correct about the use of the other seed development technologies.

The scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs matches of the scientific consensus on climate change. The entire anti-GMO movement run on baseless fear mongering. It is despicable to the core. It is time that we stand up against such wrongheaded ridiculousness.

[HuckleB]

4. Here's the problem.

Organic companies and "non-GMO" companies have been fomenting baseless fear mongering about GMOs for 20 years. Their goal has been to scare people to purchase their more expensive products, despite the fact that there is no scientific basis for doing so.

Now they want to involve government mandates as a part of their marketing scheme. I find that to be rather unethical.

Also, consider that there are several types of seed development technology. GE is the most predictable of them, and it is the most studied, by far. We know that it is safe at far greater level of research than the other technologies, yet these folks want to label only one technology, and, oddly, it's the one they've been demonizing without reason for years.

It's really a disturbing movement. Sociologists will have plenty to study, when considering the vehemence despite the lack of evidence to support it.

[Prophet 451]

16. OK, let's take those in order

Firstly, complaining about organic and non-GMO companies making money from expensive products is, considering the kind of funds Big Agra can throw around, frankly laughable. Given the available cash of, say, Monsanto, trying to make a distinction on expense is simply absurd.

Now they want to involve government mandates as a part of their marketing scheme. I find that to be rather unethical.

No, what is unethical is withholding information from consumers.

Also, consider that there are several types of seed development technology. GE is the most predictable of them, and it is the most studied, by far. We know that it is safe at far greater level of research than the other technologies, yet these folks want to label only one technology, and, oddly, it's the one they've been demonizing without reason for years.

I'm not making an argument about whether it's safe or having that discussion. I'm making an argument that the consumer has the right to know what is in their food. I'm not anti-GMO. Making no effort to avoid GMOs, I probably eat them all the time. I'm purely making an argument for proper product labeling. GMOs are labeled here (the UK, and the EU in general) and it hasn't noticeably affected their sales because most people (including me) don't care enough to bother reading the nutritional information. That's all I'm arguing for, the right of teh consumer to know.

[HuckleB]

17. You're not responding to the actual content of my thread.

And you're ignoring realities like Whole Foods is just as big as Monsanto.

No one is withholding information from customers. There is no value to having the seed development technology labeled. They never have been, and there is certainly justification for labeling only one of them.

The consumer can know if they want to know. There is no science based justification for such a label. It's a preference. It equates to religious preferences, and all of those labels are voluntary. It is impossible to justify government mandates.

[Prophet 451]

20. OK, that's just bullshit

Whole Foods has nowhere near the profits of Monsanto. That's just a big fat lie.

Yes, you are withholding information. Whether it's of value is completely irrelevant to the consumer's right to know and the fact that they never have been is the problem. You're saying that, because data has been withheld inn the past, that's a justification for continually withholding it.

And no, it's not impossible to justify a mandate. You're just hellbent on not acknowledging the consumer right to know, for reasons of your own which I don't pretend to understand.

[HuckleB]

22. You keep repeating yourself.

You never even attempt to justify anything you say.

Oh, and labeling one seed development technology, but not all, is about one set of corporations demonizing others in order to increase their profits. It's unethical marketing, and it is not about helping the consumer.

[Trajan]

26. I have no problem with labelling

I frankly don't care what the 'experts' like yourself have to say about that ... you could pump reams and reams of scientific text onto as many threads as you like, but I would prefer if all scientifically modified foodstuffs be clearly labeled so I can make the choice to consume it or not ...

[HuckleB]

28. So you admit that you have no valid reason for wanting a label.

But you just want one. That's not a good way to make policy. That's a horrible way to make policy.

Sheesh.

[roseBudd]

34. Putting experts in quotes is all we need to know about reasonable discourse.

No different than the antivaxxers and chemtrails people

[proverbialwisdom]

5. These 2012 videos are informative and still relevant.

Label Law
Posted by Bernie Sanders
Published on Jun 14, 2012



Senator Sanders introduces an amendment to the farm bill that would require labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

The measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically-engineered ingredients.

MORE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101734849
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12312207

[HuckleB]

12. Science Triumphs in Oregon and Colorado: GMO Labeling Measures Fail

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2014/11/06/science-triumphs-oregon-colorado-gmo-labeling-measures-fail/

[Prophet 451]

15. Science does not "triumph" by withholding information

Look, if you think GMOs are a great thing, fine, make that argument. But fighting against labeling just makes the industry look suspicious, like it has something to hide. Science is not served by concealing information from consumers.

