|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,511
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Stonehenge]
#21923572 - 07/10/15 08:20 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Companies are forced now to put nutrition labels on food. I don't see you whining about that. There are loads of regulations over what can be put on a label, never have you thrown a fit over first amendment rights for that. But, when it comes to frankenfood, all of a sudden its a terrible thing. You pick and choose what the public should be allowed to know and what you object to. Many people want to know these things and its the dirtbag companies and their lackeys who try to stop us.
Companies are forced to label nutrition information because there is a compelling government interest in keeping the public healthy and the regulation is narrowly tailored to that interest.
What is the compelling government interest in satisfying the curiosity of the public? If GMOs are harmful, prove it with peer-reviewed studies. I'll be the first to rally for forced labeling in that case. At this point, however, forcing labels serves no compelling interest and only infringes on First Amendment rights.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Stonehenge]
#21923580 - 07/10/15 08:22 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Badchad, perhaps 30 day studies might not be long enough? Ya think? How long did it take before we found the dangers of asbestos? Years and years.
>the inclusion of the GMO tag would needlessly alarm ill-informed consumers.
Many other ingredients are listed, why are you so protective toward gmo's? Why do you want to take away people's right to choose?
I'm not familiar with the requirements of food products testing, but they are the SAME for both GMO and non-GMO. Thats the point.
I have no problem with listing ingredients. Again, the requirements are the SAME for GMO and non-GMO. The point is that whether or not something is GMO is irrelevant, given that the safety requirements are identical.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: badchad]
#21923608 - 07/10/15 08:34 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
We don't know the safety profile of most gmo's because they have not been tested long enough. And some tests have shown problems hence the controversy.
Ingredients have to be listed, no need for a compelling govt interest in telling us about aspartame but its listed, guar gum, modified food starch, etc etc. Its all listed and none of it was proven to be harmful. But when it comes to the main ingredient, gmo, all of a sudden the usual suspects scream that their first amendment rights are taken away.
Explain to me why aspartame should be listed and gmo should not?
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Stonehenge]
#21923616 - 07/10/15 08:38 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Explain to me why aspartame should be listed and gmo should not?
Because the safety of aspartame is documented and debated. The safety issue of GMO is only claimed and nebulous. Also, aspartame is a specific ingredient. GMO is not. Maybe aspartame isn't that bad and is should not be listed?
My banannas don't have radiation stickers on them. Why are you not advocating for that? Don't you want consumers to be informed of this possibly dangerous ingredient in banannas?
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: DieCommie]
#21923631 - 07/10/15 08:42 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>Because the safety of aspartame is documented and debated. The safety issue of GMO is only claimed and nebulous.
By your own words, aspartame is safer than gmo.
>aspartame is a specific ingredient. GMO is not.
Its the main ingredient. Should we not say whats in food at all then? Is that the logical conclusion you deniers are working toward? Avocados should not be labeled avocado since that is not an ingredient. Soy should not be labeled because people might get unduly alarmed. Lets treat the consumer like a mushroom.
BTW, aspartame is a toxic chemical, I'm glad as hell there are warning labels because I have a bad reaction to that compound as do many many people.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Stonehenge]
#21923632 - 07/10/15 08:43 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: We don't know the safety profile of most gmo's because they have not been tested long enough. And some tests have shown problems hence the controversy.
The same argument could be made for any new food product, because the testing requirements are identical.
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Ingredients have to be listed, no need for a compelling govt interest in telling us about aspartame but its listed, guar gum, modified food starch, etc etc. Its all listed and none of it was proven to be harmful. But when it comes to the main ingredient, gmo, all of a sudden the usual suspects scream that their first amendment rights are taken away.
Explain to me why aspartame should be listed and gmo should not?
Aspartame is listed as an ingredient regardless of GMO status.
Would you propose that the genetic lineage of "regular" products and history of hybridization be listed on every food product? Should a "tangelo" be required to have a label that its "a citrus fruit hybrid of tangerine and pomelo or grapefruit."?
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,511
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Stonehenge]
#21923634 - 07/10/15 08:43 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said:
Explain to me why aspartame should be listed and gmo should not?
Aspartame is an ingredient. Corn is an ingredient.
