if it is so safe why the worries about labelling?
Give us the labels and not a problem
show me where it is declared safe
I am concerned re the labelling as the average consumer isnāt an expert.
As stated in other posts consumer pressure has removed an ingredient found in every plant cell from bread at subway.
Hereās a journal article on the safety of GMOs http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
Itās important to remember this doesnāt cover any future plants. Each GMO has to be tested and show itās safety.
I donāt want any new GMO to be introduced without testing, based on the above journal, which is a good eg of a study aggregating previous research.
Also, hereās a good link for you
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395
Note, these experts suggest all new organisms be examined for safety, whatever their source.
This would mean the same requirements for GMOs as for cross breeding species, or any other method.
That, rather than labelling, would mean a safer food supply
Radiation mutagenesis is where seeds are bombarded with radiation to produce mutations, most of which will be lethal to the plant, but on rare occasions, produces a strain which has beneficial characteristics.
Guess what - itās not considered genetically modified/GMO.
So the strains of plant, sold as organic, could easily have been derived by radiation mutagenesis.
Plants which are classified as āGMOā have NEVER been shown to cause ANY harm.
And yet the worried well with first world problems think its the most important thing ever.
But because you think you know what you should be scared of, you want industry to bend to your ignorant will.
How about this,
If its labelled organic, knock yourself out.
If it has no label, just assume it has GMOs in it and donāt buy it.
Enjoy your overpriced meaningless labels.
At the same time, avoid mono-sodium glutamate, which all the pundits think is so bad for you, but even a moments analysis will tell you is a simple harmless amino acid which your body makes.
You want GMOs tested ?
Has every plant eaten for the last 2000 years been tested ?
Alcohol is a Class 1 Carcinogen.
Are all the organic eating, GMO lynching people non-drinkers ? Because if they arenāt, they have bigger concerns,
Alcohol and cancer: a position statement from Cancer Council Australia
Better be a vegetarian as well.
Meat and cancer
I donāt want to support this foolish technology - irrespective of whether or not it is āsafe for human consumptionā Ultimately this technology, allowing us to feed more and more people, simply avoids the obvious fact that there are simply too many people and if we do manage to feed them we will simply hit some other brick wall (water, power, land, biodiversity etc ets.)
Now whether or not you agree with me the central issue is that I have a right to my opinion BUT without clear labelling as to the existence of GMO content my opinion is meaningless. Ultimately labelling should be about informing consumers not making decisions for them by restricting information to that which is advantageous to the seller.
Yes, the Earthās population is too big and growing.
Both from the point of view of available resources and from the effects of the populationās environmental impact.
(eg - this campsite has insufficient food and water and has no way to deal with its waste)
So why is the population growing ?
Poor education, lack of access to family planning, high infant mortality (families have more children to compensate for high child death rates) and religion - the most notable of these would be Catholicismās anti-contraceptive stance.
Populate or perish, says Cardinal Pell
"THE Catholic Archbishop of Sydney has called on Australia to populate or perish and declared himself a climate change sceptic - a day after the Pope called on Catholics to change their way of life to deal with global warming.
āNo Western country is producing enough babies to keep the population stable, no Western country,ā Cardinal George Pell said yesterday."
Correcting these factors seems like a more humane and sensible approach than ālimit the food supply and starve them to deathā.
āI have a right to my opinionā
Yes, just as people who believe the Earth is flat have a right to their opinion.
Doesnāt mean anyone else has to respect it or pay it any attention.
You say āUltimately labelling should be about informing consumersā.
So any and all information you want should be supplied ?
If you went on to demand that as well as GMO content, you wanted to know if a particular product was manufactured using staff who were gay or communist or left handed or black, should they also comply ?
Dear Dogboy
I didnāt say let them starve. You are right that a more connected social/economic system is the answer - however I couldnāt put my entire belief system into a short post relating to GMO labelling. I do have ideas for genuine change - radical change that MIGHT make a difference however my point here is that whatever the answer is IT IS NOT GMO which will simply encourage people to keep going down the current track until something else becomes the limiting factor. (meaning that because we have continued to grow our population even more people will suffer/die - definitely not desirable)
This post was specifically related to labelling of GMO NOT how to revolutionise the world economic order.
Equally I do not appreciate being called a flat earther and being told my opinion is meaningless by someone who has no idea what I believe outside of labelling of GMO.