[HuckleB]

18. No one is withholding information.

There is no reason to label the seed development technology. It gives the consumer no actual information about the food in question. Further, pushing labels for only one seed technology shows that the whole "right to know" is completely disingenuous.

[Prophet 451]

19. Of course there's reason

And yes, you are plainly calling for withholding information. I'm calling for ALL GMO produce to be labeled, not just one seed technology.

[HuckleB]

29. Then you want one seed development technology labeled, only.

You can't pretend otherwise.

[redruddyred]

21. what science

there isn't any science, that's the problem. unless you count the "studies" funded by monsanto et al.

whether or not gmos are dangerous, I don't know. but if I had a health problem which I had reasonable cause to suspect might be associated with the food supply, I would want to be able to rule them out.

I hear lots of anecdotal evidence, however, that much the opposite is happening.

people deserve to know.

[HuckleB]

30. You are in denial.

There are thousands of studies, including hundreds of completely independently funded studies that show GMOs to be safe. All of them have been peer reviewed independently.

It's time to stop pushing bad information, and pretending that "I don't know" is an excuse for doing so.

Here's a small tip of reality.

A Decade of EU Funded Research Shows GMOs Are Safe
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

[redruddyred]

36. and you are being unnecessarily aggressive.

are you saying that science is never political? both you and I know this not to be true.
I looked thru a few of the studies and they appeared to be inconclusive.

[HuckleB]

37. Now, you are just being dishonest.

There's nothing inconclusive about the studies. The science is astoundingly profound and overwhelming. It shows GMOs to be safe. Denying that in any way is simply choosing to ignore the science of the matter.

[redruddyred]

39. did we read the same papers?

all the ones I looked at mentioned the need for further research.

[HuckleB]

40. Almost every peer-reviewed paper says that.

How do you not know this? That doesn't change the clear consensus of research over thousands of studies showing GMOs to be safe.

[redruddyred]

47. all of them?

proof by contradiction bub.
let me rephrase: the ones I read seemed to come to very tentative and narrow conclusions which could not be applied to the larger question, "are gmos safe?"

[Chakaconcarne]

6. I'm reading reports that not all the votes have been counted in OR for 92

and what is left is in a county that heavily favored the measure. It could go to a recount.

[HuckleB]

11. Nope. The Yes on 92 campaign did lie to its supporters about this, however.

Of course, lie is about all the Yes on 92 campaign did.

[proverbialwisdom]

7. State legislatures are where the action is.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/fact-sheets/3067/ge-food-labeling-states-take-action

GE Food Labeling: States Take Action
June 10, 2014



In 2011, Center for Food Safety submitted a formal legal petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on behalf of over 650 companies and organizations demanding that FDA require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. Since it was filed, 55 members of Congress and over 1.4 million people have submitted comments in support of the petition; yet, FDA has failed to take action to require the labeling of GE foods.

Because of this, U.S. States have taken the lead in protecting the public’s right to know what is in their food. In 2013, Connecticut and Maine passed
GE labeling laws, and Vermont passed the first GE labeling bill that has no trigger clause. Vermont's law will go into effect in 2016. In total, 54 bills were introduced across 26 states, and a Washington State ballot initiative narrowly lost, 51-49%. And the momentum is only growing.

Already in 2014, 35 bills have been introduced in 20 states, with an Oregon ballot initiative also on target for November 2014.

Find out more about which states have GE labeling laws pending in our GE Food Labeling: States Take Action fact sheet (PDF) - http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/ge-state-labeling-fact-sheet-92014_02919.pdf

MORE: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives

[midnight]

24. Thanks for this graphic-very helpful.

[proverbialwisdom]

25. You're welcome. The unacknowledged role of consumers cannot be overstated, IMO. Vote with your fork!

http://www.confectionerynews.com/Ingredients/Hershey-in-non-GMO-and-no-high-fructose-corn-syrup-pledge

Hershey's Milk Chocolate and Kisses to go non-GM
By Oliver Nieburg+, 23-Feb-2015

Hershey intends to remove genetically-modified ingredients from Hershey’s Milk Chocolate and Kisses by the end of the year.
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED TEXT

via Robyn O'Brien @foodawakenings · Feb 23

[midnight]

27. I will be happy when they take that junk out. Good info...

[HuckleB]

35. "Take that junk out."

What does that mean?

[proverbialwisdom]

8. Victory for Maui GMO farming ban

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15745-victory-for-maui-gmo-farming-ban

Victory for Maui GMO farming ban
05 November 2014

Opponents outspent advocates more than 87 to 1, and still lost

Residents of Maui County, Hawaii have won a great victory: a temporary ban on GM crop plantings.

