[Johnny2Bad]

" ... Lakes and rivers are continually hammered by farming chemicals. That is obvious and well known. ..."

Certainly there are issues with runoff. You mention Lake Winnipeg ... Manitoba (and many other states / provinces) have problems with large-scale Hog Farms ... practically the definition of "factory farm" ... and the runoff from these operations is a serious problem. Just an example. But it's not a GMO example.

The products used in GMO food crops are not part of the runoff problem. In Manitoba they grow a huge amount of Canola and like everywhere on the Prairies I'm sure there is Alfalfa (look for the bee hives in the fields). Not much corn (lots in Ontario and of course everywhere in the US including right across the border in Minnesota) and at that point I'm running out of crops with any GMO implications that might be grown there.

The associated crop inputs do not runoff, for one, but stay in the soil. They don't stay in the soil for long (as little as 2 and up to about 150 days). If they do somehow end up in the water (maybe a container is improperly disposed of) then they disperse to undetectable levels in water much faster than in soil (at most, half as long). If there is an issue with crop inputs I would think that fertilizers are the bigger issue, and perhaps 2.4.D. Neither are GMO-related except insofar that a GMO crop would not necessarily use less than a non-GMO crop.

And of course the largest number of GMO foods are the plants themselves ... I can envision a cartoon of corn plants marching onto the beaches and into the lakes but I don't see how that can jump the pesky barrier that separates fantasy from reality

Australia and New Zealand have GMO labelling and have had it for many years. Food costs more in both nations versus what we pay in North America.

There seems to be the impression that the EU bans GMO foods but that is not the case; they grow and market many GMO foods in Europe.

In the US, it's estimated that three quarters of all processed food contains GMO ingredients. A large portion of the milk in the US contains GMO'd growth hormones (not allowed in milk in Canada) and it's worth pointing out, since so many seem to fail to see it, that all your Dairy products like cheese, yogurt, ice cream, etc are all derived from the milk, and any qualities of that milk will be in those products.

A knowledgable consumer can just read the mandatory nutrition labels and know pretty much whether there are GMO ingredients in the product ... is there soy products, canola oil, other seed oils, tomatoes, potatoes, flax seed, corn-anything, sugar, milk ingredients, avocados, certain apple varieties ... well, the list goes on, but ... these are all likely GMO ingredients. I doubt you could buy a bakery product that is GMO free in the typical supermarket and going to the mom-and-pop bakery is no solution ... they use the same ingredients as the factory bakeries who churn out bread by the ton (or tonne) daily.

Many of those GMO ingredients are pest-resistant varieties that have nothing whatsoever with Monsanto and Roundup. Some GMO crops were engineered to incorporate vitamins not normally found in that crop. A GMO'd variety of rice is designed to eliminate deficiencies in children that do result in death and disease, broadly similar to adding iron to breakfast cereal or Vitamin D to milk.

The point being there are nearly innumerable traits that can be incorporated into a plant DNA that benefit humanity (and those are precisely what most GMO crop sciences achieve). There is nothing inherently wrong with the method used to incorporate those traits ... to say rice with Vitamin A via GMO is evil while milk with Vitamin A from mixing it in liquid form is God-sent is really misrepresenting the issue in my opinion.

Nations like India and China are avid GMO promoters because they do grow crops that are more resilient to natural pests or disease and greater yields, no matter how you spin it, means less hunger in these economically challenged nations. The Genie is out of the bottle.

Again, I see no real issue with GMO labelling in the supermarket but at the same time I don't really see a benefit either. Plus, it inevitably will increase the cost of food. I am not sure how you help the poorer consumer who already may be nutritionally challenged by increasing the cost of food, but of course you could always increase support and minimum wages, to compensate. I would have a problem with someone who both advocates labelling and lowering income support for the poor ... that is a person who must hate his fellow man.

[rajacat]

I still don't understand how a label causes a rise in prices. Certainly, it's not related to actual  costs related to the designing the label. Why shouldn't the customers know whatever they want to related to the product they're about to buy unless its a trade secret.

" Australia and New Zealand have GMO labelling and have had it for many years. Food costs more in both nations versus what we pay in North America."
 
EDIT.

