# AP poll on GMO Labeling..



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

[FONT=&quot]_According to a December Associated Press poll, 66 percent of Americans favor requiring food manufacturers to put labels on products that contain genetically modified organisms, or foods grown from seeds engineered in labs. Only 7 percent are opposed to the idea, and 24 percent are neutral._

Appears to be pretty equal between republicans and democrats with dems at 71 percent and repubs at 64 percent in favor.

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/27835522/an-appetite-for-labeling-genetically-modified-foods
[/FONT]


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

SO/ it is the companies that will have the last say in this how much it will cost how much to pass on To THOSE same consumers, and the back lash will it be yet another government controlling companies or on a voluntary basis only. And at About 4 in 10 said the presence of such ingredients was very or extremely important to them. Not very good odds. hmmmmm


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

The problem with polls is you get a different answer everytime. :facepalm:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+people+want+gmo+labeling


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

86.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. 

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I like those who are using the "Non-GMO" label, and yes I was just reading some of the standards of using that label just yesterday. 

If manufacturers figure out that it's important to people, which polls and surveys suggest that it is important to many, perhaps they'll figure out that they'll sell more of those products to that group of people. To those that don't care, the labeling won't mean much. It's much closer to letting the consumer decide than another government mandate.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Luckily here in Oregon when it was put on the ballet in November it was defeated. You want it, you pay for it. What happened in November all over the U.S. was "We don't want more government"....James


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I like the label but here's what's strange. I saw one on a box of Kashi cereal. I thought Kashi was owned by one of the biggie so I came home and did some homework:

http://www.naturalnews.com/039676_Kashi_GMO_ingredients.html
https://www.kashi.com/natural-living/organic/kashi-and-the-nongmo-project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashi_Company

So Kashi is apparently owned by Kellogg yet it has that non-gmo label. "In 2012, the parent company of Kashi, the Kellogg Company, donated $790,000 to the NO on Prop. 37 campaign, which asked voters if they wanted foods containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled in California."

The plot thickens. Weird.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I would like to have seen the actual poll. Because if you just ask, yes or no, would you like to see if there is any GMO contents on the label, of course most people will say yes. However if you add the caveat, "even if it costs more", then you would get a whole different response.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

There is no up side for the companies to label food that contains GMO's so they are opposed to it. That is just good business they aren't trying to hide anything. You can safely assume that if the food contains corn or soy it contains GMO's

By 2012, *88 percent* of corn (maize) and *94 percent* of soy grown in the United States were genetically modified, according to the US Department of Agriculture. 
Most of what wasn't GMO was dumped into the same rail car. 

Jim


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

You can't really take seriously any poll or study unless you can read the questions and see the controls and parameters. There is too much left up to interpretation and you get stupid things like 'fiber linked to reduced risk of death' when so far as I know life is 100% fatal so far.

With polls how they select those to be questioned is very important and the phrasing and range of questions even more important.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

If you have nothing to hide you hide nothing. So tell me what is in your product. Labeling is already world-wide so how will this add to the cost of a product? Just add GMO after the ingredient "wheat" or whatever.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

emdeengee said:


> If you have nothing to hide you hide nothing. So tell me what is in your product. Labeling is already world-wide so how will this add to the cost of a product? Just add GMO after the ingredient "wheat" or whatever.


 As Jim Bunton said, if its got corn or soy, theres a good chance its GMO. I agree though, it wouldn't cost much to add the words 'GMO corn' to the box, but since this might cause a drop in sales for the manufacturer, and a drop in sales for Monsanto and the other big Ag boys, its not going to happen. A dumbed-down and ignorant population is what they favor. Perhaps there is nothing to be concerned about with GMOs, but people should still have the right to know what they are buying.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

It all depends on what the requirement to label is in the law. If it is required for trace amounts it is in most things you eat. There are oils ,sweeteners, fats ect. that could be gmo derived, that are a small amount of the food. If all ingredients are separated literally into two supply chains the cost would be staggering.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

So true many think it is just slapping a table on the product that is not the case when the government gets into the picture. I bet you will have to make sure up and down the supply lines~! And lines it is and the cost would be pretty high y the time it gets to the final product. But many do not see out of the box that way. You have see what sis beyond that box and go way back to the producers field even.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

2dogs-mom said:


> I like the label but here's what's strange. I saw one on a box of Kashi cereal. I thought Kashi was owned by one of the biggie so I came home and did some homework:
> 
> http://www.naturalnews.com/039676_Kashi_GMO_ingredients.html
> https://www.kashi.com/natural-living/organic/kashi-and-the-nongmo-project
> ...


I can believe that. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of Kelloggs. But they're in business to make money. And even if they despise anything organic or non-GMO, they also know that there is a market there for both of those, and not an insignificant market. If they think there's a profit to be made there, they'll be putting stuff out with that label. Greed trumps politics in many cases.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

With that label, sometimes the price is higher, a lot higher but very often it's not much more money than the competitor. I have this neat hippie-ish coupon book that deals with just those kinds of products and I find that if I use the coupon when the item goes on sale, it's competitively priced. But even when it's more, I pay for it. To me, it is simply worth it. Just like organic items I realize why it's more spendy. I also will gladly support the respectively smaller companies, like Immaculate Baking Co, which is also local to me. 