Monsanto and its allies spent nearly $8 million in Maui - $300 for every NO vote - outspending supporters by 87 to 1, and they still lost!

EXCERPT: Hawaii is a key location for the seed industry because the state’s weather allows for year-long farming. But residents have become increasingly concerned about how GMO farming and its associated pesticide use may be impacting both health and the environment.

http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/11/1000-votes-maui-gmo-farming-ban-squeaks-by/

1,000 votes: Maui GMO farming ban squeaks

by Anita Hofschneider
Honolulu Civil Beat, 4 Nov 2014

* Opponents of the measure, including Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, raised a historic $7.9 million to defeat the bill, more than any campaign in Hawaii's history

A Maui County ballot initiative to temporarily ban genetically engineered crops narrowly passed Tuesday following one of the most heavily financed political campaigns in state history.

The controversial measure pulled ahead late Tuesday, passing 50 percent to 48 percent — a difference of just 1,077 votes. It was a stunning turnaround after the measure was initially losing by 19 percent when the first results rolled in.

The county’s first-ever ballot initiative targeting global agriculture companies Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences attracted nearly $8 million from opponents, making it the most expensive campaign in Hawaii’s history.

Opponents outspent advocates more than 87 to 1, according to the latest campaign spending reports available Tuesday. That amounts to more than $300 for every “no” vote.

But it still wasn’t enough to beat scores of Maui County residents who spent weeks canvassing, sign-waving, and calling friends to share their concerns about seed companies’ farming practices.

Ashley Lukens, who directs the Hawaii chapter of the Center for Food Safety, a national nonprofit that has been lobbying for more regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), said Maui County residents deserve all the credit for the turnaround.

“I think that this is a really strong message to the entire agrochemical industry in the state of Hawaii that we are no longer going to sit idly by and watch them expand their operations without the kinds of regulations that ensure the health and safety of people across Hawaii,” Lukens said.

<>

[HuckleB]

9. A German Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

They use less pesticides, produce more per acre, and help 3rd world farmers make more profit.

Hmm.

[HuckleB]

10. Decimating the Flawed Beliefs of Anti-GMO Activists

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/25/decimating-the-flawed-beliefs-of-anti-gmo-activists/

[Archae]

13. I think you'd have better luck convincing Inhofe of Global Climate Change.

Far too many propaganda outlets on the web.

[HuckleB]

14. Oh, I know, but it is funny that the Germans came out with a pro-GMO review this week.

[midnight]

23. Farmers have healthier crops without GMO's. I can't see how GMO's even have a leg to stand on.

[HuckleB]

31. You just made an untrue statement.

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Thus, how does your stance have a leg to stand on?

[HuckleB]

32. Bill Nye says science changed his anti-GMO views

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/02/bill-nye-says-science-changed-his-anti-gmo-views

[HuckleB]

33. AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Also see:

Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/

[Sancho]

38. I've made the point in other threads, that new science can make mistakes...

even though I'm not sure about GMO safety, we should label and be cautious for now. My example (I'm sure others are possible) demonstrated how science and medicine underestimated the problems of widespread and inappropriate use of antibiotics. I've had this type of debate on several threads and posts.

In the last debate about antibiotics:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6289042
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6288910
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6285842

It's clear that antibiotics were originally given out without prescriptions, used in farm animals, and declared safe by the surgeon general, and typically seen as nothing but wonderful (even though the science was aware of "possible" future issues). It that case, it took decades of applied science to see the problems and consequences of superbugs, universal resistance, and difficulty developing new antibiotics. It's not hard to find links on the history of antibiotics and the fight to force big food companies to stop feeding antibiotics to farm animals. Now third world companies are out of control even if the US and Europe adopt new regulations.

Food should be labeled by nutritional analysis, origin, and classification (GMO, organic, etc.). The labels could even be a phone scan. It's not a big problem to do so, and would help spot unknown effects over time and in large populations. Currently, there is virtually no comprehensive, longitudinal experimental (not correlational) GMO study - partially because there hasn't been enough years to do so! We don't know what happens as introduction of GMO's results in unpredicted outcomes that appear "safe" today. Food effects are notoriously difficulty to research (like salt, cholesterol, sugar, etc.).

I would support detailed labelling.

[HuckleB]

41. Your links don't support your desire for a label of any kind.

At least a detailed label would be fair marketing wise. Of course, it would also lead increased food costs, with very little to no actual benefit. Still, why don't you spend some time advocating that organic companies label food that is derived from mutation breeding. Let us know the kind of reception you get.

