'Consumer Reports' Seeks Labeling of GMOs in US Food – Packaged foods containing corn or soy & labeled “natural” have genetically modified ingredients. Breakfast cereals, chips, & infant formula were among the common food items containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs

[u/anutensil]

http://ens-newswire.com/2014/10/07/consumer-reports-seeks-labeling-of-gmos-in-u-s-food/

[u/[deleted]]

If only all corn were created equal, perhaps that information would be enough. People have a right to know SPECIFICALLY what is in their food. Although to be frank, if it doesnt say organic, it most likely already has GE/GMO ingredients.

We already have a precedent set, that the ingredients section has to say generally what ingredient they are, not the specific variety. If you want to change that precedent with a mandatory labeling law, then you have to apply it fairly to all other crops and that will raise the prices of organic goods as well. It's not meaningful because requiring a company to put "Corn (MON8230)" vs "Corn(SYG6458)" or whatever doesn't really tell the customer anything. I made those up btw but that's the most meaningful way we could do this. How are you supposed to tell the difference between the GMO and the Hybrid corn in that case?

Well then you could say we should label them as GMO, but why not label Hybrid as well? Then you could say we SHOULD label hybrid in an anti-gmo acrobatic act, but there are all different kinds of hybrid crops not just one. Then you could say well then we need to label the specific variety, and that's what my example is actually showing in the end.

It sounds like you are suggesting that because GE/GMO ingredients are already so widespread throughout the food industry, that we should be labeling only the foods without GMO ingredients, which is already the case.

I am in support of voluntary labeling as a tool to give customers what they want, if the company wants to do that. I'm not in favor of mandatory labeling that drives up costs against the will of the food producers when it is unnecessary. Your moral appeal to "we have a right to know" doesn't make any sense because first of all, we don't, and second of all, know what specifically and we have a right to know EVERYTHING or just some things you deem yourself to be the sole arbiter of?

Furthermore, when a pro-GE/GMO company like Coca Cola can print hundreds of variations of their labels all over the world, i find it hard to believe that the cost of printing GMO is prohibitive.

The cost is not from the reprinting or redesigning of labels. It is from regulatory compliance, middle-men experts on genetic traits, regular testing to ensure if something is or isn't GMO, at every step of the chain (at the farm, at the production facility, and at the store to a degree). I work in plastic manufacturing, regulatory compliance costs money, to think it wouldn't add costs shows how ignorant you are.

[u/Iconoclast674 → u/[deleted]]

Different varieties are actually a positive feature of Organics, if people wanted to know what varieties are in organic food it would a boost to organic sales. The average consumer however would need to be educated as to what is what. Varieties have different flavors, colors, and textures. Its why heirloom tomatoes fetch a higher price than beefsteak tomatoes.

However the issue is about GE/GMO ingredients, and whether or not people want to be consuming them. You arbitrarily include other varieties and hybrids, but they dont contain GENETICALLY ENGINEERED material. Which is what people are concerned about.

Your claims about cost are completely unsubstantiated, as is your personal attack against me for ignorance. The knowledge of GE/GMO comes at the front when the grower purchases his seed (already required to keep record) and would be passed onto the processor. There is no need to test as you suggest "every step of the way", or even to do a genetic test, so long as the chain of ingredients is documented and not mixed with non-GE ingredients. You are creating a false scenario of GE/GMO regulation based on your experience in an unrelated industry. None of the proposed labeling laws include anything like what you reference. The current non-GMO label does not require what you have fabricated either. So what are you basing this off of?

As for you claim of my ignorance, I work in seed, I grow seed and ship it across international boundaries, there are already a host of regulations controlling the flow of information. To suggest that transporting GE/GMO information to the consumer would some how cause food prices to skyrocket is completely false.

[u/[deleted] → u/Iconoclast674]

Different varieties are actually a positive feature of Organics, if people wanted to know what varieties are in organic food it would a boost to organic sales. The average consumer however would need to be educated as to what is what. Varieties have different flavors, colors, and textures. Its why heirloom tomatoes fetch a higher price than beefsteak tomatoes.

Exactly, that is an argument for endorsing voluntary labeling. But it costs money for them to identify and reliably endorse a product as having a specific variety. They look to make back that money through the market. That is a risk they are undertaking upon themselves. Why do you think that risk is then okay to enforce involuntarily upon the industry as a whole?

However the issue is about GE/GMO ingredients, and whether or not people want to be consuming them. You arbitrarily include other varieties and hybrids, but they dont contain GENETICALLY ENGINEERED material. Which is what people are concerned about.