However, I'm the shopper who takes time to read labels, compare prices..not rushing through throwing things in my cart. Not everyone has the time to do that or wants to do their homework. I get that.


ETA - Like Bellyman alluded to above I'm interested to see in the coming years which huge corporations start using this label as a way to try to snare folks like me. It's going to be an interesting thing..cash versus not wanting to label. Just like Greek yogurt used to be hard to get then Yoplait and all the others realized the $$ potential, so now you see it everywhere. Follow the money.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

It's ok, they will just pay off more to the politicans so it never happens


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

emdeengee said:


> If you have nothing to hide you hide nothing. So tell me what is in your product. Labeling is already world-wide so how will this add to the cost of a product? Just add GMO after the ingredient "wheat" or whatever.


How will this add to the cost? Well, let's start with when a truckload of harvested grain pulls up at the elevator. Ya just gonna take their word for it that's it's a non-GMO crop? No? Well then there has to be some testing of the grain, or at least some kind of documentation. Doesn't that cost something? Later the grain is sold out of the elevator, probably going out on a train. Did that rail car last haul GMO product? Has it been thoroughly cleaned out, no stray grains left behind? Doesn't that inspection/cleaning cost something? Now we get the grain to the cereal factory. Another round of certification/documentation/testing. It all adds up. And that was a simplified version. 

The most common GMO crops are corn, soybeans, canola. So if it has those or a derivative of those in the ingredients, and it isn't an organic product, you should just assume it was GMO. And that doesn't cost anyone a cent.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

The thing is most everything has GMO in it. Everything would have to have the GMO label even your apples(wax used corn based) and lettce(washed in critic acid). Here is a list of things that can be made with corn...



