Anti-GMO Labeling Bill Just Got DARKer

[bananas]

http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/13/gmo-labeling-bill-dark-act/

Anti-GMO Labeling Bill Just Got DARKer
Environmental Working Group | July 13, 2015

This week the House Agriculture Committee is expected to mark up and vote on a bill that would take away the right of states to label food with genetically modified ingredients, or GMOs. According to Environmental Working Group (EWG), the latest draft of the measure shows it to be a bad bill that keeps getting worse.

The bill originally only prevented states from labeling products with GMOs. The version to be considered this week goes a step further, prohibiting state and local governments from protecting the environment and public health from the side effects of the production of GMO crops. The bill also allows companies to make “natural” claims on foods with GMOs and blocks state efforts to prohibit these misleading claims. These are more reasons that clean food advocates call the bill the Deny Americans the Right to Know, or DARK Act.

“This bad bill just keeps getting worse,” said Mary Ellen Kustin, EWG senior policy analyst. “The DARK Act has always been an infringement upon the well-established rights of states to regulate food labeling, but the most recent versions of the bill takes that overreach to a new level.”

<snip>

[ladjf]

1. This legislation should be classified as illegal. nt

[cstanleytech]

15. So why not challenge it in court on constitutional grounds?

[ladjf]

21. Good idea except for the fact that the Republicans have a lock on the

Supreme Court in most cases.

[cstanleytech]

22. Ya I know but that could change, all that needs to happen is for one or two of the conservative

SCOTUS justices is to either retire or kick off suddenly before Obama is out of office.

[ladjf]

24. Yes, it could change. If we could rectify the gerrymandering, we could

gain control of the Senate and then the House. Also, Americans might be realizing how insane most of the tea baggers are.

[djean111]

2. Looks like the GMO people are really getting their money's worth!

Gee, why would they need to be shielded from damage to people and the Earth?

[Scuba]

3. If GMOs are so good for us you'd think they'd want to advertise their GMOGoodness.

[Orrex]

5. If people weren't irrationally afraid of GMOs, there would be no harm in labelling them

[Scuba]

6. What a crock of shit.

[Orrex]

8. Cogent.

[stillwaiting]

7. Why is...

... "prohibiting state and local governments from protecting the environment and public health from the side effects of the production of GMO crops" part of the legislation? Do you think it's a good thing that it's included? And, what led them to think that it's needed to be included?

[Orrex]

9. Demonstrate a compelling reason to require GMO labelling

Consumers' fear is not a compelling reason.

[stillwaiting]

11. You didn't answer my question. I think it's a very good one. nt

[tecelote]

12. 1. Glyphosate

2. Herbicide resistant weeds require more and more herbicides

3. Patents & Monopolies

4. Human Health - GMO's are introduced to the market with little or no testing on human health

[PADemD]

13. As a consumer, it is my right to know what

I am eating. Buyer Beware.

Those state laws protect us from buying flood cars and other things we would not waste our money on.

[Orrex]

23. That is not a compelling reason

You do indeed have a right to know what you are eating, and manufacturers helpfully provide this information already, right there on the list of ingredients.

Those state laws protect us from buying flood cars and other things we would not waste our money on.

That's a false analogy, of course. "Flood cars" have suffered damage that can endanger the buyer and/or reduce the value of the vehicle, so the buyer has a compelling reason to know if she's buying a "flood car."

In this context, "other things we would not waste our money on" is a claim of aesthetics and has no bearing on the discussion.

[PADemD]

26. manufacturers helpfully provide this information already, right there on the list of ingredients.

every ingredient, except Glyphosate.

My right to know and decide on what I put in my body trumps any manufacturer's claims.

[Orrex]

29. Which foods, in your view, include Glyphosate?

And how do you know this?

My right to know and decide on what I put in my body trumps any manufacturer's claims.

Let's follow your claim to its logical conclusion, shall we?

Based on your claim, I demand to know the pedigree of the cow whose shit was used to fertilize the organic tomatoes on sale at my grocery store. I demand to know the name of the farmer who grew them, the immigration status of all of his workers, the GPS coordinates of the plant that produced these particular tomatoes, the time of day that these tomatoes were harvested, the ambient temperature at the time of harvest, how many days passed between acquisition of the seeds and the actual harvesting of the tomatoes.

After all, you've asserted that my right to know trumps any manufacturer's claims. How dare an organic producer hide information that I demand to know?

[PADemD]

41. Actually,

I'd also like to know if any of my fruits and vegetables were irrigated with fracking fluid contaminated water. I don't think that's too much to ask of a farmer.