The genetic makeup of the corn isn't, and it isn't relevant because it hasn't been shown to make a difference in the safety of the product.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Patlal]
#21923640 - 07/10/15 08:46 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Patlal said: I love GMOs. More vitamins per square inch. More square inches per veggie.
Best invention ever
More square inches per square foot too right?
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 68% of doctors think GMO's should be labeled [Re: Stonehenge]
#21923642 - 07/10/15 08:47 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: The media and govt keep giving us propaganda that gmo's are good for us and nothing to be concerned about. Most people want to know what is in their food but Monsanto and other huge companies are determined that we will not. Their lobbying (bribery) has gotten them a bill in congress to block states from requiring labels. What are they so afraid of?
http://naturalsociety.com/survey-68-of-doctors-think-gmos-should-be-labeled/
natural society is hardly a reputable news source and a survey is far from a adequate means of data collection
Quote:
Most Americans aren’t waiting for doctors to support GMO labeling. We have been very clear; we want GMO labeling now, and we are even willing to go to court for it.
some americans, certainly not most and courts dont determine the safety of a product
|
Mr.GuessWork
Stranger

Registered: 03/30/13
Posts: 4,563
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Enlil]
#21923652 - 07/10/15 08:52 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Mr.GuessWork said: There's nothing to loose by putting that labeling in place but profits for those assholes.
There's nothing to gain from forcing companies to label GMOs, so why infringe on the First Amendment when there's no compelling reason to do so?
There is something to gain. Better labels would provide better data for those large scale metadata analysis, which tend to rely on people's self-reporting. As it stands now, large scale studies are harder to do, and the researchers can't pay the costs to get that information. Labeling the food is the best way to get better information about what it does. That reason is probably a minor concern for most people though.
The best immediate reason to put the labels on the food is to address public concern. Public concern doesn't have to be based on evidence in any reasonable way. Think about tamper-proof seals on Tylenol bottles. It's not like there's a bunch of people who are trying to poison Tylenol that need to be stopped. That was done to make consumers feel more comfortable with their product. People also don't want to blindly trust big business to give them good food, and that is a real public concern. A law mandating labeling would start to address that concern, and would be better for big business and consumers in the end. There's a balance that needs to be maintained between the first amendment rights of pathological entities and the need for people to feel secure and informed about their basic resources. Since the big business guys have more legal power and more effective first-amendment style sway in politics, I'd say their first amendment rights can handle the extra demand of stating a simple fact about the source of their products to consumers. Their first amendment rights are almost exclusively dedicated to the procurement of money, after all, and their are other concerns that need to be addressed for the public's benefit (even if the current research doesn't suggest that the public's concerns are well founded.).
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Stonehenge]
#21923653 - 07/10/15 08:52 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: BTW, aspartame is a toxic chemical, I'm glad as hell there are warning labels because I have a bad reaction to that compound as do many many people.
aspartame is the single most thoroughly tested food product on the planet
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame
Quote:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners in the United States. In 2007, the FDA stated:
Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assesses the safety of sweeteners such as aspartame in the European Union. According to a 2009 report from its Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food:
Overall, the Panel concluded, on the basis of all the evidence currently available… that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg [body weight].
Does aspartame cause any other health problems?
Complaints of various health issues have circulated since aspartame first appeared on the market in the 1980s. But for most people, no health problems have clearly been linked to aspartame use
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: badchad]
#21923661 - 07/10/15 08:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badchad said: I bet very few physicians have any training whatsoever about GMOs.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,511
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Mr.GuessWork]
#21923665 - 07/10/15 08:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.GuessWork said:
The best immediate reason to put the labels on the food is to address public concern. Public concern doesn't have to be based on evidence in any reasonable way.
We have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, though. We can't infringe that right just to serve "public concern". If we could, unpopular speech could be banned simply because the public doesn't like it.