PLEASE NOTE: In addition to the items on this list not including everything that contains corn, not everything on this list will contain corn. It is that they can contain corn, and therefore may need to be outright avoided or used cautiously. The items identified with an asterisk * are the most common items that might not always contain or be derived from corn. Proceed with caution!
â¢	Acetic acid
â¢	Alcohol
â¢	Alpha tocopherol
â¢	Artificial flavorings
â¢	Artificial sweeteners
â¢	Ascorbates
â¢	Ascorbic acid
â¢	Astaxanthin
â¢	Baking powder
â¢	Barley malt* (generally OK, but can be contaminated)
â¢	Bleached flour*
â¢	Blended sugar (sugaridextrose)
â¢	Brown sugar* (generally OK if no caramel color or invert syrup)
â¢	Calcium citrate
â¢	Calcium fumarate
â¢	Calcium gluconate
â¢	Calcium lactate
â¢	Calcium magnesium acetate (CMA)
â¢	Calcium stearate
â¢	Calcium stearoyl lactylate
â¢	Caramel and caramel color
â¢	Carbonmethylcellulose sodium
â¢	Cellulose microcrystalline
â¢	Cellulose, methyl
â¢	Cellulose, powdered
â¢	Cetearyl glucoside
â¢	Choline chloride
â¢	Citric acid*
â¢	Citrus cloud emulsion (CCS)
â¢	Coco glycerides (cocoglycerides)
â¢	Confectioners sugar
â¢	Corn alcohol, corn gluten
â¢	Corn extract
â¢	Corn flour
â¢	Corn oil, corn oil margarine
â¢	Corn starch
â¢	Corn sweetener, corn sugar
â¢	Corn syrup, corn syrup solids
â¢	Corn, popcorn, cornmeal
â¢	Cornstarch, cornflour
â¢	Crosscarmellose sodium
â¢	Crystalline dextrose
â¢	Crystalline fructose
â¢	Cyclodextrin
â¢	DATUM (a dough conditioner)
â¢	Decyl glucoside
â¢	Decyl polyglucose
â¢	Dextrin
â¢	Dextrose (also found in IV solutions)
â¢	Dextrose anything (such as monohydrate or anhydrous)
â¢	d-Gluconic acid
â¢	Distilled white vinegar
â¢	Drying agent
â¢	Erythorbic acid
â¢	Erythritol
â¢	Ethanol
â¢	Ethocel 20
â¢	Ethylcellulose
â¢	Ethylene
â¢	Ethyl acetate
â¢	Ethyl alcohol
â¢	Ethyl lactate
â¢	Ethyl maltol
â¢	Fibersol-2
â¢	Flavorings*
â¢	Food starch
â¢	Fructose*
â¢	Fruit juice concentrate*
â¢	Fumaric acid
â¢	Germ/germ meal
â¢	Gluconate
â¢	Gluconic acid
â¢	Glucono delta-lactone
â¢	Gluconolactone
â¢	Glucosamine
â¢	Glucose*
â¢	Glucose syrup* (also found in IV solutions)
â¢	Glutamate
â¢	Gluten
â¢	Gluten feed/meal
â¢	Glycerides
â¢	Glycerin*
â¢	Glycerol
â¢	Golden syrup
â¢	Grits
â¢	High fructose corn syrup
â¢	Hominy
â¢	Honey*
â¢	Hydrolyzed corn
â¢	Hydrolyzed corn protein
â¢	Hydrolyzed vegetable protein	â¢	Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose
â¢	Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose pthalate (HPMCP)
â¢	Inositol
â¢	Invert syrup or sugar
â¢	Iodized salt
â¢	Lactate
â¢	Lactic acid*
â¢	Lauryl glucoside
â¢	Lecithin
â¢	Linoleic acid
â¢	Lysine
â¢	Magnesium fumarate
â¢	Maize
â¢	Malic acid
â¢	Malonic acid
â¢	Malt syrup from corn
â¢	Malt, malt extract
â¢	Maltitol
â¢	Maltodextrin
â¢	Maltol
â¢	Maltose
â¢	Mannitol
â¢	Methyl gluceth
â¢	Methyl glucose
â¢	Methyl glucoside
â¢	Methylcellulose
â¢	Microcrystaline cellulose
â¢	Modified cellulose gum
â¢	Modified corn starch
â¢	Modified food starch
â¢	Molasses* (corn syrup may be present; know your product)
â¢	Mono and di glycerides
â¢	Monosodium glutamate
â¢	MSG
â¢	Natural flavorings*
â¢	Olestra/Olean
â¢	Polenta
â¢	Polydextrose
â¢	Polylactic acid (PLA)
â¢	Polysorbates* (e.g. Polysorbate 80)
â¢	Polyvinyl acetate
â¢	Potassium citrate
â¢	Potassium fumarate
â¢	Potassium gluconate
â¢	Powdered sugar
â¢	Pregelatinized starch
â¢	Propionic acid
â¢	Propylene glycol*
â¢	Propylene glycol monostearate*
â¢	Saccharin
â¢	Salt (iodized salt)
â¢	Semolina (unless from wheat)
â¢	Simethicone
â¢	Sodium carboxymethylcellulose
â¢	Sodium citrate
â¢	Sodium erythorbate
â¢	Sodium fumarate
â¢	Sodium lactate
â¢	Sodium starch glycolate
â¢	Sodium stearoyl fumarate
â¢	Sorbate
â¢	Sorbic acid
â¢	Sorbitan
â¢	Sorbitan monooleate
â¢	Sorbitan tri-oleate
â¢	Sorbitol
â¢	Sorghum* (not all is bad; the syrup and/or grain CAN be mixed with corn)
â¢	Starch (any kind that's not specified)
â¢	Stearic acid
â¢	Stearoyls
â¢	Sucrose
â¢	Sugar* (not identified as cane or beet)
â¢	Threonine
â¢	Tocopherol (vitamin E)
â¢	Treacle (aka golden syrup)
â¢	Triethyl citrate
â¢	Unmodified starch
â¢	Vanilla, natural flavoring
â¢	Vanilla, pure or extract
â¢	Vanillin
â¢	Vegetable anything that's not specific*
â¢	Vinegar, distilled white
â¢	Vinyl acetate
â¢	Vitamin C* and Vitamin E*
â¢	Vitamins*
â¢	Xanthan gum
â¢	Xylitol
â¢	Yeast*(only use small 3 pack)
â¢	Zea mays
â¢	Zein
Back to top
The only IV fluid that does not contain corn is saline, which is also known as normal saline.
Please note that all blood transfusion products have been preserved with ACD (Acid Citrate Dextrose) which contains corn - ACD functions as an anticoagulant (so the blood won't clot) as well as food for the blood cells that will be transfused.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'd like to see accurate labelling but I worry that at this stage, companies will just do the generic thing and everything will be labeled as, 'may contain' because it's the least expensive option.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wanda said:


> It all depends on what the requirement to label is in the law. If it is required for trace amounts it is in most things you eat. There are oils ,sweeteners, fats ect. that could be gmo derived, that are a small amount of the food. If all ingredients are separated literally into two supply chains the cost would be staggering.


GMO labelling has been in effect in Europe since 1997. If they can do it then so can everyone else. As a consumer we have the right to know what is in our food. It is not an unreasonable expectation given that we are the ones who support the food industry. If I am allergic to celery I would like to know if the soup I am considering purchasing (and thus the company and employees who depend on me) has this in it. As for trace amounts the rules state

"foods donât need to be labelled if they have been processed to the point that GMO content can no longer be detected."


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You do know what is on that can of goods the Label tells a person and if it contains those products that one can claim are GMOs then move on and get something that does not contain said products in. Simple as that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

emdeengee said:


> GMO labelling has been in effect in Europe since 1997. If they can do it then so can everyone else. As a consumer we have the right to know what is in our food. It is not an unreasonable expectation given that we are the ones who support the food industry. If I am allergic to celery I would like to know if the soup I am considering purchasing (and thus the company and employees who depend on me) has this in it. As for trace amounts the rules state
> 
> "foods donât need to be labelled if they have been processed to the point that GMO content can no longer be detected."[/QUOTE
> 
> Every year the US exports tens of thousands of tons of soybean meal,dried distillers grains,gluten feed, lysine and a host of other feed stuffs to Europe. Are you saying that the meat and milk in Europe is labeled that these feeds were used? By the way how can you ''detect'' a GMO?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

wr said:


> I'd like to see accurate labelling but I worry that at this stage, companies will just do the generic thing and everything will be labeled as, 'may contain' because it's the least expensive option.


