Europe about to embrace GM?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Possibly they should list the variety of plant, the GM status could be deduced from the varietal name, and it is a desirable piece of labelling anyway.

It is telling however that you seem more concerned about whether it is labelled GM or not than whether it is labelled with the species name. The thing is, labelling something 'GM' actually tells you nothing useful about the product. It does not tell you what modifications were made or what health impacts it might have. It provides no benefit whatsoever to the consumer but is instead misleading.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said it was. You did however seem to be claiming it but presenting data that was practically irrelevant.

[b]Total imports were 2 megatonnes of fresh vegetables, so Africa's getting a significant amount of trade from us.
A few percent is 'significant'?
The fact remains that you import mostly from the EU, and without farm subsidies that would change considerably.[/b]

Well yes, the amount we import from those five countries is more than we import from France in that class of produce. France is considerably closer so there are lower transport costs. "A few percent" was 6% of 2 million tonnes so it's 120,000 Tonnes of produce. That's a significant amount. Besides you haven't presented any evidence that the imports from Holland and Spain >depend< on subsidies.

Originally posted by PatNovak
I think it is safe to say that scientific consensus clearly does not agree with you that a label without GMO content constitutes "inadequate labeling."

Please explain why your right to know something that science considers useless information is more important than my right to not have anti-science labeling on food? Once we start forcing anti-science lab ...[text shortened]... ith useless information, because you have taken a position that is against scientific consensus.

Creating a GMO is equivalent to creating a new variety, there is no good reason why the variety name should not be on the packet.

Your examples are no good. Food that is grown through biodynamic agriculture is normally labelled as such, if it is not it is a safe assumption that it wasn't grown by that method.

Food suitable for Jews and Muslims is invariably labelled Kosher or Halal respectively, if it is not so labelled then it won't be. Part of meat being Kosher or Halal is that no one mentions the name of a different god while the animal is slaughtered, as this would dedicate the animal to that god and eating it would be to take part in a pagan sacrifice.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is telling however that you seem more concerned about whether it is labelled GM or not than whether it is labelled with the species name. The thing is, labelling something 'GM' actually tells you nothing useful about the product. It does not tell you what modifications were made or what health impacts it might have. It provides no benefit whatsoever to the consumer but is instead misleading.

Did you read the post you just responded to?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Creating a GMO is equivalent to creating a new variety, there is no good reason why the variety name should not be on the packet.

Your examples are no good. Food that is grown through biodynamic agriculture is normally labelled as such, if it is not it is a safe assumption that it wasn't grown by that method.

Food suitable for Jews and Muslims is ...[text shortened]... would dedicate the animal to that god and eating it would be to take part in a pagan sacrifice.

My examples were fine; it is your counter examples that were no good. You are advocating government mandated labeling, yet none of the labeling you mentioned is due to government mandate.

We have never lived in a world where the specific variety of a food is specified, GMO or otherwise. When you buy a can of sweet corn at the store, it is not labeled as "Luscious F1 Hybrid Corn" or "Sugar Pearl F1 Hybrid Corn" or any of the other many strains of corn (and BTW, my examples are non-GMO corn strains). This type of labeling has not existed either before or after GMO's.

Again, I will ask you to explain why your rights are more important than mine, and which anti-science labeling should be mandated, and where should we draw the line when it comes to mandated anti-science labeling?

Originally posted by PatNovak
My examples were fine; it is your counter examples that were no good. You are advocating government mandated labeling, yet none of the labeling you mentioned is due to government mandate.

We have never lived in a world where the specific variety of a food is specified, GMO or otherwise. When you buy a can of sweet corn at the store, it is not labeled as ...[text shortened]... be mandated, and where should we draw the line when it comes to mandated anti-science labeling?

If I understand your argument you are claiming that you have a right to only have labelling that scientific consensus states is necessary and that by arguing for labelling of GM products I'm somehow infringing your rights.

By that argument there would not be a list of ingredients on most products, except of things that were known to be harmful, so the argument doesn't apply to current practice.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If I understand your argument you are claiming that you have a right to only have labelling that scientific consensus states is necessary and that by arguing for labelling of GM products I'm somehow infringing your rights.

By that argument there would not be a list of ingredients on most products, except of things that were known to be harmful, so the argument doesn't apply to current practice.