Actually, according to this site,http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=New+Zealand
 
food prices a lower in New Zealand than in the US. 1.65% lower.
In Australia food prices are only 1.14% higher.



Just because food costs are higher in New Zealand and Aus. doesn't mean that this is because of GMO labeling.
Has this been proven? I suspect that the prices would be higher there regardless of GMO label requirements.
IMO the supposed cost increases because of a label is a red herring.
The GMO industry is constantly trying to corner the market in food production and this red herring argument is just another arrow in the quiver. The problem is that when you get excessive concentration in one industry prices will eventually rise. Also anti competitive market sectors lead, like in nature, towards less diversity, creativity and innovation.

[JerryM]

I still don't understand how a label causes a rise in prices. ...

Government Regulation is never free, my friend. 

[rajacat]

Government Regulation is never free, my friend. 

That's just a statement not an argument.

No, it actually lowers prices in certain circumstances. It's not a black and white issue. If you have a monopoly, that means that the monopolist can set the prices to maximize profits and use its control over supply to achieve that end.
Government regulations and effective enforcement are necessary to regulate markets and assure that capitalism doesn't degenerate into oligopoly.
Would you like to get rid of the FDA so that the meat producers can use the factory rats to stuff their sausage? I'd much rather pay the slightly higher price to assure that certain standards are upheld.

[JerryM]

You're correct; it's a statement.

Tyson Foods is a $42B per year producer of chicken. Here is what they say about GMOs: http://www.tysonsustainability.com/2013/products/food-safety-and-quality/gmos

It is clear that they assume GMOs are being used. That assumption is free-of-charge. However, if Tyson Foods were forced to figure out every single part of their supply chain, every day forever, and ensure adequate labeling every day forever, you can bet that their shareholders wouldn't let it pass for free. We, the consumer, would bear the financial burden of a label most people would never read. And yes, I mean most people never read labels; if they did, nobody would use a typical mass-marketed shampoo.

It is interesting to note, though, that Tyson Foods, with their massive Risk Management, Liability, and Litigation departments, has instituted antibiotic-free chicken by 2017. Why do you think they did that? Do you think the same folks that see this 'risk' have never heard of GMOs?

What if Tyson was to tell their suppliers "No more GMOs; not of any kind." Well, Tyson would most likely go out of business and the price of chicken would skyrocket. If Tyson's supply-chain vendors decided to invest all of their money to stay onboard, they would need to quadruple the size of their crops. They would need more water, more fertilizer, and more herbicide and pesticide. Again, they will surely pass this cost along to Tyson.

What about fresh food in a restaurant? I love sushi, and have some every week. A staple appetizer is edamame, or baby soy beans. How are they supposed to label this? How are they supposed to label the rice in my favorite sashimi? How about the chicken teriyaki my girlfriend orders?

Which brings us to litigation. Every jerk-off law firm in the country would be going after the labeling, stating that it's inadequate and demanding a settlement. We dealt with it here in California for years after the passage of Prop 65 (The Clean Water Act). This was a group of attorneys determined to pack the courts with unnecessary litigation to show the world how nonsensical the law really was. All they did was drive up prices for everything, because companies needed to accrue for potential losses. These accruals stop new investments in growth and profitability. Again, these costs are passed to the consumer.

There's an argument to support the statement.

Have fun,

Jerry

[OzarkTom]

Huge Wake Up Call for Monsanto in Europe as Glyphosate Approval Hits Serious Roadblocks


http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/3322-2/

Russia has totally banned GMO's. Severely punished if this law is broken.

Processed junk will go higher, real food will probably go lower, law of supply and demand. More people are waking up and planting  their own gardens. Our local farmers are always cheaper than the local stores.

[JerryM]

Before anybody's head explodes by my 'argument' regarding Tyson Foods and "antibiotic free", please see this: http://www.google.com/patents/US7771736.

New methods will hit the shelves, bet everything you can. 

[Johnny2Bad]

I still don't understand how a label causes a rise in prices. Certainly, it's not related to actual  costs related to the designing the label. Why shouldn't the customers know whatever they want to related to the product they're about to buy unless its a trade secret.

" Australia and New Zealand have GMO labelling and have had it for many years. Food costs more in both nations versus what we pay in North America."
 