That's exactly how this is going to end up...just like the labels saying things to the effect of "may contain nut residue" that are on tons of food or the labels on nearly every non-food product sold in the U.S. these days that say "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."

And if they just put the label on everything just to cover their butts, consumers are right back where they were before...not knowing if a particular product has it. The whole idea is pointless. We already have labels that give the information people want.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> You do know what is on that can of goods the Label tells a person and if it contains those products that one can claim are GMOs then move on and get something that does not contain said products in. Simple as that.



I would agree but given the debates we've had over the years, people don't seem to know exactly what crops are potentially GMO and I believe that is what's causing consumer concerns. 

As a producer, I believe that consumers do deserve to know what they're eating and the right to make informed choices. I also believe that when we refuse or simply fight things like labelling, it looks like producers have something they want to hide and that has a negative impact on consumer confidence. 

I would prefer to see accurate labels rather than a generic blurb but I fear at this stage, the consumer and the producer will gain nothing productive.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The post directly above you is saying the same thing It is Pointless.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Well I heard on the way home from work on NPR that a scientist who is a plant geneticist has created a GMO potato. But the biggest buyers of potatoes apparently don't want anything to do with it - McDonalds and Frito-Lay.

The potato is called "Innate" and is a GMO that resists bruising and does not give off as much harmful chemical called acrylamide.

_The Simplot Co. has created Innate versions of several different varieties, including one called Atlantic that's widely used to make potato chips. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the new varieties in November. They are not on sale yet because Simplot is waiting for a green light from the FDA, which is reviewing scientific data &#8212; mostly provided by the company &#8212; on how genetic modification has altered the chemical makeup of the potato and whether any of those changes could raise safety concerns.

But even before they've gone on sale, some of the very biggest potato buyers seem to be backing away from them.

Frito-Lay, the biggest potato chip maker, and McDonald's have both issued statements saying that they are not planning to use the Simplot potatoes in their products. An executive at another potato chip company told The Salt that his company does not plan to use those potatoes. He didn't even want to be quoted on the subject for fear that someone would mistakenly get the opposite impression.

_

You can read the whole story here: 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...otatoes-have-arrived-but-will-anyone-buy-them

I think it boils down to people really either don't want companies messing around with natural foods (non processed food) *or* if it is modified, most folks want to know about it.

It was an interesting story and I am sure that coming soon, to a tater chip factory near y'all, will be Innate taters..probably won't make a hoot's difference to most people, but I do believe that there are many who do care and won't buy if they can avoid it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> The post directly above you is saying the same thing It is Pointless.



It isn't pointless, if it is done correctly and it is my understanding that EU does it pretty well. 

Right after BSE was discovered in Canada, consumer fear and misinformation had disastrous effects on our industry. It took truth and transparency to restore it. 

If consumers want labelling, they should have it before they start boycotting because I promise you Kellogg's will survive better than the grain farmer. 

I can certainly understand producers growing GMO crops but if the industry is confident it is safe, why hide that information?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> How will this add to the cost? Well, let's start with when a truckload of harvested grain pulls up at the elevator. Ya just gonna take their word for it that's it's a non-GMO crop? No? Well then there has to be some testing of the grain, or at least some kind of documentation. Doesn't that cost something? Later the grain is sold out of the elevator, probably going out on a train. Did that rail car last haul GMO product? Has it been thoroughly cleaned out, no stray grains left behind? Doesn't that inspection/cleaning cost something? Now we get the grain to the cereal factory. Another round of certification/documentation/testing. It all adds up. And that was a simplified version.
> 
> The most common GMO crops are corn, soybeans, canola. So if it has those or a derivative of those in the ingredients, and it isn't an organic product, you should just assume it was GMO. And that doesn't cost anyone a cent.


Good points. And then what about the cost of the inevitable rejected cars and truckloads? 

One point though, is that canola oil has no protein, and is therefore gm free.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> GMO labelling has been in effect in Europe since 1997. If they can do it then so can everyone else. As a consumer we have the right to know what is in our food. It is not an unreasonable expectation given that we are the ones who support the food industry. If I am allergic to celery I would like to know if the soup I am considering purchasing (and thus the company and employees who depend on me) has this in it. As for trace amounts the rules state
> 
> "foods donât need to be labelled if they have been processed to the point that GMO content can no longer be detected."


Except that Europe does it for political reasons, not real reasons. For decades, Brazil produced gm soy. Everyone on the planet knew it was gm, it is just that Brazil said it was not. So Europe imported gm soy, because the consumers knew nothing about it.

Yes, you have the right to know what is in your food, and food SHOULD be labelled IF there is a valid difference in the quality or health of different products. But with gm crops, there is no difference. But consumers scream about it, mostly because they are far removed from what really goes on.

If there is a gm label, the non gm products should also state that, "more fossil fuels, more pesticides, and more soil erosion took place while producing this product" 

Fair is fair, correct?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Why the fuss when people just want to know what is in a product they are looking to purchase?