[Orrex]

42. That strikes me as reasonable.

Very different from concerns about GMO foods, though.

[Duppers]

14. Present the research that backs up

Your opinion.

I'll find articles that back up my "irrational opinion" latter today.

[Orrex]

17. No.

It's been done here many times over, and I frankly don't care to argue science against faith-based fear.

Further, I know from long experience that it is impossible to argue this point with facts and reason. Even when hundreds of studies are cited that show no danger from GMOs, the truebelievers will still say "that doesn't mean that there's no risk." Trying to persuade such people is a fool's quest that I decline to undertake.

The underlying assertion here is that GMOs are sufficiently dangerous to require labelling. It is up to the claimant to demonstrate that this is the case. Absent that demonstration, there is no compelling reason for manufacturers to be forced to disclose this information, and consumers' fears & preferences do not qualify as compelling reasons.

[tecelote]

19. No Danger?

How long were the vast amount of studies conducted?

Do you considered increased use of a dangerous pesticide a factor?

Also, why do you care if we get the truth put on labels?

--- Added on Edit ---

"...and consumers' fears & preferences do not qualify as compelling reasons."

Since when do the desires of consumers not matter?

[Orrex]

25. Again, it's up to you to demonstrate your claim.

How long were the vast amount of studies conducted?

Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies over many decades. How many peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that they are dangerous.

Do you considered increased use of a dangerous pesticide a factor?

That question is so vague and open-ended as to be useless here. Care to try again?

Also, why do you care if we get the truth put on labels?

That's a red herring. I do not object to the truth. I object to the forced disclosure of irrelevant* details.

"...and consumers' fears & preferences do not qualify as compelling reasons."

Since when do the desires of consumers not matter?

Sure, consumers' matter. But that doesn't mean that their desires are a compelling reason to demand that manufacturers disclose an irrelevant (or false**) detail that will negatively impact the sale of their products.
[hr][hr]*irrelevant: the GMO or non-GMO status of a given food has not been shown to be relevant to the safety of that food.

**false: if a label requires both disclosure of GMO status and a statement that GMO foods do (or are likely to) cause harm, then that is a false detail.

[cpwm17]

20. +1000 nt

[tecelote]

4. When it is illegal to tell the truth, then we no longer have a Democracy.

[fasttense]

10. The bill prevents the states from protecting the environment or public health from GMOs

So, GMOs are destroying the public health. What do they know that they are NOT telling us? Remeber all those cases of kidney failure due to Round Up in South America and India? It is a combination of Round Up ready GMOs, hard water and excessive heat that is causing total kidney failure. It has wiped out entire villages.

The same thing is happening in the US except that we have dialysis which can keep people alive for years. Mark my words, in a few years kidney failure and Round Up and the GMOs that require it are going to be as common as lung cancer and smoking.

[Igel]

30. That's certainly the EWG's claim.

Not much proof.

It's like me looking at DU and saying that the goal of DUers' is to subvert the US Constitution and have a quota-driven political and legislative system in which everybody is in a protected class but Xian white males.

Now, is that really what DU is about? No. But it's a spin I put on my claim and present it as "the truth."

The legislation will undoubtedly take steps to prevent what EWG wants done from being done. Since what EWG wants done is essential, crucial to protecting the public, the only possible motive they can impute to the legislation is to prevent others from protecting the public.

[fasttense]

34. I do not understand what you just wrote

What is EWG?

[Dustlawyer]

16. Had enough of this crap yet? TPP secrecy and now this, all by the worst/best Congress money

can buy! We need Publicly Funded Elections (PFE) to put an END TO THIS CRAP!

Even if Bernie is not your favorite candidate he is still the only one supporting PFE's. This is by far the most important issue of our time, causing most of the problems we face today. Help support Bernie and put an end to the Plutocrats control over our government!

[Perseus]

18. Somebody please explain to me...

Wouldn't it be just as good to forget all these political crap and lobby to have companies who do not use GMO to label their products "NO GMO". Maybe we are taking the fight somewhere where we shouldn't? I buy "Sweet Potato" chips that have their bags labeled as "NO GMO".

I admit that although I avoid anything that I know comes from GMO crops, that I have not kept up with this fight, so please forgive my ignorance on the subject, but I was just wondering.

Thank you

[peacebird]

28. Many products are being labelled as NON GMO, just like some dairy is labelled rBGH free

It is a good thing! I only buy those with that label. Just like I do NOT buy organic made in China. Somehow I just don't trust the organic verification in China.

