Posted on 09/15/2012 6:08:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
On the state's ballot in November, Californians will be voting on Proposition 37 --- an initiative that would require all foods produced with or from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to carry mandatory warning labels. Oh, sure, it all sounds well and good and simple enough, except that such a measure would impose significant expenses on (often small) businesses; would cost the way-past-completely-broke Californian government up to over a million dollars to regulate the practice; and, oh yeah --- is completely pointless because there is not a single documented case of "adverse health consequences" due to genetically engineered foods.
For a group of people who subscribe to the supposed “party of science,” progressives and environmentalists have waged a strange and steady campaign against the very idea of genetically modified foods. These “frankenfoods,” as they’re sometimes dubbed, are supposedly bad for us because they don’t occur by themselves in nature. But, here’s a news flash, greenies: Human beings have been ‘modifying’ foods with agricultural techniques for centuries. We didn’t just stumble upon corn as we know it today, and we make new apple hybrids all the time. Many medicines, I might also point out, are man-made, but we know that medicines can save lives. Tylenol doesn’t grow on trees, you know. From Forbes:
Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables and grains in our diet have been genetically improved by one technique or another – often as a result of seeds being irradiated or genes being moved from one species or genus to another in ways that do not occur in nature. But because genetic engineering is more precise and predictable, the technology is at least as safe as – and often safer than – the modification of food products in cruder, “conventional” ways. This superior technology is the target of Prop. 37.
The safety record of genetically engineered plants and foods derived from them is extraordinary. Even after the cultivation worldwide of more than 3 billion acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 14 million farmers) and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food by inhabitants of North America alone, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or a single confirmed adverse reaction.
The advantages are also remarkable. Every year, farmers planting genetically engineered varieties spray millions fewer gallons of chemical pesticides and substantially reduce topsoil erosion. In addition, many of these varieties are less susceptible to mold infection and have lower levels of fungal toxins, making them safer for consumers and livestock.
Not only would requiring these types of foods to carry mandatory labels impose costs on producers and raise prices for everybody, including consumers, they would imply to consumers that they need to be wary of undefined dangers, which in turn limits their choices unnecessarily. Maybe part of the idea is that consumers are supposed to spring for the organic foods as an alternative (which no state has any business doing anyways), except that recent studies have suggested organic food might not actually be all that it’s cracked up to be:
…Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out — and concluded there’s little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics.
Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children — but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday.
Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.
Even the federal Food and Drug Administration, normally inclined towards being more meddlesome over less, has declined to require all foods in the U.S.A. to carry GMO labels. Imposing such a mandate in California would create a whole new level of regulation-and-litigation bureaucracy that no Californian food-business or individual consumer could avoid paying for. (For more resources, here’s a great piece from the Volokh Conspiracy on why this whole labeling idea is a possibly unconstitutional farce, and an op-ed from the LA Times on why California’s entire ballot-initiative procedure is a hot mess.)
The hubris of ignorant environmentalist groups never ceases to amaze. Have they ever paused to consider that genetically modified foods can, perhaps, save lives and help lift human beings out of poverty? Maybe? I know I’ve posted this video from Penn & Teller before, but it is great, and well worth the watch (warning: some brief foul language).
True, and that is where a lot of of so-called conservatives go about as far from conservatism as is possible to go. They are so obsessed with the idea that government should not regulate business that they are unable to recognize situations where businesses actually do take away the freedoms of the individual, just as government does all too often.
This is so damned simple: label food products that contain GMO ingredients and let the consumers decide what they want to purchase.
The irony is, all these folks who oppose labeling GMO foods are supporting the same sort of behavior we see from Michelle Obama and Mayor Bloomberg. They all want to decide what people should and should not eat. They just use different approaches in their efforts to take choices away from consumers.
I told him to see if he could get some of this year’s seed for next year.
I you do that you can expect a 75% - 80% germination rate. So up the planting rate 25%.
It is going to be a little harsh for those requiring corn for livestock. Not so much in the US, as compared to overseas, but bad enough.
Prayers up.
/johnny
I really don’t know much about corn, this is the first time we have grown it, we just planted it as an experiment after wheat hay to see if we could double crop it.
why don’t you try FoodInc.org
Then you can try “under the Eight Ball” by Andalusian films
Then you can read med Scape advising “physicians” all over the states to look for Babesiosis
Then maybe you can have a relevant post again.
I guess it is actually dent corn but it is specially bred for silage. We’ve always just called it field corn.
Tellin it like it is, love you, acapesket. And AMEN to that! I remember when they made Hood stop labeling their milk “hormone and anti-biotic free” because it put other milk producers at a disadvantage. Boo Hoo, I still buy Hood only, and whole milk too, as I always have, no osteoperosis for me!!
Or do you want to force someone, at gunpoint, to label stuff?
/johnny
As I said, prayers up.
You guys keep on being you. Those of us enjoying the bounty of your fields appreciate the harvest, even if we don't say it often enough.