I am not an anti gmo person, not for it either--- I don't have enough information to cast judgement. However what's wrong with adding this to the already extensive labeling required? It's about consumer information and choice.

Or, if it's just way too expensive then well... lets take all the labeling off all the food! Then I can have it cheap, right?

Bring on the mystery food!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I think if people are going to vote on an issue, any issue, including general elections, they should be informed enough to do so.

If this meant taking a course on how things actually work regarding an issue, so be it.

I have seen video of people who answer first that they do not want gm in their foods. But then these same people are asked what gm means. lol They shrug, chuckle, and admit they have absolutely no idea!

Can someone spell, P-E-R-C-E-P-T-I-O-N???

Labeling something as gm means what to the label folks? Just what is it you are worried about? The gene? Monsanto? Dow? 

After 20 years of feeding to multiple generations of farm animals, with ZERO deaths attributed to a gene, what is the reasoning behind labeling?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

CraterCove said:


> Why the fuss when people just want to know what is in a product they are looking to purchase?
> 
> I am not an anti gmo person, not for it either--- I don't have enough information to cast judgement. However what's wrong with adding this to the already extensive labeling required? It's about consumer information and choice.
> 
> ...


Part of it for me, is once you label something, it gives a perception something is scientifically proven to be wrong with it.

And sure the people want to know what is in the food they eat. But it seems that few have any clue what it is they are worried about. ( the gene)

I am pro labeling. IF there is scientific reason...


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

[/QUOTE

Every year the US exports tens of thousands of tons of soybean meal,dried distillers grains,gluten feed, lysine and a host of other feed stuffs to Europe. Are you saying that the meat and milk in Europe is labeled that these feeds were used? By the way how can you ''detect'' a GMO?[/quote]

Especially once through a cow???


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> Part of it for me, is once you label something, it gives a perception something is scientifically proven to be wrong with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no problem with GMO and doubt if it's going to start killing people now but I do feel that if the consumer wants labels, the longer we fight it, the more we look like we're hiding something. 

I doubt that many people need to know how much Vitamin A, C, Calcium and Iron are in a bag of chips but the information is available. 

The fact is, labelling costs will be passed on to the consumer and it will be vague so I doubt if many people stop buying bread. 

If the consumer wants a shelf on non GMO products, I would see significant logistical problems and that's where I could see loads of grain rejected.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Food producers can already label their food as not having GMOs. If people don't want GMOs they should assume anything that doesn't say GMO-free does have them.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


>


 'Selective breeding' and genetic modification as practiced by science today is not even close to the same thing, so please don't be fooled into believing it is.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

People understand organic, they will naturally understand NO GMO. Put it all in one spot, just like Organic. Then the buyer does not have to walk all over the store. After all they wouldn't want to get close to GMO foods....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

This is all part of the problem. You can not go by a company name. All companies will make and sell anything they can that makes money. Just like nut companies that run 2 lines, one for no peanuts used line. Even made in the same building, just different storage and packaging line. They will do the same with GMO and None GMO lines....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Non GMO can be tracked just like Organic is. Certified seed is kept separate from noncertified seed. It is just tracked all the way down the line. It is a much smaller amount so cheaper than labeling the large quantity....James


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

This is so easy, it's stupid. We don't need government mandated labels. If food product marketing departments aren't aware of the value of the words "GMO free" by now, they should be kicked to the curb. Anyone that truly shops for GMO-free food knows what to look out for: Corn, Soy, The air we breathe, Etc. We do not need regulations and the government--that can be gamed--to save us.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

deleted because it doesn't make sense when I re-read what I wrote.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Awnry Abe said:


> This is so easy, it's stupid. We don't need government mandated labels. If food product marketing departments aren't aware of the value of the words "GMO free" by now, they should be kicked to the curb. Anyone that truly shops for GMO-free food knows what to look out for: Corn, Soy, The air we breathe, Etc. We do not need regulations and the government--that can be gamed--to save us.



Do you also disagree with country of origin and nutritional content labels?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I am a consumer. I deserve to know more about my food. The US imports corn from China. I want Country Of Origin Labels. Some bread upsets my stomach. I want a list of what wheat varieties are in this loaf. When I buy a strawberry, I want a list of all chemicals used in that field. When I buy organic spinach, I want to know what the farmer does to keep wildlife from peeing on my salad. Come on this is a never ending quest.

Stores advertise "hormone-free chicken pieces" and consumers think it is better. After all, why would I buy chicken with added hormones? But in truth, there are no added hormones in any chicken. Just like Gluten-free corn flakes. No gluten in corn. Never was. Just like No GMO flour or No GMO oatmeal. Never was. 

When questioned, most consumers prefer to drink their coffee without dihydrogen monoxide, but I doubt that is true. 

In summation, people know little about things they make choices about, companies exploit that ignorance, most people prefer organic, but buy what is cheapest, while the list of GMO crops is short, even those that claim a deep interest in their food cannot name them.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

wr said:


> Do you also disagree with country of origin and nutritional content labels?



Correct. I assume if is "grown/made in the USA", then a producer wise to the power of those words would say so. If the labeling is silent to the issue, then it is grown/raised elsewhere. Furthermore, I assume that if I don't read the label, then I don't care where it came from. Same applies to nutritional content labels. (Which I don't read, because I can get a pretty good swag by reading the ingredients). 

