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).
The article I cited and linked to bears close reading. By French scientists, it showed commendable logic and balance.
If, of course, no one gives a rat's pointy little tail about your particular fetish...
Perhaps you could grow your own. ;)
/johnny
Ever the cry of the statist.
Your boy Mitt should make you happy.
/johnny
Ever read any of Dr. Jonathan Wrights stuff? He’s been talking about this....and he’s our doctor for certain things. When HE speaks, WE listen.
Yes, what YOU said....this situation is very similar to the FDA where the big pharma companies run the system, and basically dictate WHICH drugs make it to market, and what their prices will be. This GMO controversy sounds similar....let the big company do tests and then market to consumers, but limit the tests, or don’t reveal ALL the facts.
Jonathan Wright is a fine doctor and I have his book. You are fortunate to have him as personal physician.
I figured it might not go over well.
/johnny
A lot of Freepers are confusing Free Market Capitalism and Crony Capitalism. This issue is about the Crony Food industry. They pay for the studies, the lobbyists, and the politicians that tell us it is so safe to eat GMO that we should not even have it listed in the ingredients.
The GMO labeling issue is similar to MSG. I was talking to someone who sells "natural flavors" to the food industry. She said that she is required to disclose MSG content to her customers, so they know if it is there, but they can choose to call it "natural flavors" on the label because the FDA allows this. The food processors KNOW what is in the food, but they get political cover from disclosing it. The extra expense to add a GMO disclaimer to the label would be miniscule.
Coast to CoastAM radio show of September12,’12 had guest the fellow working on the Calif ballot initiative to require GMO labelling. Lot of info there.
Another occasional guest they have is Dr Betty Martini who has extensively investigated the subject. A search on her name gives a list of things she is involved in.
She as well as other medical folk testify to first hand seeing patients improve and get well from any number of things when they take, for example aspartame, out of their diet, and also GMOs. Also testimony of animals who suffered various ailments got better when taken off GMO food. (Dog/cat food should be organic only to prevent...)
I am always shocked when I hear again of how terribly GMO things have affected farmers in India - the sickness, death of farm animals, and committing suicide etc - by the thousands.
______________________________________________________
While you are at CtoCAM - the Sept11’12 show on Amelia Earhart - did you know she was alive for about 4 years - captured and her plane - blown up by - US ! believable
Thank you for telling us “natural flavors” on the label means MSG (ugh) ! Am adding that to my list of bad.
____________________________________________
I heard something recently about those roundup ready crops that they are developing a susceptibility to something they were supposed to be/were formerly immune from.
__________________________________________________
(have you heard you can catch a virus, like HepB, from opening a box of something made and sealed up in China - from the air in the box that flows out at you !)
Ewe’s cheese? If I have it then it’s mine not ewe’s and no need for a salute, you’re among friends here...mostly.
Say...does that cheese come in a spray can?
Makes you almost feel sorry for the food fetishists... almost.
Nah...
/johnny
Can’t we just be friends?
Let's face it - they have totally trashed tomatoes. I grow some each year just to remember what a real tomatoe tastes like...
Pepsi uses tissue from aborted babies to engineer taste sensors to design for specific tastes of their product.
That is how far the food companies are willing to go in their efforts. They are also quite willing to use the govt and courts to force their plans upon the people.
So GMO today is just a little more than anything done to food in years past.
they have totally trashed tomatoes. I grow some each year just to remember what a real tomato tastes like...
My wife and I will not buy supermarket tomatoes. They taste like cardboard, and look worse.
EXACTLY!
Most damaging is the lack of ETHICS behind GMO seed patents and the enforcement of these patents.
There are serious problems with patenting genes of all types, human, plant, animal. These patents can indeed be a serious threat to organic farmers. If superbugs are generated, the organic farmers crops could be hit hard. Cross contamination of organic seeds with GMO seeds by wind, bees, or animals gives big agribusiness the right to sue innocent farmers for infringement/theft of their patented property.
Case in point:
Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser in Canada for patent infringement of genetically modified canola seeds. . He claimed the GM crop had blown onto his farm or was spread by bees from neighboring farms, which use the Monsanto product. Although that has never been confirmed, Monsanto argued that the process by which that occurs is irrelevant: it is still patent infringement. Monsanto won, demanding Canadian $400,000 in damages.
The ethical question behind gene patents is not limited to agribusiness.
On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (PUBPAT) filed a lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer are unconstitutional and invalid.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of patents on human genetic sequences. While the purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation, increasingly human gene patents appear to be inhibiting biomedical research and interfering with patient care.
For example, the Utah-based company Myriad Genetics has patented two genes - BRCA1 and BRCA2 - and certain mutations along these genes that have been associated with an increased risk of certain forms of breast and ovarian cancer. The high licensing and diagnostic testing fees charged by Myriad have forced some researchers to discontinue research on breast cancer and have prevented women from having access to screening for mutations.
In addition to inhibiting freedom of research, patents on human genes raise troubling questions about the right of patients to access information about themselves and whether parts of human beings should be patentable at all.
As a Conservative Christian, I am against gene patenting in any form (GMOs etc.). Gene patenting gives ownership of life or DNA to corporate concerns. Our genetic makeup becomes an economic commodity and places humanitys common heritage into private hands.
The US Declaration of Independence clearly states We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It doesnt say except for what Monsanto owns. Corporations should not be allowed to take credit for, own, benefit, profit or prevent others from benefiting from something they did not create.
Those who are slamming the hippies and calling the fight for GMO labeling liberal do not have a proper understanding of the freedom at stake.
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.