EDIT.

Actually, according to this site,http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=New+Zealand
 
food prices a lower in New Zealand than in the US. 1.65% lower.
In Australia food prices are only 1.14% higher.



Just because food costs are higher in New Zealand and Aus. doesn't mean that this is because of GMO labeling.
Has this been proven? I suspect that the prices would be higher there regardless of GMO label requirements.
IMO the supposed cost increases because of a label is a red herring.
The GMO industry is constantly trying to corner the market in food production and this red herring argument is just another arrow in the quiver. The problem is that when you get excessive concentration in one industry prices will eventually rise. Also anti competitive market sectors lead, like in nature, towards less diversity, creativity and innovation.

The label is a one-time cost. That has to be paid by someone as well, but it's impact can be amortized over all production, so in the end it's impact is minimal.

With any new labelling requirement, however, somebody has to create and audit a paper trail for all ingredients. Generally when it comes to manufactured food (maybe you buy canned soup, or frozen pizza) the grower creates the documentation (expense to the farmer, GMO or non-GMO), the manufacturer compiles and audits that documentation with every shipment of raw ingredients and with every change in grower, and then provides that information to the consumer via labelling.

This is an ongoing expense. This becomes a bigger issue for small food manufacturers than large ones, but regardless, it costs money that has to be recovered from somewhere.

For a real-world example, we can look at the issue of Country-Of-Origin regulations for meat products, which was for the last few years the law in the US. The cost of tracking and auditing the data required to meet the obligation was so high, all US meat packing plants simply stopped buying any beef or pork that was not born, raised and finished in the USA. During the time the regulations were in place, the cost to the consumer of meat products in the US rose measurably and persistently.

Any Canadian will have multiple US TV stations in their cable, Satellite or DSL TV package. I have television feeds from stations in Boston, New York (Rochester and NYC), Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles. I see the local supermarket ads. Trust me, a steak in my local grocery store is a few dollars a pound cheaper than any of these other cities, and it was not difficult to see the prices rise over the last few years.

We are talking real money out of real consumer pockets in a well documented real instance of a labelling requirement increasing the cost of food production, and note that this is a relatively simple amount of information to track compared to, say, a frozen pizza with dozens of ingredients.

With regard to comparing the cost of food in New Zealand or Australia and the US, food cost is higher in the US than Canada as well, and that despite Canadian costs having risen since the collapse of the price of oil (because that affects the value of he Canadian currency, which increases the cost of imported foods. Canada must import most fresh fruit and vegetables during winter months).

Neither has GMO labelling at present, but my point is there are many factors that enter into overall food costs. Pretending that a mandatory regulatory obligation costs nothing isn't a reasonable position to hold, I'm afraid. I am willing to go so far as to maintain that should you ask any businessman or corporation, the need to meet regulatory obligations is their biggest annoyance and in every example results in increased cost of doing business.

Adding a unique labelling component must result in an increase in costs that has to be borne by someone. I think I know who that someone usually is.

A genuine increase in the cost of doing business in an assessment of the costs of doing business is not and cannot be, by definition, a "red herring".

As I've posted here before, I don't care whether there is a GMO labelling requirement or not. Although this is framed mainly as an issue facing consumers in, say, Maine, there are plenty of people here in Canada who are chomping at the bit to generate a similar requirement here. But I an not going to stand up and argue that it cannot result in some increase in my food costs. That is an untenable position to hold.

[OzarkTom]

The label is a one-time cost. That has to be paid by someone as well, but it's impact can be amortized over all production, so in the end it's impact is minimal.

With any new labelling requirement, however, somebody has to create and audit a paper trail for all ingredients. Generally when it comes to manufactured food (maybe you buy canned soup, or frozen pizza) the grower creates the documentation (expense to the farmer, GMO or non-GMO), the manufacturer compiles and audits that documentation with every shipment of raw ingredients and with every change in grower, and then provides that information to the consumer via labelling.

This is an ongoing expense. This becomes a bigger issue for small food manufacturers than large ones, but regardless, it costs money that has to be recovered from somewhere.