Tamper-proofing is completely different because there is no constitutional right to choose how one's product is bottled.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Enlil]
#21923680 - 07/10/15 09:01 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: At this point, however, forcing labels serves no compelling interest and only infringes on First Amendment rights.
it serves the interests of the big organic lobbyists while preying upon the ignorance of the population, we all know that organic products fetch a higher market price and are surrounded by lies such as the claims of no herbicides and no pesticides being used... now here's a little something, the vast majority of people have no clue what produce is or isnt genetically modified and there are labeling systems in place for the items that arent GMO including the certified organic labeling and the non GMO project labeling. why arent people simply buying those products instead... are they afraid that the labeling structure would eliminate their poptarts?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Mr.GuessWork] 1
#21923685 - 07/10/15 09:04 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.GuessWork said: The best immediate reason to put the labels on the food is to address public concern. Public concern doesn't have to be based on evidence in any reasonable way. Think about tamper-proof seals on Tylenol bottles.
public concern has been addressed, just look for this label
|
Mr.GuessWork
Stranger

Registered: 03/30/13
Posts: 4,563
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Prisoner#1]
#21923708 - 07/10/15 09:10 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Mr.GuessWork said: The best immediate reason to put the labels on the food is to address public concern. Public concern doesn't have to be based on evidence in any reasonable way. Think about tamper-proof seals on Tylenol bottles.
public concern has been addressed, just look for this label

You'd think the success of that attempt would show up in the polls (I'm still not convinced they aren't inflated, but ). Honestly, that's probably as good as it's going to get. It's a messy problem anyway, and I'm not sure that better labeling will be a significant help at alleviating public concern. People are just emotional because they feel powerless. And there are clear public health problems that still need to be dealt with, like most people still eating at McDonald's multiple times a week.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Prisoner#1]
#21923712 - 07/10/15 09:11 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>natural society is hardly a reputable news source
The old liberal sneer again. Its not just liberals who do it. If you can't dispute the facts, sneer at the source. They are tying to pass a law stopping any such labels.
Here is info from a doctor. Get your sneer out
http://aspartame.mercola.com/
"Aspartame is, by Far, the Most Dangerous Substance on the Market that is Added To Foods"
enlil >We have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, though. We can't infringe that right just to serve "public concern".
We do it all the time. What is the compelling reason to list modified food starch or many other ingredients?
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: DieCommie]
#21923740 - 07/10/15 09:18 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Companies are forced now to put nutrition labels on food. I don't see you whining about that.
That's because nutrition content has been shown to have positive and negative health consequences. GMO food in general has not been shown to have negative health consequences. Its just fear mongering. If a particular kind of GMO food has different nutrition content then it will need to have accurate labels. If a person of faith fears GMO in lieu of evidence they are free to patronize the products that cater to their faith, just like people with kosher and halal foods.
What we, or I, don't want is people's faith and knee-jerk fears getting legislated without evidence. That is a terrible road to go down.
I concur. There's no evidence that GMO foods are harmful. I do think GM should be used for such things as higer crop harvest, drought resistance or improved nutrition content. I do think it's reprehensible that Monsanto is modifying cereal crops so they can use more Round-Up to control weeds.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Stonehenge]
#21923744 - 07/10/15 09:19 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Here is info from a doctor. Get your sneer out
http://aspartame.mercola.com/
"Aspartame is, by Far, the Most Dangerous Substance on the Market that is Added To Foods"
hahahaha... no, Joseph Mercola is an Osteopath... oh, and he sells snake oil that makes false and illegal claims. you may want to reconsider what you think a liberal is because it's liberals that buy into this bullshit
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/9-reasons-to-completely-ignore-joseph-mercola-and-natural-news/
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 68% of doctors thing GMO's should be labeled [Re: Le_Canard]
#21923757 - 07/10/15 09:23 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Le_Canard said:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Companies are forced now to put nutrition labels on food. I don't see you whining about that.
That's because nutrition content has been shown to have positive and negative health consequences. GMO food in general has not been shown to have negative health consequences. Its just fear mongering. If a particular kind of GMO food has different nutrition content then it will need to have accurate labels. If a person of faith fears GMO in lieu of evidence they are free to patronize the products that cater to their faith, just like people with kosher and halal foods.
What we, or I, don't want is people's faith and knee-jerk fears getting legislated without evidence. That is a terrible road to go down.
I concur. There's no evidence that GMO foods are harmful. I do think GM should be used for such things as higer crop harvest, drought resistance or improved nutrition content. I do think it's reprehensible that Monsanto is modifying cereal crops so they can use more Round-Up to control weeds.
what do you think the use of roundup is for? it's for killing off the weeds to increase crop yields, it's not a means of selling a product.
|
|