I want informative labelling on all foods. I want to know where it came from, what it contains, if it has GMO content, if it has organic certification, food value, salt, sugar, fats, etc. Its nothing particularly to do with GMOs, but just a desire for information about what I am buying and ingesting. Its the only way for consumers to be able to choose what they want and to have an influence on production practices. We know that producers look after their own interests and its better for consumers to choose and influence rather than have government regulations.
GM companies are just like the other liars; tobacco, asbestos, sugar (fructose), fast food, coal, oil, fracking etc. They all say āthere is no evidence our product is harmfulā. But the tobacco companies have now been caught out, as have the asbestos companies. The next product to come crashing down is going to be sugar (the āsmoking gunā paper trail has been found and is the subject of research by a PHD student. Obesity is now becoming an international problem and the over-use of coal and oil is now being shown to be affecting the way the climate of the world is regulated.
The problem is that the Big Companies which make Big Profits and donate Big Money to political parties will never have to pay the true cost of the destruction that they cause.
2 Likes
In the absence of any evidence, over 50 years of use, of any deleterious health effects whatsoever being done by GMOs, what possible reason could there be for labelling?
1 Like
GMO food is broken down to the same elements in your guts just like non-GMO food. There is no difference.
1 Like
Scientists told us tobacco was harmless. Of course they were in the employ of the tobacco companies, but that bears no resmeblance to scientists in the employ of Monsantoā¦ does it? The same applies to asbestos. When there is money and secret agendas involved, the truth can be a somewhat flexible concept.
Iām pretty sure there were issues with livestock and Bt corn some time ago. Food soaked in glyphosate is not something I want to eat, but sadly even many non-GMO wheat crops in Australia are already sprayed with it to reduce time to harvest.
I want to decide what food I eat- not leave it to the likes of a large chemical company!
1 Like
Commentators on this thread and @Health-Campaignerās might be interested to read our recent article on GM foods, including the key controversies, what foods may have GM ingredients, labelling requirements, and what GM crops are grown in Australia.
2 Likes
I would like the choice in whether or not to support huge multi-national corporations, many of which have questionable ethics ( or possibly a complete absence of ethics ).
The relevant reference in our article is the section titled āCorporate dominance and oligopolyā.
3 Likes
I appreciate your shared insight on this topic. Itās a very complex topic with many stakeholders vested beyond our symantec interestsā¦ itās all very important and sadly far too convoluted for most punters / consumers to be bothered about. I however am very interested in relevant wording being imposed so as to not allow any more ambiguity on food labeling that weāre already trying to undoā¦ unravelā¦ unspeakš©
2 Likes
Surely itād be much more convenient, easier and cheaper to label which foods havenāt been genetically modified. Iād guess that something like 95% of everything we eat has been genetically modified.
Even better, perhaps we could require the anti-GMO crowd to provide actual evidence that those 95% are harmful before doing anything. Thatād solve the problem.
3 Likes
@Fred It can be hard to prove an effect that only shows itself after decades when only years have passed. This can be related to the proposed problems with genetic modification: it might not be observable until it has already taken effect. In a way, anti-modification claims are a āprevention over cureā argument. We just donāt know enough.
3 Likes
Given that weāve been genetically modifying food for thousands of years, thatās probably long enough.
But if youāre talking about modification by recombinant DNA technology, weāve been doing that for 50 or so years, but so far there hasnāt been one single proven instance of health problems resulting. Iād say the case is well and truly closed.
3 Likes
GMO is merely a sped-up version of crop and animal selective breeding which has been going on for hundreds of years. Irrational fear of the new among the simple masses has been occurring since the dawn of man.
4 Likes
A couple of posters have said similar, and it makes sense to me in one way- and to be honest Iām far more concerned about sugar, salt, etc - cooking from scratch where possible. I do wonder though, when the GM is to make a crop withstand herbicides - as was ārumouredā ? with some crops and Glyphosate - Iām thinking the concern isnāt so much that the crop is modified to be immune to the chemical, more that the chemical is then able to be liberally applied. How much of a concern is this? In a world where so many xxxācides are systemic rather than external maybe itās all over anyway 
Iām not losing a lot of sleep over it, but would be interested in others thoughts on that aspect ā¦
5 Likes