Same applies to ingredient lists...if you want me to buy/consume it, you better tell me what's in it and not bend the truth.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

wr said:


> Do you also disagree with country of origin and nutritional content labels?


For me, it's not so much the labels, but the government mandate. If consumers want the information, it will be there. I'm all for producers putting whatever labels they want on their products, as long as they're true. For the most part, there's nothing stopping them except cost/benefit.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

you've all ready got a government certified non gmo label, it says certified organic.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

sammyd said:


> you've all ready got a government certified non gmo label, it says certified organic.


Um no, organic growing practices are different than genetically modified. Is that not correct?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> Um no, organic growing practices are different than genetically modified. Is that not correct?


 I can not find any organic certification that allows GMO. Have I overlooked something?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Wanda said:


> I can not find any organic certification that allows GMO. Have I overlooked something?


IDK that's why I was asking.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-in-organic-products/


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Anybody who wants non-GMO enough to look for it already has options. Look for any of these symbols on the packaging.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

On the other hand...

I seem to recall that milk products were forbidden to label "BHT free" a few years back. I think such restrictions are bogus. Feel free to dog pile on me if I have those facts wrong. It has been a while.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-in-organic-products/


There we go then. So this is officially a non-issue.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

CraterCove said:


> There we go then. So this is officially a non-issue.


Yup - it is for me..I do my homework and buy what I want. No biggie.  eta - I swear I posted that non-gmo project info early on in this thread. I must be losing my marbles..lol.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Wanda said:


> emdeengee said:
> 
> 
> > Every year the US exports tens of thousands of tons of soybean meal,dried distillers grains,gluten feed, lysine and a host of other feed stuffs to Europe. Are you saying that the meat and milk in Europe is labeled that these feeds were used? By the way how can you ''detect'' a GMO?
> ...


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Ziptie said:


> Wanda said:
> 
> 
> > To detect if something has GMO still in it you test to see if the added non native proteins are still in the end product. Example of testing...some people who are allergic to corn were reacting to some of the Lara Bars. The company sent the product away for testing (I don't know where). It came back the the almonds they used had corn proteins on them.
> ...


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Awnry Abe said:


> On the other hand...
> 
> I seem to recall that milk products were forbidden to label "BHT free" a few years back. I think such restrictions are bogus. Feel free to dog pile on me if I have those facts wrong. It has been a while.


I don't know anything about that, but if that's true I agree with you. As long as it's true, producers should be allowed to put anything on their labels, even if it is meaningless.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

jtbrandt said:


> I don't know anything about that, but if that's true I agree with you. As long as it's true, producers should be allowed to put anything on their labels, even if it is meaningless.



Since they were testing for something that was naturally occurring they could not separate the amount that was man made.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Wanda said:


> Since BHT is naturally occurring in the cow, how could milk be free of BHT?:facepalm:


Well... surely in the same way Human growth hormone is natural in a human system but we expect our athletes to be human growth hormone free?

I'm pretty sure within the labeling strictures one could make sure it's plain that they mean excess BHT?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Wanda said:


> Since they were testing for something that was naturally occurring they could not separate the amount that was man made.


Like I said, I don't know anything about it. Perhaps the labels didn't actually say "BHT Free" but instead "No Added BHT" or something to that effect. My point remains the same. As long as it's true, they should be allowed to put it on the label.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

Wanda said:


> Since they were testing for something that was naturally occurring they could not separate the amount that was man made.


Ah. Ok. I'd think I would know more about milk. I'm actually mostly fine with how that went down, then. Regardless, from a marketing perspective, you wouldn't want to touch that and expose yourself to possible misinterpretation or flub. English is such a tricky language.

Panda Express, a cheap-Chinese-chain that has several outlets here, has a big sticker on their menu that states "No Added MSG". I interpret that to mean "we aren't scooping it out of a 5 gallon bucket and sprinkling on the Kung-Pow, but we can't guarantee that all of the pre-packaged, pre-processed stuff that we reheat and serve up doesn't already have it." Someone gets sick from the wrong batch of spring rolls, and they would have a PR disaster to deal with.

I suppose, upon further review, therein lies the challenge with voluntarily labeling "GMO Free". One inconvenient blow of the wind from the neighboring Monsanto farm, and someone will have some 'splainin' to do. It gets easier to see the real reason why the labeling on "healthy" prepackaged food is all campy and folksy with stories of how the mass-produced food was started by "granny in her kitchen". It's easier to forgive someone who is "just like you.".


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I'd expect that no added MSG acknowledges the fact that MSG occurs naturally in some foods. I would guess no added BHT would work as well.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

sammyd said:


> you've all ready got a government certified non gmo label, it says certified organic.


 Even that is no guarantee, given the fact that pollen drifts so readily. Personally I cannot grow guaranteed 'organic' food because my neighbor grows conventional GMO products, and the pollen from those plants absolutely drifts onto my land. 