For a real-world example, we can look at the issue of Country-Of-Origin regulations for meat products, which was for the last few years the law in the US. The cost of tracking and auditing the data required to meet the obligation was so high, all US meat packing plants simply stopped buying any beef or pork that was not born, raised and finished in the USA. During the time the regulations were in place, the cost to the consumer of meat products in the US rose measurably and persistently.

Any Canadian will have multiple US TV stations in their cable, Satellite or DSL TV package. I have television feeds from stations in Boston, New York (Rochester and NYC), Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles. I see the local supermarket ads. Trust me, a steak in my local grocery store is a few dollars a pound cheaper than any of these other cities, and it was not difficult to see the prices rise over the last few years.

We are talking real money out of real consumer pockets in a well documented real instance of a labelling requirement increasing the cost of food production, and note that this is a relatively simple amount of information to track compared to, say, a frozen pizza with dozens of ingredients.

With regard to comparing the cost of food in New Zealand or Australia and the US, food cost is higher in the US than Canada as well, and that despite Canadian costs having risen since the collapse of the price of oil (because that affects the value of he Canadian currency, which increases the cost of imported foods. Canada must import most fresh fruit and vegetables during winter months).

Neither has GMO labelling at present, but my point is there are many factors that enter into overall food costs. Pretending that a mandatory regulatory obligation costs nothing isn't a reasonable position to hold, I'm afraid. I am willing to go so far as to maintain that should you ask any businessman or corporation, the need to meet regulatory obligations is their biggest annoyance and in every example results in increased cost of doing business.

Adding a unique labelling component must result in an increase in costs that has to be borne by someone. I think I know who that someone usually is.

A genuine increase in the cost of doing business in an assessment of the costs of doing business is not and cannot be, by definition, a "red herring".

As I've posted here before, I don't care whether there is a GMO labelling requirement or not. Although this is framed mainly as an issue facing consumers in, say, Maine, there are plenty of people here in Canada who are chomping at the bit to generate a similar requirement here. But I an not going to stand up and argue that it cannot result in some increase in my food costs. That is an untenable position to hold.

Just eat real food, no junk.

[rajacat]

Actually, a new label is probably just a few clicks away and is easily added to the production line. It would be no different than if they were to change the appearance of a current label which is done on many brands regularly . Just like potato chips,  cereal, bread...whatever. What big companies don't like is bad PR. 

IMO Monsanto, et al should just agree to the GMO label because by fighting it they lose because of the negative publicity which will affect their bottom line more than any label. Therefore no impact on prices to the consumer.

[werd]

Actually, a new label is probably just a few clicks away and is easily added to the production line. It would be no different than if they were to change the appearance of a current label which is done on many brands regularly . Just like potato chips,  cereal, bread...whatever. What big companies don't like is bad PR. 

IMO Monsanto, et al should just agree to the GMO label because by fighting it they lose because of the negative publicity which will affect their bottom line more than any label. Therefore no impact on prices to the consumer.

GMOs have opted out and are letting the Organic industry do it for them at the grocery. Which is about the worse decision and real problem for Corp grown food. The entire show is run by the Organic industry. It makes me laugh at Big Corp. haha at Big business. That is how bad they do not want labelling. They will not even compete and then hope something comes out of their anti lobbying campaigns. Total fail! 

[OzarkTom]

Gluten free foods - are they healthy or a fraud?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxV3Fu7kBg4

[Guy 13]

Gluten free foods - are they healthy or a fraud?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxV3Fu7kBg4

Thanks Tom,
that's an interesting link.
It shows (In my opinion) that you cannot trust large food corporation and - or labelling.

Guy 13
 

[werd]

" ... Lakes and rivers are continually hammered by farming chemicals. That is obvious and well known. ..."

Certainly there are issues with runoff. You mention Lake Winnipeg ... Manitoba (and many other states / provinces) have problems with large-scale Hog Farms ... practically the definition of "factory farm" ... and the runoff from these operations is a serious problem. Just an example. But it's not a GMO example.

.

No it is not a GMO issue it is a farming issue. Exacerbated by Corp Farming because they are about huge farming with no land obstacles and as few farming employees as possible. What makes GMOs so attractive to Corp farming is how good they work with herbicides. Which is good but it really has paved the way for huge single crop farms. Farming best done by moving all land obstacles out of the way and running it with a blanket use of herbicides and fertilizers that all end up in our water ways. For food that is either for Sugar, Canola (Ethanol) or Corn. 