I think it is a dubious statement to claim that there is not scientific consensus for ingredient labels, at least in the US. Current ingredient labels are mandated by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, which was passed with the recommendation of the FDA, and gave the FDA broad authority to label as they thought appropriate.

From the FDA website:

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act requires all packaged foods to bear nutrition labeling and all health claims for foods to be consistent with terms defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The law preempts state requirements about food standards, nutrition labeling, and health claims and, for the first time, authorizes some health claims for foods. The food ingredient panel, serving sizes, and terms such as "low fat" and "light" are standardized.

Nutrition facts, basic per-serving nutritional information, are required on foods under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Based on the latest public health recommendations, FDA and the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture recreate the food label to list the most important nutrients in an easy-to-follow format.

http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/history/milestones/ucm128305.htm

In any event, your post still does not address most of my previous posts.

Originally posted by PatNovak
I think it is a dubious statement to claim that there is not scientific consensus for ingredient labels, at least in the US. Current ingredient labels are mandated by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, which was passed with the recommendation of the FDA, and gave the FDA broad authority to label as they thought appropriate.

From the FDA we ...[text shortened]... tones/ucm128305.htm

In any event, your post still does not address most of my previous posts.

Ingredients are not nutrients.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Ingredients are not nutrients.

The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act covers both nutrients and ingredients, as was indicated in my previous post. I specifically quoted a section which stated "The food ingredient panel, serving sizes, and terms such as "low fat" and "light" are standardized."

I am going to assume you keep focusing on minor details of my posts (which you are always wrong about, BTW) because you are unwilling or unable to address the substance of my posts.

Originally posted by PatNovak
My examples were fine; it is your counter examples that were no good. You are advocating government mandated labeling, yet none of the labeling you mentioned is due to government mandate.

We have never lived in a world where the specific variety of a food is specified, GMO or otherwise. When you buy a can of sweet corn at the store, it is not labeled as ...[text shortened]... be mandated, and where should we draw the line when it comes to mandated anti-science labeling?

I don't think GMO labeling would infringe on my "rights," but from a consumer protection point of view, labeling suggests that there is something wrong with GMO's. It is thus a form of misleading advertising.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is if what you want to know about the product is based on and irrational fear. You don't really care about what is different about the product, you only care about whether or not it is GM. That is unscientific and irrational.

Now you are speculating. What irrational fear do you think a have against GM? I cannot imagine that you can read my thoughts. If you do, then please take the GM business to the Spiritual Forum where supernatural things are debated.

Is it really so frightening to inform the public which products have GM and which products have not? I really cannot imagine why this is so frightening... Let the consumers decide if they want to have GM or not, easy as that.

What you do in US is your business. What you are trying to sell to Europe is ours.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Now you are speculating. What irrational fear do you think a have against GM?

I don't know, you refused to tell us.

Is it really so frightening to inform the public which products have GM and which products have not?
Is it really so frightening to eat GM products?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know, you refused to tell us.

[b]Is it really so frightening to inform the public which products have GM and which products have not?
Is it really so frightening to eat GM products?[/b]

If I haven't told you why, why do you then think I am irrationally frightened about it? Are youinventing arguments? Are your level of rhetorics so low?

Why do you think I am frightened to eat GM products? All I want is information so I can avoid it. Is this so hard to understand?

Why all these secrets? Do you know something that I am not aware of that makes GM so frightening so you don't want me to know?

You make me suspisious, and therefore I will do anything to avoid GM, even if I have to boycot every US product eatable? So inform me!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If I haven't told you why, why do you then think I am irrationally frightened about it? Are youinventing arguments? Are your level of rhetorics so low?

Why do you think I am frightened to eat GM products? All I want is information so I can avoid it. Is this so hard to understand?

Why all these secrets? Do you know something that I am not aware of th ...[text shortened]... I will do anything to avoid GM, even if I have to boycot every US product eatable? So inform me!

I think scientists should be labeled in terms of their dangerousness, for example, 'mad scientist', or 'evil scientist with a mind ray hidden far in the hills'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think scientists should be labeled, for example, 'mad scientist', or 'evil scientist with a mind ray hidden far in the hills'.

Some, yes. Others, no.

Scientists who think people are their enemies, and therefore refuse to inform what they are doing, yes, definitely mad scientists.