I522 - Pros and Cons

[tvashtarkatena]

I've been to the respective main websites, read the initiative, but would love to hear at least on farmer's perspective, as well as other viewpoints.

 

I'm familiar with the whole Roundup Ready crop thing, and the problems with our factory food production.

 

I'm still left wondering what the positive impact is supposed to be here and whether or not its worth the cost. I'm also wondering what that cost - to industry, consumers, and the state, will be. Haven't been able to find an estimate (the Sec of State's estimate is what I'm looking for.

 

This is the best analysis of the initiative I've been able to find so far (it's against):

 

linky

 

I have not been able to find a similar quality 'for' analysis to date. Would love to read one.

 

 

[Off_White]

I think there are some flaws in how the label is to be presented, a simple line back in the nutritional panel would be fine by me.

 

The forces against constitute a grab bag of major corporations who don't want us to know what is in what they sell us. How can one be an informed consumer, and how can the supposed self-correcting features of the free market work, if people are denied simple information?

 

All the flap over whether or not GMO's are good or bad is an entirely different subject, this is just about access to information. The good-bad debate is just an obfuscating smoke screen.

 

The question I keep coming back to is, if Monsanto is so proud of their work, why are they willing to spend millions and millions of dollars to keep everyone unaware of it?

 

I'm voting yes.

[rob]

I hate "negative" labeling. Organic food is "positively" labelled, meaning that if it's organic, it will say so. A negative labeling scheme for organics would state that all non-organic food would be labeled "Non-organic" and the organic food would say nothing.

 

This is retarded, obviously, since nearly every human UX type study has long since shown that humans are much better looking for the presence of something rather than the absence of it. It would be way harder for me to pick out my organic milk if I had to find the carton that didn't say, "Non-Organic."

 

The other downside of negative labeling is that if you miss the label (don't see it), then you fail the wrong direction. I.E. if I miss the "non-organic" label, then I think it's organic (though it's not). Positive labeling fails safely, by preventing you from accidentally picking the wrong product. If I miss the "organic" label, I assume it's non-organic and fail safely.

 

This is why "Gluten-Free" labels are more popular than simply omitting a label in the ingredients that says, "contains gluten" -- it's obviously easier for consumers if there is a front-facing label declaring "Gluten-Free"

 

Beyond all of this, I just don't understand what 522 is supposed to solve. It won't make people healthier (GMO vs. Non-GMO food is not what is causing our health problems). The fat mother buying cap'n crunch for her obese children obviously doesn't notice (or care about) the high-sugar content, or artificial flavors, or artificial colors -- all of which are clearly labeled -- in the crap she's buying. Do people honestly think this woman is going to buy a different product if it says, in small print, "may contain GMO?"

 

Additionally, the scientist in me objects to the anti-science knee-jerk hippy reaction that genetically-modified things are automatically bad. When I hear people use the word, "frankenfood" I know they are kevbone retarded. No offense, kev. This idea that somehow "nature" produces things that are good and safe is pretty retarded, and in fact genetic engineering can be safer than nature (fewer random mutations) and theoretically can produce foods that don't even need pesticides. Nature has produced a lot of poisonous shit, yo.

 

I'm way more worried about toxic pesticides than GMO's, btw, so I just don't see why everybody is spending so much time and energy trying to label GMOs. I don't see these people clambering for pesticide labels. Or for labels warning people that "this food will cause diabetes," etc. No, it's just a bunch of hippies who don't understand science, I think.

 

Sure, I hate Monsanto, too, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm just not sure what 522 is supposed to do except scare people. Telling me something contains GMO doesn't actually tell me anything I need to know to make a decision. What kind of GMO? It might as well say, "this product contains chemicals." It's almost completely useless info, unless you're a hippy who thinks that GMO = Poison, in which case you're spending all your money at whole foods anyway.

 

I'd rather see an initiative laying out a certification process for GMO-free food, similar to what we have with organics labeling. If people are so confident that the public wants GMO-free foods, than GMO-Free labeling will be the next Organic fad. So what's the problem?

 

I thought this was a good article for people with a poor understanding of the science.