Lets be honest, the only reason the big food processors don't want to put a 'may contain GMO' label on their food is fear... fear of losing money.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Even that is no guarantee, given the fact that pollen drifts so readily. Personally I cannot grow guaranteed 'organic' food because my neighbor grows conventional GMO products, and the pollen from those plants absolutely drifts onto my land.
> 
> Lets be honest, the only reason the big food processors don't want to put a 'may contain GMO' label on their food is fear... fear of losing money.


But... who cares about pollen drift unless you are saving seeds? I doubt, highly, the GMO seed alters the nature of the fruit one gets from a crop?

Anyone with more knowledge care to share?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Even that is no guarantee, given the fact that pollen drifts so readily. Personally I cannot grow guaranteed 'organic' food because my neighbor grows conventional GMO products, and the pollen from those plants absolutely drifts onto my land.


If it's certified organic, it's a pretty good guarantee it's non-GMO...maybe not 100% but pretty good. Just because you can't grow organic doesn't mean that others can't. If you can't grow it, you can't put it on the label, so no problem for consumers.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

CraterCove said:


> But... who cares about pollen drift unless you are saving seeds? I doubt, highly, the GMO seed alters the nature of the fruit one gets from a crop?
> 
> Anyone with more knowledge care to share?


In corn, the seed is the fruit. Whether you're saving the seeds or eating them makes no difference. So pollen drift may be an issue there...but grain is not my field of ag, so maybe I don't understand it correctly.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

CraterCove said:


> Ziptie said:
> 
> 
> > But this sort of thing is why people are concerned about GMO--- you are allergic to corn and thus buy no corn products but the allergy info on a bar that contains no corn per se but has almonds with corn proteins in it is there?
> ...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

CraterCove said:


> But... who cares about pollen drift unless you are saving seeds? I doubt, highly, the GMO seed alters the nature of the fruit one gets from a crop?
> 
> Anyone with more knowledge care to share?


 The GM traits are indeed inherited and spread by pollen. It is essentially genetic pollution. 
As a side note, gotta wonder how some good Bible-believing Christian farmers can utilize such technology... the bible says not to mix different fabrics, nor mix seeds in the same field, I can only wonder what God would have to say about mixing genes of different SPECIES into the same self-replicating strand of DNA. People are playing God without the wisdom of God.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Even that is no guarantee, given the fact that pollen drifts so readily. Personally I cannot grow guaranteed 'organic' food because my neighbor grows conventional GMO products, and the pollen from those plants absolutely drifts onto my land.
> 
> Lets be honest, the only reason the big food processors don't want to put a 'may contain GMO' label on their food is fear... fear of losing money.


What, are you growing canola, cotton, soy sugar beets, alfalfa, or feed corn for your table use?

Pollen from corn is not going to affect your lettuce. Pollen from canola, is not going to make your carrots gm.

I kind of don't get what you are growing for your table I guess.

And for the record, I am a Bible believing soul. I believe we are to be the best stewards for the land God gave us. Using our God given brains, to make it so we can use less pesticides and conserve the God given soil by not using ridiculous amounts of obscene tillage, and alleviate fossil fuel use by making fewer passes over the fields, ( those who believe in the global warming should be rabidly behind lower pesticide and fuel and oil use in farming I would suppose), is all part of good stewardship of the land.

Our grandparents lost half in most cases of the organic matter in the original native soil, by using excessive tillage because they had no choice. And now we have people who hate gm food. A food production system that is BUILDING up the soil, preventing erosion of the soil, LOWERING pesticide use, LOWERING farm fuel use, in many cases by half.

The gene added to canola, which is found in soil bacterium, which eats, yes, eats and breaks down glyphosate very quickly, was not made by man. It was made by God. Inserting it into a cruciferous crop, to help break down glyphosate fast enough to allow the plant to not be harmed, is an example of sheer brilliance our Creator gave us as men.

Most importantly, it allows us farmers to do more with MUCH less impact on the environment.

Or would you rather we went back to tillage and massive use of soil sterilizing herbicides like trifluralin? Would you rather see the continued reduction of soil organic matter, black ditches, silt laden streams? 

When I was a kid, the spring runoff water was brown, because it was full of soil. Now it is clear, crystal clear, because thanks in no small part to gm technology, soil erosion is a distant memory.

