who eats horses besides romanians?

Einstein,

The academics you referred to did not study long-term health effects of organic vs hormone-pumped livestock or man-forumulated-pesticide-treated crops. They simply measured pesticides on non-organic foods to be within their lax standards of "safe enough" and pretended that this is as safe as lower levels. They didn't examine long-term health costs of bioaccumulation of these chemicals nor the long-term health effects of the massive artificial hormones in our meats.

If you'd read the study, you'd realize that its significantly limited methodology limits its findings substantially. They did a very limited measure, made large assumptions and did not examine them further, and found what they wanted to find: No significant conclusions because they chose only to examine very limited data.

Russian studies found sterility in 2nd and 3rd generations of small mammals.

You obviously trust big government and its big business/agriculture owners. But some of us don't mind eating food that wasn't genetically engineered in a lab, and labels to identify it are useful. You object to... labels? You object to... more information?

Troll... I mean Kemp...

The population of the United States, and indeed the world, show no ill effects, despite Chris and his sudden liberal attitude.

Einstein,

Please explain how what I posted is trolling; or accept the fact that I intimidate you, and you're just complaining about me in order to detract attention from the fact that you're ignoring everything I posted.

I asked why you object to labels--why you object to people having access to information. Was this an unfair or otherwise difficult question? You made a thread to complain about labels. When are you going to state why? Okay, you don't think they're necessary--You trust agriculture/business/government to take care of you and you're healthy (haha)--But what reason do you have to object to others having information they desire?

People die of cancer and ALS and other nerve disorders all the time. How you can claim people "show no ill effects" of atrocious and unhealthy diets is beyond me. Most of these diseases are not genetic, and healthy people suffer from them far less often. Regardless of the merits of any particular argument for/against any particular chemical, why hinder people's abilities to make their own decisions?

Many people attribute illnesses to the toxic and otherwise artificial chemical additives in their food. They like the knowledge of what's natural and what's been modified in a lab to have different nutritional value (or even possibly be harmful, as some research has suggested). Seeing as you obviously don't care about chemicals or organic foods, why is their preference to have labels/this knowledge objectionable to you? Your OP just rants about how harmless GMF is, but don't provide any grounds for objecting to people who prefer organic having the knowledge they need to do so.

You're so healthy you obviously don't see any need to consider organic or have the necessary information to make that choice, but what's your objection to people who do?

They said fluoride in the water supply is safe! I truss the guvment!

> Mister Spock wrote:

> Einstein,

You obviously trust big government and its big business/agriculture owners

Hmmm, does he?

Even if it cost $1 billion. That's a cost per American of $3. A year.

1: No study is needed on this, since the label is not asking "is this a good modification."  You're required to notify if your product is modified.  It could have been genetically modified to have extra Vitamin A or to release the T-virus... either way... are you really saying companies don't know the breed of their own corn crops?  Plus, one more thing on this which is at the bottom of this post.
2: Okay.  No argument here.
3: This isn't that hard.  Cigarettes and allergy-inducing ingredients have given plenty of experience in disclosing "may contain genetically modified ingredients."  Additionally, as with cigarettes, the regulatory agency often writes what is legally required to put on the box (that Surgeon General's Warning is not the wording of the cigarette companies).  In fact, I just went on the FDA website and they already have a series of pre-written "how to disclose GM foods" setups.  So yeah, you may need a lawyer... but you could probably get away with hiring dpenguins! 
4: Have you seen labels nowadays?  Seriously, this same argument could be applied to sooooo many foods that have labels today.  This isn't actually a unique problem.  If it were, we would never know about the high fructose corn syrup, red 13, etc., in our food.  This isn't a game-breaker for businesses.
5: This is easy to fix, and at every level.  Why?  Because businesses have business relationships.
Example: I purchase wheat and corn to make corn bread which I package and sell.  Generally, I ask my suppliers basic questions about their products (after all... I can't exactly use white corn for corn bread... who would want that?  bleh!).
Now, the suppliers are the ones actually handling the product they sell.  The farmer has complete control over their crop, supplying the seeds used to grow the corn.  More than anyone, the corn farmer knows what type of corn they're actually growing, because they  have complete control.
So... back to my bakery!  How do I find out what my bread is made from?  Simple: call my wheat and corn suppliers.  "Hey, are you using genetically modified corn?  Yes?  Okay, thanks!"

It's not like they're buying their business supplies out of the back of someone's Ford.  There's formal business contracts which generally include such disclosures.  This means the actual cost of determining whether or not food food is genetically modified... is near 0, simply because the supply chain can provide that exact information.

"1: No study is needed on this, since the label is not asking "is this a good modification."  You're required to notify if your product is modified.  It could have been genetically modified to have extra Vitamin A or to release the T-virus... either way... are you really saying companies don't know the breed of their own corn crops?  Plus, one more thing on this which is at the bottom of this post."

Unless crops have been GM to be sterile (which is possible, I believe), then you can get crop contamination from a neighbouring crop field.

Also Flint, many of these costs would be once off costs to become complient. Labelling costs only occur when the label changes, I mean, does it cost extra now for Coca Cola to now print "Contains Caffiene" on their labels? And that brings up another point regarding the evolution of product indentification. Do you object to ingredients being printed on labels? Now we have to have warnings printed on labels, for caffiene, warnings against carcenagens (sp?), and dietary information. All of this information is helpful to the consumer. In fact, if there is a large enough concern (as Kemp demonstrates), wouldn't it be in the best interest for companies that use only organic crops to effectively advertise that they are GM free? Without a body to effectively control the testing process, wouldn't the "claims" themselves be empty?

Really, it comes down to what consumers want, and I know for a fact (my mother has even taken to the streets on this matter before, and she gets me to type up her letters to the member of parliament) that there are those who want this information on the labels. Furthermore, governments by definition should be acting in the interest of its district, so if the people want it, why fight it because businesses do not want to comply?

I may not be most clear on this, I do apologize.

I have been fairly sick last few days.

To try to be concise

Cross contanimation needs to be tested for, lawsuits for organic versus not would fly.... was a seed 10% contanimated GM? Or 1%? Compliance Agency would not cost 1 million as they say. No possible way. The diversity of Californian crops is huge, complications are huge. They can't do it with 5 full time staffers, an office, and some cars. It will grow much larger easily and quickly.

So agency costs go up. Lawsuits zing out over "what is GM", every company will track endless products for percentages, hoping to get the magic % where they can then avoid gm labeling on some.

In 2011, 88 percent of all corn and 94 percent of all soybeans produced in the U.S. were grown from GE seeds. Other common GE crops include alfalfa, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets, and zucchini.

Hey Wornstrum, you still playing in MW?