Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FDA won't allow food to be labeled GMO free

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FDA won't allow food to be labeled GMO free

    FDA won’t allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification: report | The Raw Story

    Didn't see this before but madness.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  • #2
    Sad, but not surprising. The FDA represents the big agri-businesses and pharmaceutical companies.
    Live your life and love your life. It's the only one you get.

    Comment


    • #3
      Right. It's the whole BGH bullshit all over again. I noticed that someone in that article said that labelling would just confuse the consumer. I would have laughed, but I was too busy trying to reach my hands through the computer screen to choke him 'til his eyes popped out of his head.
      "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

      B*tch-lite

      Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

      Comment


      • #4
        I was trying to tell people this when California had the proposition on the ballot to enforce labeling of GMO foods. Nobody knew that labeling foods as not GMO isn't allowed. I would prefer the scenario where if your food doesn't have GMO in it you can state that on the label rather than the scenario in the proposition, but since it was already not allowed, I voted for the proposition. It didn't pass.
        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

        Comment


        • #5
          It didn't pass because the other side always has more money. I heard they ran ads stating that it would cost $1M a year to enforce. $1M? That's a drop in CA's budget. But the average person can't figure out that $1M divided by the 37.7 million people in CA comes out to about 2 and a half cents per person.
          "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

          B*tch-lite

          Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

          Comment


          • #6
            That is beyond stupid. GMO-free is still applicable to a damn strawberry, even if it's not an "organism". Then again, I guess that

            Why don't they just come up with another term for labeling? Wouldn't anything organic be automatically non-GMO (in the way we understand it)? This would be a good opportunity for organic companies to advertise and gain more visibility and support.
            Depression Lies

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
              It didn't pass because the other side always has more money. I heard they ran ads stating that it would cost $1M a year to enforce. $1M? That's a drop in CA's budget. But the average person can't figure out that $1M divided by the 37.7 million people in CA comes out to about 2 and a half cents per person.
              Most of the other issues that had a lot of money poured into them failed so I don't believe that it was just the money that make the prop fail.

              As for whether or not implementing the labeling would actually result in additional or overly burdensome costs, I really don't believe that either. They already use software to track the supply chain so they already know what is or isn't in the product. They already have labels. They already pay marketers and graphic designers to make changes to the labels all the time. What's one more thing added to the label? Somehow all the fast-food restaurants managed to put calorie counts on the menu without going broke, so I'm not buying that adding something to the label is cost prohibitive.
              Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

              Comment


              • #8
                What kills me is they are allowed to label whole grains as "healthy" but not the the truth about a GMO food.
                Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
                PS
                Don't forget to play!

                Comment


                • #9
                  namelesswonder, yes, the Organic designation does not allow for GMOs.

                  sb, good point. And even on the cheapest product (a can of carrots maybe), they can pass the penny per label (if that much) on to the consumer without hurting the consumer too much.

                  Dirlot, I totally agree with you. The other thing I don't get is that most food manufacturers operate on pretty small margins; i.e., they make their money by selling a huge quantity, not because they make a large profit per piece. Even though Paleo/Primal people are still a small minority, by their deceit, they are sending us to alternative suppliers. It seems short sighted to me.

                  The good news is that farmers' markets are thriving in most areas. A google search of the history of farmers' markets gives hope.
                  "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                  B*tch-lite

                  Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Aren't basically all current-day agricultural products genetically modified? The pigs we get our bacon from are nothing like wild pigs... they are a gentically distinct species as a result of a whole bunch of deliberate tinkering. Same with our bovines, our strawberries, our tomatoes, our tubers and grains and spices and everything else. They are made things, developed by systematic genetic manipulation.

                    Genetics: The science of heredity, dealing with resemblances and differences of related organisms resulting from the interaction of their genes and the environment.

                    It is the nature of farms to select and cultivate what they grow. That selection isn't natural, and results in changes to the selected species. While the FDA could arguably allow "wild" foods to be labled as non-GMO, they really can't honestly call any cultivated species (plant or animal) non-GMO, can they?

                    How would they seperate, "Modified by means of genetic (hereditary) manipulation" from "modified by means of genetic (molecular) manipulation?" Is it a meaningful distinction? They are both artificial in the technical sense, and (as the paleo argument against grains demonstrates) it isn't as though something should be considered wholesome simply because it was developed through selective breeding instead of another form of genetic manipulation.

                    Just my thought for the moment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Major thing for me is that we don't know what modifying in a laboratory will do down the line. Anytime a study shows (for eg.) that rats grow tumors from the stuff, the purveyors of GMOs say it's just one study.

                      I understand selective breeding won't always result in wholesome. When I was a child, I ate store bought tomatoes like apples. They were juicy, messy flavor bombs. Selected through the years to withstand shipping long distances, they are pulpy, almost tasteless shadows of their former selves. Still, nobody messed with the structure of the DNA.
                      "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                      B*tch-lite

                      Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                        Still, nobody messed with the structure of the DNA.
                        Do the changes breed true? If yes, isn't that a sign that the DNA structure has been messed with? Maybe not in a lab, maybe not directly, but they are still changed.

                        Consider the implications of this: Wired 12.11: The Mystery of the Coca Plant That Wouldn't Die

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Similar situation with a NZ company called Eco Store who make natural plant based skin care and cleaning products. Normally their packaging in NZ has a list of things that they don't contain like parabens, dimethicone, petrochemicals etc. When they were applying to sell their products in the US they were told that they couldn't use this label because it was 'confusing' etc.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Lizzielou View Post
                            Similar situation with a NZ company called Eco Store who make natural plant based skin care and cleaning products. Normally their packaging in NZ has a list of things that they don't contain like parabens, dimethicone, petrochemicals etc. When they were applying to sell their products in the US they were told that they couldn't use this label because it was 'confusing' etc.
                            "confusing"....AKA educational. People may actually see these words and decide to do a little reading ....then, gasp! They may actually decide finding and purchasing items without them could be beneficial to their health. My God, we wouldn't want people actually becoming informed! How on Earth will we control them then?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              @ Him there is a big difference between selective breading which occurs over generations and GMO where the DNA is modified in the lab by either adding extra chromosomes or removing them. Probably the worste example is corn which was modified with insecticidal inserted into the DNA. The insects are selectively breading and the new generation are imune to the insecticide and devastating crops.

                              Insecticides Modified in GM Corn Polluting U.S. Waters
                              Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
                              PS
                              Don't forget to play!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X