It is a gene. We have always eaten them and done well enough. Why the fear and the distrust of a mere gene?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Thanks farmerDale, for clearing up the confusion over whether corn pollen will 'turn lettuce into a GMO'. Gotta love how you seem to think everyone but you is an idiot. You know what that corn pollen will affect? The corn that I grow, and save seed from. Who gave Monsanto permission to trespass on my land and affect MY crops?? 
You seem to think we are oh so smart for figuring out how to put bacterium DNA into a plant, and into various other unnatural combinations using gene guns and viruses. Well I hope for your sake and the rest of the world that this is indeed as benificent and benign as you believe it to be... I have to wonder though, there have been plenty of scientific wonders that turned out to be more dangerous than we first thought.... nuclear radiation, asbestos, DDT, aspartame, X-rays, etc etc. All touted as safe and wonderful, and extremely profitable, until we learned differently. I do hope you are right about this, but in all honesty, your answers strike me more as the PR shilling of a paid spokesman, not as an honest, objective observer. 
Glad the waters run clear where you are. Ain't the case by the time you get down to the waters of the muddy Mississippi. 
The OP was about labeling, not the ethics of altering Gods creation, and I take full credit for the thread drift, but I still think a disclaimer about GMO content on food labels is not too much to ask. I've worked around food packaging to know it takes a minuscule amount of effort to add a line of text. The only reason it is not done is to protect profits.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Thanks farmerDale, for clearing up the confusion over whether corn pollen will 'turn lettuce into a GMO'. Gotta love how you seem to think everyone but you is an idiot. You know what that corn pollen will affect? The corn that I grow, and save seed from. Who gave Monsanto permission to trespass on my land and affect MY crops??
> You seem to think we are oh so smart for figuring out how to put bacterium DNA into a plant, and into various other unnatural combinations using gene guns and viruses. Well I hope for your sake and the rest of the world that this is indeed as benificent and benign as you believe it to be... I have to wonder though, there have been plenty of scientific wonders that turned out to be more dangerous than we first thought.... nuclear radiation, asbestos, DDT, aspartame, X-rays, etc etc. All touted as safe and wonderful, and extremely profitable, until we learned differently. I do hope you are right about this, but in all honesty, your answers strike me more as the PR shilling of a paid spokesman, not as an honest, objective observer.
> Glad the waters run clear where you are. Ain't the case by the time you get down to the waters of the muddy Mississippi.
> The OP was about labeling, not the ethics of altering Gods creation, and I take full credit for the thread drift, but I still think a disclaimer about GMO content on food labels is not too much to ask. I've worked around food packaging to know it takes a minuscule amount of effort to add a line of text. The only reason it is not done is to protect profits.


Wow, I ask what the crop you grow for your table that you are concerned about is, and you get kinda sensitive. Sorry I even asked. SO you grow one garden crop that concerns you. I am glad you let us know. No need to get all bent out of shape for me pointing out there are few crops that exist that should concern the average gardener. You can I hope you realize, avoid pollen fears by using seeding dates to stagger the potential for cross pollination, right?

There are many reasons labelling is fought back on. Money is for me the smallest issue. In fact money is not even on my radar in this issue. Science, and safety is for me the issue.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Even that is no guarantee, given the fact that pollen drifts so readily. Personally I cannot grow guaranteed 'organic' food because my neighbor grows conventional GMO products, and the pollen from those plants absolutely drifts onto my land.


Then another label will not make one bit of difference. why are you bothering about it?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> There are many reasons labelling is fought back on. Money is for me the smallest issue. In fact money is not even on my radar in this issue. Science, and safety is for me the issue.


 The science and safety issues are unresolved, and you are quite possibly deluding yourself and others if you think they are. It wasn't that long ago that cigarettes, asbestos and DDT were considered safe, but now we know otherwise. And it took DECADES for those industries to admit problems. As I said, your tone is that of a paid spokesman, not an unbiased observer. 
And if 'money isnt on your radar', you can bet it is on the radar of ADM, Kraft, ConAgra,Cargill, General Mills, Kelloggs, Nestle (my former employer) and the other big processors who stand to lose money if they label their ingredients.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And because those companies will lose money when prices are raised and people shy away is a very good reason there is No Need To Have Any More labels on products besides what is already on them. None what so ever. Period.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I wish people would stop bringing up ddt as an example of things we thought were safe but aren't. The facts about DDT are /not/ the propaganda spread by liars that linked it to decrease in bird populations and thinning eggs shells and such. Those things were never even loosely correlated.

There are valid concerns to be had about GMO's the science is not 'settled'. But bringing up red herrings and propaganda do no one any good. I actually want real facts to allay the concerns I have about DNA manipulation cross species. I don't care when they shut off or on genes that the plant already have (like the recent potato thing), that's just stream lining the natural breeding process. I do have concerns about attaching bacteria DNA, insect DNA, Almonds with Corn proteins, that sort of thing because I question as to whether or not they are even capable of knowing the long term consequences of such things. But it's already hard enough to come across actually informed opinions and facts about these things... why talk about stuff that is just not true?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> The science and safety issues are unresolved, and you are quite possibly deluding yourself and others if you think they are. It wasn't that long ago that cigarettes, asbestos and DDT were considered safe, but now we know otherwise. And it took DECADES for those industries to admit problems. As I said, your tone is that of a paid spokesman, not an unbiased observer.
> And if 'money isnt on your radar', you can bet it is on the radar of ADM, Kraft, ConAgra,Cargill, General Mills, Kelloggs, Nestle (my former employer) and the other big processors who stand to lose money if they label their ingredients.



Yup, I am a paid spokesman. lol.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

farmerDale said:


> Yup, I am a paid spokesman. lol.




Most producers are paid for the use of GMO seed by the profit and benefits. At the price of the technology I can not think of one person that uses them for any other reason. If large corporations have the control that people claim, we would all be driving $50,000 cars that get 10 MPG and gas would be $10 per gallon!


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ort-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I especially like this comment below such a article as that one was.


> Haha. And how about that dihydrogen monoxide? Major component of acid rain. Just a few drops in your lungs can kill you. Definitely time to ban it.


----------