 

[rob]

P.S. the fact that Monsanto is against this is not a good reason to vote for it.

 

"They don't want us to know what they're selling us" is a lot of hyperbole.

 

OMG THEY'RE TRYING TO TRICK US ALL!!!! WHAT ARE THEY HIDING????

 

Telling you it contains GMO tells you almost nothing about what that actually is -- it's no victory. It just sounds scary, so no surprise the big companies are against it. That doesn't mean they're wrong, though.

 

 

[rob]

The question I keep coming back to is, if Monsanto is so proud of their work, why are they willing to spend millions and millions of dollars to keep everyone unaware of it?

 

Because people are dumb, and the initiative and labeling make GMO's sound dangerous.

 

 

[LUCKY]

Organic food label, GMO label same thing...informed consumer

Currently, 64 countries around the world require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Unlike most other developed countries – such as 15 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China – the U.S. has no laws requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I hate "negative" labeling. Organic food is "positively" labelled, meaning that if it's organic, it will say so. A negative labeling scheme for organics would state that all non-organic food would be labeled "Non-organic" and the organic food would say nothing.

 

I agree.

 

And face it, the people that care the most about this will be better served - you can seek out the foods labeled "GMO-free", and companies can cater to you. The rest of us will just ignore the "GMO inside" labels.

[tvashtarkatena]

I've decided to vote NO for the following reasons:

 

1) "The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal." I522 doesn't even come close to doing this. Given that the smoking warning requirement in WA was just struck down based on this flaw, I don't see I522 - which has a far weaker case than smoking, will survive a 1st Amendment challenge. Had I522's authors not overstepped their bounds in requiring a new warning label rather than an addendum to existing food labeling, it might have squeeked past a constitutional challenge. This won't, and it will be a huge waste of money and time until it is inevitably kilt in court.

 

2) I522 is unfunded in a time of huge deficits. It also has no GMO testing provision.

 

3) Factory food producers will simply slap a generic "May Contain Some GMO" labell on everything - just like the peanut thing, but smaller business will disproportionately suffer under the cost and (very high) penalty burden.

 

4) This labeling will hurt WA farmers who export to GMO free or restricted nations, not help them.

 

5) Finally, we already have an Organic designation for folks who want to eat healthier food. I would love to see a shift towards more sustainable, healthier food production, but I can't get from A to B regarding why this is one of the best approaches to doing that, particularly WA's budgetary triage right now. I will vote no. My friends may scream a bit, but that's the way of it.

 

I have other reasons, but the first one is a fatal error - and probably one that could have been avoided had the proponents of this thing not overreached. They had no excuse to do so - given that the initiative's CA predecessor died, in part, because it, too, probably would have been ruled a 1st Amendment violation because it attempted to regulate the word 'natural'.

 

To date, no one has given me a credible reason to vote for it, other than Monsanto is bad. Well, there are principles and there are players. The NAZIs are bad, but they still get to march. That Monsanto is against this and PCC is for it does not make it good policy. I522 isn't IMO.

 

I522 will cost a lot of money, despite being unfunded, have little to no real positive effect, have many unintended consequences for smaller healthy food producers, and be quickly killed in court. In a state with a huge deficit and many other more worthy projects to work on, this one doesn't even come close to making the cut.

Edited October 24, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

I hate "negative" labeling. Organic food is "positively" labelled, meaning that if it's organic, it will say so. A negative labeling scheme for organics would state that all non-organic food would be labeled "Non-organic" and the organic food would say nothing.

 

I agree.

 

And face it, the people that care the most about this will be better served - you can seek out the foods labeled "GMO-free", and companies can cater to you. The rest of us will just ignore the "GMO inside" labels.

 

I agree. No 1st Amendment clusterfuck required.

 

I might have just voted for this bowser cuz lots of my cool friends are and Monsanto Is Bad and PCC is Good (I'm not joking - one women posted "If I522 is bad, why are all these companies supporting it? LOL", but the religiousity of its supporters and lack of specifics as to why, exactly, they think this specific law will make the world a better place caused by to research it further.