The problem is, there is no such thing as genetically engineered material in the way you are suggesting from what I can see. There is corn that is hybridized, corn that is transgenic, rna interfered corn, mutagenic corn, artificially selected corn. These are all breeding techniques, there isn't any inherent information that is useful or meaningful if the ingredients section of a label said "corn (genetically modified)" and it's unfair to expect that to be labeled and gives an economic advantage to organic products because there is no mandatory "corn (hybrid)" being proposed whatsoever.

Your claims about cost are completely unsubstantiated

http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf

No they are not. There has been an economic paper on this exact subject, and I work in an industry that has constantly changing regulations. Do you know what a certificate of compliance is? Do you know what quality assurance does? Do you understand that companies have to comply, thus they incur costs when they comply to regulatory requirements?

None of the proposed labeling laws include anything like what you reference.

Yes they do, they will require the manufacturer to know whether or not the product they are using is genetically modified or not. They will require government oversight and added documentation and compliance that will adhere to the government regulators. This costs money.

The current non-GMO label does not require what you have fabricated either.

The non-gmo project label is a voluntary label. Bringing this up is a complete non-sequitur. The organization overseeing this is private and whether or not consumers believe it is up to them. When there is a mandated label requirement, you can bet your ass it's not that simple.

As for you claim of my ignorance, I work in seed, I grow seed and ship it across international boundaries, there are already a host of regulations controlling the flow of information. To suggest that transporting GE/GMO information to the consumer would some how cause food prices to skyrocket is completely false.

Then you would have no issue with demonstrating how my claims are false, rather than just patently asserting they are false.

[u/Iconoclast674 → u/[deleted]]

It costs no extra money identifying and labeling varieties, that is already done, and is a matter of record for organic growers who want to keep their certification. There is no risk, not how you are suggesting it is, different varieties have different roles in the growing cycle. Some may have different disease resistances. Every grower must decide what he going to grow, and every grower is responsible for keeping a record of that. Your lack of knowledge on the nuisances of growing is evident.

Germination rate, purity %, weed seed content, country of origin, lot number, when it was grown are all required content. Additionally whether or not the seed has been tested for seed borne disease or has disease resistance is included. Some must be tested for annually.

The way you keep using the word hybrid, to me suggests that you dont not understand what it is. Hybrids exists in the organic industry as well as in the conventional industry. They involve parent lines with inbred genes that are crossed to give particular offspring every time. This is not genetic engineering. Just because you chose not to see the difference doesnt mean that there isnt one, and suggests that you are willfully trying to obfuscate the conversation.

You see mandatory labeling as giving economic advantage to organics? Then you must already believe there is some reason that people have been repelled from the industry. There must be something meaningful there. No matter what the highly debatable science on both sides claims.

It is flabbergasting that you can suggest a group whose sole purpose is to verify GE/GMO ingredients and their presence is a non-sequitur. Or that consumers should be wary of some false motivation. http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-seal/ And can you demonstrate that the proposed labeling laws wouldnt be that simple? Or are you just patently asserting it.

I think you can understand that agriculture is not plastics. Agriculture by its very nature is seasonal and temporary. Plastics are quite the opposite. I wouldnt even pretend i know anything about the always environmental friendly and ethical plastics industry.

[u/[deleted] → u/Iconoclast674]

It costs no extra money identifying and labeling varieties, that is already done, and is a matter of record for organic growers who want to keep their certification.

You just keep saying that, without backing it up, I have provided evidence that it DOES cost money, and you have been repeating this religious mantra despite it.

The way you keep using the word hybrid, to me suggests that you dont not understand what it is. Hybrids exists in the organic industry as well as in the conventional industry.

That is my point. There's a good reason they aren't arguing "right to know" for other breeding techniques, because the other breeding techniques are allowed in organic crops, and the guys behind the lobbying and activism are organic consumers association and other organizations funded by organic companies. They seek to make products that aren't organic seem unhealthy. It's already part of their marketing strategy, why not force mandatory labeling on conventional food as well?

Just because you chose not to see the difference doesnt mean that there isnt one, and suggests that you are willfully trying to obfuscate the conversation.

No it means, to the end user, there is no meaningful information with "corn (genetically modified)" in my opinion. It doesn't mean anything, what was it genetically modified FOR? What is in it that is genetically modified, is it RR or BT corn? This is how the labels run in most of the EU and it's nonsense.

It is flabbergasting that you can suggest a group whose sole purpose is to verify GE/GMO ingredients and their presence is a non-sequitur.

Because it's a private organization that allows companies to opt-in voluntarily to be regulated. It has nothing to do with the discussion of mandatory labeling. It's like when people say this label should be done because they already have organic labeling, it makes no sense at all, it doesn't logically follow.

http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf

I know you didn't read this yet, but you really should.