[Sancho]

42. I disagree completely...

the links demonstrate that applied science makes mistakes, and that scientific research sometimes takes time (decades). They were not links about labelling per se.

We can argue forever, but it's obvious to reasonable people. Labels are an inconsequential expense and a major health plus. Almost all food and products are already tracked internally. Nutritional analysis is likely a bigger expense than labeling with what is already known.

At any rate, any researcher (like me) knows that it's very difficulty to create necessary information from scratch, but it's easy to follow up on post hoc (after the fact) data. If products were labeled, you would not only have a marketing plus, but you would open the door for independent research to track GMO's and experiment with any and all hypotheses.

I also believe that items should be labeled "organic" and defined. Since we're almost able to sequence DNA overnight, it's a matter of time before easy tracking of mutations by simple sampling won't be a burden. Admittedly, that may be a little in the future, but not too far. The last mini-Snachzaur I bought was DNA tested as a puppy for major inherited disorders. Heck, there's a quick test now to see if a fish is a grouper or if the dog poop belongs to Fido, so getting a bit of info about a million bushels of corn doesn't see to be a challenge to me.

Meanwhile, there's no reason someone can't do exactly like we do with many other products. I can scan codes on my phone for to get information on most things while standing in the store. Big food companies could easily provide GMO information - they don't want to for some reason.

[HuckleB]

43. I get that you disagree, but you're failing to respond to the full picture in any way.

Also, "the science was wrong" argument doesn't pass muster.

[Sancho]

44. I said the "applied science was wrong" and that is well documented...

In other words, you can argue that we "knew" about microbial development to resistance, but you cannot argue that pharmacies, farmers, doctors, medical schools, medical training, and even some laboratory scientists failed to understand or anticipate the rapidity of resistant change, the superbugs, the necessary rules to deal with resistance, the mechanism of evolving resistance, the difficulties of developing new antibiotics, and on and on.

In fact, the Surgeon General was announcing essentially the end of the war on bacterial infection! I provided the link and quote. Fifty years later, we have a problem. The SG was basing his pronouncement on his understanding of the applied science of medicine as they understood it in the early 60's! I know from first hand observation in the 60's and 70's that was the understanding at that time. When I took microbiology and genetics in 72-73, we were just then talking about Phisohex, educating people about taking antibiotics, and testing for specific bacteria. Almost all the textbook learning at the time was more concerned with other things, and resistance was a simple topic among many. There may have been someone yelling "fire" in the background, but no one was listening.

In essence, the science was wrong. If you want to say the application of science was wrong, fine, but I see science as both basic and applied. Sorry, but it's historical fact and an admitted mistake if you read the history of antibiotic resistance. I provided one link and one quote. I'm sure you can check the references and see that there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of articles on antibiotics, so a summary seems sufficient.

My point is that we made mistakes with antibiotics. I think that the understanding of GMO's is still too new to absolutely compare GMO science with the older applied science of vaccines. My counter example of antibiotics demonstrates what can happen after we have more decades of experience. Sometimes the applications of science are elusive.

[HuckleB]

45. No, it's not.

You're just trying to distract people with the term "applied," and that's just disingenuous. Farmers don't need to purchase GMOs, and yet they do. In fact, the only reason they don't is because they can, sometimes, make more profit farming "organic" veggies, even though they grow far less.

The reality of the situation does not seem to be something you grasp, even though you have lots of words to offer, and an obsession with antibiotics that has nothing to do with GMOs.

[Sancho]

46. You are not getting it....

applied science is defined in every textbook.

Farmers purchased antibiotics and fed them to their cows, chickens, and pigs for decades until they were forced by law to quit. The reason is that the cows, chickens, and pigs were healthier, grew faster, and profits were higher!! Unfortunately, people ate antibiotics in food, bacteria in the animals became more resistant also, and now we have bacteria that we can't kill.

That is one of the biggest sources of resistance to antibiotics today. It's still going on in third world countries. US and European experts are trying to get farmers everywhere to stop!

GMOs are EXACTLY the same situation - and you are describing it! Farmers use applied science (GMOs) because it appears safe and profitable. All is good they think! Just like the example of antibiotics, no one knows what issues will appear 20, 30, or 50 years from now because of today's widespread practice!!

The analogy is perfect. There is no obsession with antibiotics. Some others on this thread wanted to argue the history of antibiotics so I provided references. If you want a different parallel in science, I'll can come up with one...but the final analysis is the same. GMO science is still to new to use it without caution. I'm not against GMOs, I'm just an observer of science and history.