 

Not a single farming organization has endorsed 522. Do they all just suck, or might they have legitimate concerns, as I do?

 

On the flip side, plenty of individual organic farms have. Fine - their free to add a GMO FREE label anytime they like.

 

Two solutions - one costly to the public and smaller businesses, complicated, and mandatory, the other completely voluntary.

 

Both do exactly the same thing - allow consumers who give a rip to choose GMO free products.

 

Hmmm....is this a trick question?

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Off_White]

Rob, you're just spewing more of that smokescreen BS. There is nothing in the proposed label or the initiative that defines GMO as bad. It is about information, and you come off as just another "expert" who's decided what we don't need to know.

 

Now, there are some reasons why one might choose to not support GMO food, and not just because one is a silly hippie who thinks it will make them grow feathers. You think Monsanto is promoting their GMO seed so they can sell LESS of their Roundup product? Pesticide application is up since the introduction of GMO seeds, in part due to the expansion of glycophosphate resistant weeds, caused by increased use of Roundup. Do you believe reducing genetic diversity of seed stock is a good thing? You think contamination of other strains by GMO plants via pollination is a plus? You are aware that Monsanto uses this as a justification to sue farmers who have been contaminated by their neighbor's plantings, right? Oh, and there have been deaths associated with GMO bacteria, and some studies have shown issues with GMO foods in cows and rats, so it may not be all sunshine and roses like you say.

 

On the bright side, if 522 passes, you can show your support by only buying GMO containing foods.

[rob]

Rob, you're just spewing more of that smokescreen BS. There is nothing in the proposed label or the initiative that defines GMO as bad. It is about information, and you come off as just another "expert" who's decided what we don't need to know.

 

OK, let's make an analogy. You claim that the "good or bad" of GMOs is irrelevant. So, for the sake of argument then, let's say they're completely harmless. That should be easy, right, since you say it's irrelevant.

 

Now, the analogy. Let's take something else completely harmless, like selective breeding. It's also a form of genetic-modification, although more primitive. Would you support a label that says, "this product may be the result of selective-breeding" ? I mean, it's just information, right? Let's also put a label that says, "May contain the color yellow." After all, it's not about "good or bad" but just about plain ol' information, right?

 

Personally, I don't know how you claim with a straight-face that this has nothing to do with the "good/bad" of GMO's, and then claim that Monsanto is "trying to hide what they are feeding us." But, not because it's bad, right?

 

OK, dude. I get it, you dont think GMO's are bad, you just think that Monsanto is trying to hide what they are feeding us for no reason, and think that we should just have "information". But, not because it could be bad. Just because.

 

What kind of information do you think you'll get when you get a label that says, "May contain GMO products, we're not really sure but it's safer and cheaper to just put this label on here."

 

"Caution: this food may contain yellow."

[tvashtarkatena]

I522's requirement not to simply append existing FDA labeling, but instead require what is essentially a warning label on the product front very much implies that GMOs are bad. Classic overreach, and one that will kill the entire project should it pass.

 

This is about punishment, not 'providing information'. Talk to its supporters - its an insult a minute once you start asking salient questions. It all boils down to punishing agribusiness, not 'providing choice'.

 

If it was, voluntary GMO FREE labels would be the direction for offering that choice.

[Pete_H]

Like Tvash at the start of this thread, I am still up in the air on this issue.

 

Seems that this issue very much does involve the question of whether GMO is good / bad, healthy / unhealthy. If GMO food is harmful then it is relevant for food to be labeled as such. If not, then (as Rob points out) it is as arbitrary as a label stating the color of the food.

 

I'm admittedly uneducated about this, so it makes me wonder why other nations ban or require labeling of GMO products?

 

 

[Fairweather]

This whole thing is little more than The Jungle part CVII.

[tvashtarkatena]

Most likely all the same arguments we see in this campaign were used abroad.

 

There is a dearth of scientific support for the assertion that GMOs are unhealthy. If you buy whole foods anyway, it's not much of an issue. If you buy lots of processed foods, um *cough*, GMOs should be the least of your concern.