It is funny that you should mention the Pig farming. One of my son's classroom friends had a pig Ranch..haha. They had lots of pigs until about one year they had about 5 feet of water come through and killed all their pigs. Of course the water went right on pass the farm and ended up in the South Saskatchewan. Guess who they attributed all the water too? Take a guess? It starts with a big M and they had research farms stripped of natural barriers and lots of spring melt that year in that area. I don't know if their claims where the water came from were true, but I didn't see the point in them lying about it. Now they just farm and gave up on swine.

This is what farmers typically do. They look for the 100 year flood line or close to it. They build their house on that land. They farm everything else. They do this because they know if there's lots of snow it brings spring-melts. Depending on how much water there is it will either move or dry up. Flooding is a serious problem in farming and they don't want their house in it. They also build up the land that they put their house on. Just look as you drive down the highway you can see their property is elevated.

[werd]

The label is a one-time cost. That has to be paid by someone as well, but it's impact can be amortized over all production, so in the end it's impact is minimal.

With any new labelling requirement, however, somebody has to create and audit a paper trail for all ingredients. Generally when it comes to manufactured food (maybe you buy canned soup, or frozen pizza) the grower creates the documentation (expense to the farmer, GMO or non-GMO), the manufacturer compiles and audits that documentation with every shipment of raw ingredients and with every change in grower, and then provides that information to the consumer via labelling.

This is an ongoing expense. This becomes a bigger issue for small food manufacturers than large ones, but regardless, it costs money that has to be recovered from somewhere.

For a real-world example, we can look at the issue of Country-Of-Origin regulations for meat products, which was for the last few years the law in the US. The cost of tracking and auditing the data required to meet the obligation was so high, all US meat packing plants simply stopped buying any beef or pork that was not born, raised and finished in the USA. During the time the regulations were in place, the cost to the consumer of meat products in the US rose measurably and persistently.

Any Canadian will have multiple US TV stations in their cable, Satellite or DSL TV package. I have television feeds from stations in Boston, New York (Rochester and NYC), Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles. I see the local supermarket ads. Trust me, a steak in my local grocery store is a few dollars a pound cheaper than any of these other cities, and it was not difficult to see the prices rise over the last few years.

We are talking real money out of real consumer pockets in a well documented real instance of a labelling requirement increasing the cost of food production, and note that this is a relatively simple amount of information to track compared to, say, a frozen pizza with dozens of ingredients.

With regard to comparing the cost of food in New Zealand or Australia and the US, food cost is higher in the US than Canada as well, and that despite Canadian costs having risen since the collapse of the price of oil (because that affects the value of he Canadian currency, which increases the cost of imported foods. Canada must import most fresh fruit and vegetables during winter months).

Neither has GMO labelling at present, but my point is there are many factors that enter into overall food costs. Pretending that a mandatory regulatory obligation costs nothing isn't a reasonable position to hold, I'm afraid. I am willing to go so far as to maintain that should you ask any businessman or corporation, the need to meet regulatory obligations is their biggest annoyance and in every example results in increased cost of doing business.

Adding a unique labelling component must result in an increase in costs that has to be borne by someone. I think I know who that someone usually is.

A genuine increase in the cost of doing business in an assessment of the costs of doing business is not and cannot be, by definition, a "red herring".

As I've posted here before, I don't care whether there is a GMO labelling requirement or not. Although this is framed mainly as an issue facing consumers in, say, Maine, there are plenty of people here in Canada who are chomping at the bit to generate a similar requirement here. But I an not going to stand up and argue that it cannot result in some increase in my food costs. That is an untenable position to hold.

Where do you get the idea lower oil prices raises the cost of living? Price of lower Oil should drop the cost of living. The cost of transporting stuff around has dropped. (Well its suppose to but there appears to be an inflated price to our oil lately)? That should negate any higher costs that might come in from the Loonie going down. Which demand for the Loonie can be actively controlled by the Bank of Canada with Interest rates on the World Market. I know its a juggling act.