[fasttense]

38. Since GMOs are in almost everything it is difficult to know if something is GMO free

I feed my chickens a local blend for laying hens. I asked the guy who sells it if there are GMOs in it. He doesn't know. Now since he does not know and I collect the eggs and sell them, are the eggs GMO free, are the chickens? I have a friend who also farms and all her feed she imports from Europe because that is the only place that can gurantee GMO free feed. How can I farm sustainably if I have to import all my feed from Europe?

I planted organic corn. My neighbor grows GMO corn in the field across from my farm. I took my corn to sell as GMO free and they tested it. It was cross contaminated by my neighbors GMO corn. I can't sue him or hold him accountable for destroying my corn because what he did was perfectly legal. How can I grow GMO free if everyone else is contaminating my fields?

[bananas]

33. Risk Expert Nassim Taleb: GMOs Could Destroy the Global Ecosystem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101689073

[Orrex]

37. The hedge fund manager?

Hmm...

[peacebird]

27. Label it. If Consumers won't buy your product because it contains GMOs, then produce non-GMO crop

This argument that consumers must be kept in the dark because rheur irrational fear would stop them from buying a product is totally backwards. I do not have to buy any product, and can use any reason I want. But it IS my right to know where my food comes from, and if it is organic or not, and if it is GMO or not, and if the milk is rBGH free or not.

If GMO is pure goodness, label it proudly. Those who argue so vehemently for it, will buy it. Those who choose not to, won't.

The fact is that people want to know what they feed their families, and deserve the right to make an informed choice.

[Igel]

31. Consumers don't need to be kept in the dark.

But neither should irrational and irrelevant fears be catered to.

If "GMO goodness" were preached, it would be rejected by a wide range of fear-mongers. After all, companies can't be trusted to do research. And that includes anybody's who's been given money, grants, travel funds, or been in the employ of companies.

Unlike NGOs which are formed for the purpose of advocacy and who, in this debate, have managed to produce some truly crappy research but who's cry of "you can't be 100% sure!" fails on fertile ground. Much like the "you can't be 100% vaccines don't cause autism," or "you can't be 100% that mankind is behind 100% of global warming" or "you can't absolutely prove evolution without direct observation, repeated trials, and controls."

Yup. They all fall in the same cauldron.

[peacebird]

32. We agree, consumers don't need to be kept in the dark. Good! Label it.

[bananas]

36. Yes, the pro-GMO logic is backwards.

The reason they don't want to label GMO products is because, a long time ago, they did consumer testing, take a group of people, tell them to pretend they were in a grocery store with bins labelled GMO, non-GMO, and unlabelled, with various prices, and they found that people would avoid the GMO products unless they were significantly cheaper, and people would pay more for products labelled non-GMO. The price difference cut away any profit they would make. So they hired lobbyists and PR firms to corrupt the FDA and Congress.

And that's why they are so adamant against labelling.

But they'll never admit it, so they make bizarre arguments like the backwards logic you referred to.

[matt819]

35. OK, so don't label food with GMOs

Fine with me.

So the companies that do produce food without GMOs note that on its products, and we can buy those products.

Yes, I realize that this applies mainly to intelligent consumers, but, let's face it, for those consumers who don't care or don't know about GMOs, no amount of labeling will make a difference. Or if non-GMO food are higher priced, that alone may steer them to other products, whether or not they have GMOs in them.

I have to say, I'm not losing much sleep over this. I'll continue to do my best to buy non-GMO products, and if producers make this easy for me by advertising it as such, all the better. And you know they will advertise this if the assumption otherwise is that their product contains GMOs.

[fasttense]

39. GMOs have contaminated most everything in the US

From corn to soy beans to alphalfa to beets to tomatoes they all have chance of being contaminated. I've had some of my produce tested and it was contaminated though I planted non-GMO.

I can't find non-GMO feed that I can afford for my sheep and chickens. If I slaughter them and sell the meat is it GMO free?

I can't hold any of those corporations accountable for contaminating my organic farm. They go about spreading their crap all over the country and there is nothing that doesn't have a chace of contamination. So take those non-GMO claims with skepticism. When was the last time they were tested? Where do they get their feed? It's not so simple to avoid the monster foods.

[matt819]

40. I don't doubt that.

And it sucks. And maybe it is too late to put that genie back in the bottle.

But regarding labeling, my original point still holds. If it's not labeled non- gmo, then I roll assume it's gmo and decide accordingly. And if I have a choice I'll choose the one labeled non gmo.

So, again, in a sense the labeling almost doesn't matter except for the uninformed consumer, who is likely unable to buy or uninterested in buying non gmo.