 

The effect of GMOs on the environment is the real issue - one that is, unfortunately, fantastically complicated and unsettled - and therefore not cut and dry.

 

I'm for moving away from factory monoculture to more sustainable food production for about 100 reasons. This seems like a poorly crafted hippy sideshow to me, however, and one that brings little advantage to a voluntary labeling approach to providing consumers choice and information. Why would a GMO Free company NOT put that on their label to gain a competitive advantage?

 

[Fairweather]

Anyhow, I just want this woman to GO AWAY!

 

[Fairweather]

A simple act of Congress would be a good start: Thou shalt not create, sell, or legally bind a farmer to purchase a seed incapable of reproducing itself in a natural or ordinary agricultural setting.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Fairweather

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, a farmer that purchases patented seeds that CAN be reproduced cannot subsequently plant those seeds to create a self sustaining supply without a specific contract allowing him to do so.

 

Recent, interesting case in the midwest:

 

The farmer purchased seed for feed, some of which he knew from experience contained patented Roundup Ready seeds. Rather than use them for feed, he planted, then Roundupped the shit out them. Only the Roundup Ready plants survived to produce more seeds.

 

No contract with Monsanto, however. He was therefore shutdown in court.

[rob]

A simple act of Congress would be a good start: Thou shalt not create, sell, or legally bind a farmer to purchase a seed incapable of reproducing itself in a natural or ordinary agricultural setting.

 

believe me, Monsanto would LOVE it if they could make their roundup-ready soybeans incapable of reproducing itself. I'm sure they're working on it

 

edit: anyway, why would you want to ban the creation of sterile GMO products? Most people argue that GMO products should be *required* to be sterile...I'm not sure I've heard anyone argue the opposite before

 

edit #2: also, wouldn't this clause outlaw seedless watermelon seeds?

Edited October 24, 2013 by rob

[dfrost]

I'm still looking for a reason to vote No:

 

Thus far in the thread, I've read 2 sentiments: 1) Labeling GMO foods is information that is unnecessary, and 2) It will make food more expensive.

 

So that said:

1) Why is more information (even if it's "this food is yellow") a bad thing? If people don't want to eat GMO (or yellow) food, let them decide if they care.

 

2) Won't it confer (most of the) additional cost to GMO foods? Is this undesirable somehow? It's not clear that there would actually be ANY increased cost; though I admit assuming there won't be doesn't make any sense.

 

[bstach]

 

I always thought it was not legal in the USA to label food as "non GMO" or "GMO free". Something to do with "food disparagement" laws. Am I mistaken? Perhaps I've been watching too many documentaries about how bad our industrial food production is and can no longer keep the facts straight.

[rob]

I always thought it was not legal in the USA to label food as "non GMO" or "GMO free". Something to do with "food disparagement" laws. Am I mistaken? Perhaps I've been watching too many documentaries about how bad our industrial food production is and can no longer keep the facts straight.

 

Incorrect.

 

"Currently, food manufacturers may indicate through voluntary labeling whether foods have or have not been developed through genetic engineering, provided that such labeling is truthful and not misleading. FDA supports voluntary labeling that provides consumers with this information and has issued draft guidance to industry regarding such labeling."

 

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm

[bstach]

What burden of proof is required of the producer to be allowed to label as non-GMO. Perhaps too much for small producers?

[rob]

The FDA does have funny rules about how you can say it, though. For example, you can't say that milk is "Hormone Free" since all milk contains (natural) hormones, so "hormone free" would be technically inaccurate. That's why hormone-free milk always states it in a peculiar way.

 

Also, I see that the FDA recently approved a GMO-Free label for meat and eggs. This is the sort of legislation I'd rather see, personally.

 

More info:

http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm059098.htm

 

[rob]

What burden of proof is required of the producer to be allowed to label as non-GMO. Perhaps too much for small producers?

 

Dunno -- good question. But regardless, if the burden of proof is high then 522 will not help small producers, who will probably just place a generic "may contain" label on everything rather than spend the money finding out if any of their downstream ingredients they purchase from wholesalers is or isn't "genetically modified"