The same kind of economic juggling act can be played by the Food Processing industries and Corporate farms with labeling. The money saved from deregulation and underfunding government agencies in favor of lower Corporate taxes. Can now be spent on educating their buying market on how food is processed. I know it sucks but they can't have it both ways. Which is it? Higher government oversight with higher taxes or the cost of labeling and educating the buying market where and how their food is farmed and made.

Anybody that wants to leave the food supply in the hands of Chemical Giants like DOW or Monsanto or Tyson chicken (who apparently according to JerryM, doesn't know where the fuck they get their chicken from) does not understand the problems we are about to face with food. 

[rajacat]

Huge Wake Up Call for Monsanto in Europe as Glyphosate Approval Hits Serious Roadblocks


http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/3322-2/

Russia has totally banned GMO's. Severely punished if this law is broken.

Processed junk will go higher, real food will probably go lower, law of supply and demand. More people are waking up and planting  their own gardens. Our local farmers are always cheaper than the local stores.

+1

I always try to avoid buying food from the big grocery chains such as Safeway, QFC et al. It would be great to see an even larger resurgence of small local farms. The local farms can be competitive because they don't have to deal with ever higher transportation costs, advertising, packing costs, excessive management compensation, etc.
Also the food is usually organically grown and is fresher. The  farms are owned by small entrepreneurs or they're coops that employ local people. In addition, the profits remain in the neighborhood, so to speak, thereby helping the local economy. 

[Devil Doc]

When I found out that Monsanto made Agent Orange, vaults for my coffin and controls the food supply, I decided I shouldn't believe a word they say.

Doc

[werd]

When I found out that Monsanto made Agent Orange, vaults for my coffin and controls the food supply, I decided I shouldn't believe a word they say.

Doc

Not only that we have hindsight. We know Monsanto will sell (knowingly) carcinogenic chemicals. We know they will try and hide it until their done with it or their inventory is depleted. The way they handled PCBs pretty much sums it up.

We now know Glysophate (through agencies we have to trust) like FDA or EPA isn't causing cancer or toxic if kept under the NOAEL guidelines.

But what bugs me is they started using Glysophate with GMOs back in the 90s. Long before there was any real definitive evidence. They went hardcore too not really knowing the long term effect.

That is a big problem and why Monsanto can not be trusted. Because we know they will lie about it to the bitter end if it's carcinogenic or have some type of negative impact.

[Johnny2Bad]

{snip}
But what bugs me is they started using Glysophate with GMOs back in the 90s.

Glysophate (as Monsanto Roundup) in the 1970's.
Glysophate-resistant food crops in the 1990's.
Monsanto Roundup patent expires 2000.
Dozens of Glysophate manufacturers today, many from China.

I certainly can see the reason people single out Monsanto for the GMO foods issue, but there is a huge number of players in that game (only listing companies and research organizations that have active GMO products for sale in the US):.

Dow
Mycogen/Dow
Bayer/Genective
Bayer Cropscience
Aventis
Calgene
J. R. Simplot
University of Florida
Cornell University
Asgrow
Upjohn
Forage Genetics
Pioneer
Stine Seed
Syngenta
BASF
M. S. Technologies
AgrEvo
Du Pont
K. W. S. SAAT AG
Okanagan *
... and there are more, actually


Any comments about the politicians and lobbies (the "Corn Lobby", which is an alliance of farmers and industry, is a very powerful advocate of GMO foods in the US) who were required to pass legislation enabling GMO foods to enter the marketplace?

In the US there was a successful anti-Stem Cell lobby; why no successful anti-GMO groups? Why was legislation allowing patenting of foods and living organisms passed (without the enabling legislation on patents, there is no GMO foods).

What is the legislative situation, and what was the legislative battle like, in whatever country you live in, if not from the US?

* Okanagan is the developer of the latest approved GMO food in the US; it's a non-browning apple.

[werd]

I meant the RoundUp ready crops with the GMOs in the 90s. It seems likely it was originally meant for Canola  Ethanol and corn for feed. It probably got pass all the original negative attention by not being marketed for human consumption.  Would have to go looking at newspapers. Do not know how you find that out for sure? I have never come across anything around the inception.  It would be interesting to know.