/johnny
I say label, and let the customers decide. No need for warnings if it is not warranted, but labeling is right.
Bingo.
Call me conservative, whatever. I’m really common sense, use my brain and think a little.
Take the company I buy internet/tv from, Cablevision.
Am I supposed to support EVERY lobbying effort of Cablevision, because:
1) Cablevision is a business
2) conservatism tells me there should not be any laws governing business
3) Cablevision has the inherent right, therefore, to simply do as it wishes, completely, being subject to no laws
4) the only limit on Cablevision should be if the “free” consumer “chooses” to not buy their service
5) If Cablevision is “bad” enough, they will therefore be put out of business by the marketplace
Well, that all boils down to baloney, for a few simple reasons:
a) My only choices are Cablevision and Verizon if I want cabled internet access.
b) I can cancel one, and use the other, but they both have big negatives for my tastes
c) They charge way too much; much of their Revenue should be charged off to accounts called Marketing and Waste
d) Their service is fine until it’s out. Then it is a nightmare. But they are the same in that category.
e) Their stance on social issues is diametrically opposed to mine.
f) They spend tons on lobbying; in essence, my too-high bills are supporting causes that I oppose
g) They ensure through lobbying that the barriers to entry in their markets are extremely high, so they will never have any real competition that will force them to get creative and drive down their costs and provide more value for less. Quite the opposite; whenever they want a rate increase, the government rubberstamps it. Verizon gets millions in state sales tax exemptions to “stay in the state”.
Not much about the big business “business model” is free market.
After all, the Board of Directors and CEO determine the moral perspective of a company, since the perspective that gains promotions is a top down thing. This is why many very large businesses that are privately held have much stronger stances on moral issues. Publicly-held companies have an ownership structure that is so watered down that no one feels any particular pressure to be concerned with morals per se, only with what is politically correct.
Science and technology is a key part of success, in fact, it is decidedly within the Biblical dominion mandate of the Book of Genesis. Of course, along with exploring and learning, we should use some common sense and not hurt ourselves.
A good example is winemaking. The best winemakers of France do not look to boost grape production per acre, in fact, a much better resulting wine is typically achieved by pruning away some grapes as they grow. Sounds crazy, why throw away potential product and profits ? There is no easy way out. If you want a highly concentrated flavor, reduce the number of grapes on the vine. Goofy Americans sometimes can’t tell good from bad; they’ve eaten bland foods for so long they don’t slow down to taste as they eat. Instead, they consume food ever faster because their taste buds keep craving more flavor. If one bothers to read the ingredients on food, it’s amazing: the cheapest things available are what is most used, like a cheap filler. Water is often a big ingredient. Then, mix in a little super-concentrated thickener for consistency, a little artificial flavor, make a tiny product in a really cool, colorful package, and you have a super-cheap to produce food that is essentially empty calories and sells like hotcakes to the McPeople.
Call me crazy, but I’m just not too excited about parading around to support the mindless mega-corp that would feed me my own excrement if they thought they could get away with it.
Now, if there’s a small business owner making a decent product - I’ll drive miles out of my way to buy direct from him. In such cases it’s invariably a two-way street: I wind up with much better value for my dollar at the end of the day and there’s one more level-headed entrepreneur that’s successful and helping to move America in the right direction.
"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation ... in the primitive simplicity of their minds ... It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
You’re welcome.
That was an inciden where that almost happened. Most folks don’t know GMO crops are reducing the diversity.
Many folks that think of themselves as conservative just have not done some research on their own, for real. Also, perhaps many are not into “food”, per se, they may prefer national brands in supermarkets, chain restaurants, etc. I can understand this situation, when I was much younger I had no knowledge of what was “up” in the food industry. One can see a lot of young and old people lapping up food in chain restaurants; the former being too young to have learned, the latter being simply stuck in a rut.
When I started traveling for business and eating in better restaurants, I got exposed to some better quality food. When my father started having health issues I started researching some health problems, medicine and then food. People should really read up on what’s going on in the world in a few key areas; one that’s important to everyone is food.
I do not favor government regulation in general, but unfortunately there are always people who will do dumb things (mostly out of laziness and not wanting to think up a better solution) that are very destructive. There’s no easy way to differentiate between worthwile laws and ridiculous fluff laws other than evaluating them honestly and accurately using common sense. The most efficient way to get a good result in the food area would appear to be to try to get as much as possible out of leading by suggestion - taking the best of the best in the marketplace and pointing at it and saying others should emulate it; use the bully pulpit. I notice regular supermarkets are carrying some of the better foods now, which is simply a response to competition.
Yeah. Suppose Monsanto successfully eliminates all the non-Monsanto corn, for example. Then all corn would be susceptible to any disease for which that specific corn breed is not resistant. The corn crop could be gone for years.
You sound like an uneducated liberal. Your first premise is wrong.
YES...I agree with YOU....there is reason for caution, especially when it’s BIG FOOD involved....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.