GM foods and the EU.

[Bereta_Eder]

However GM food implications aren't known yet. In past decades (1930 or so) noone ever suspected the ill effects of smoking for example and every onw was just enjoying it. A lot of time passed before studies showed what it can do and even now, some companies proclaim studies are not conclusive.

What I mean is that keeping the consumer informed (besides that that's the obvious thing to do IMO) might also be a social "safety valve" untill products such as GM foods are judged safe (and which are judged safe and which are not) or unsafe and rejected.

As long as people know they can make those decisions and I think society would be better for it. Some might simply dismiss the GM indication on the ingredients list, others might not and avoid such products due to what they know, think or even due to superstition, it doesn't matter.
Society on the whole would remain free to accomodate, judge and evaluate GM foods where science is still in very uncertain paths.

[Japher]

untill products such as GM foods are judged safe

and how much proof do you need? 100 years of trials?

[Bereta_Eder]

I think that's for each of us and society as a whole to decide.

[Dinner]

My major problem with the "safety" excuss is that it has been so abused in the past. Government's just love to ban foreign agricultural goods based upon nonscientific fears and the ones which do have a valid reason to exist they love to keep these protectionist measures going long after their scientific reason for existence has passed.

Look how France continues to ban British beef years after both the British government and the EU government have certified British beef as being Mad Cow free. In short the safety excuss has been falsely used so often that most sane people no longer believe the politicians when they cry to ban foreign goods for "safety reasons".

[Bereta_Eder]

While I accept that it can be used for commercial purposes (the same of course goes for the other wayaround) I'd like to see society free to decide for itself. Everyone has the freedom of speech. Let them speak and convince.
About the mad cow disease, it was a serious scare. Again it could have been protectionism but even if it was better to be safe than sorry. Imports will eventually continue.

[The Andy-Man]

About the mad cow disease, it was a serious scare. Again it could have been protectionism but even if it was better to be safe than sorry. Imports will eventually continue

Yeah, but several years after it has quite clearly gone is pushing it

[Bereta_Eder]

Well, feeding cows with their own animal meat to maximize profits and plunge a whole continent on a meat scare of unprecedented purpotions was pushing it too

However, I agree. If there is no reason for the imports to be forbidden, then let them go ahead again.

[Dinner]

The second point is how much evidence will ever be enough? Scientists have spent 15 years dutifully compiling reprots show GM foods are not substantially different then nonGM foods and that there are no negitive side effects yet the EU just sits there yelling "MORE, MORE, MORE evidence is needed". When will it ever be enough for these people and don't you find it suspecious that they are the ones who are financially benifiting from the continued restricts?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've looked at this subject in every way I can think of and protectionism is the only anwser which holds water.

Massive voter pressure plays a much bigger role.

The EU had a de facto moratorium on allowing GM seeds, and a de facto import stop due to the labelling requirement that US producers refuse to comply with.

The moratorium has been lifted. The labelling issue will go to the WTO, but I doubt the US will get much mileage on that. Also, even if the WTO rules against the EU, most supermarkt chains will go to voluntary labelling. Much of this is irrational, but the consumer pressure is enormous.

[Bereta_Eder]

As said before, that for society to decide. Smoking was considered a harmless passtime for decades. Also the profit issue goes both ways.

In view of the circumstances I think that the consumer's right to, simply, know is the best course of action.
When society will be convinced, or when GM foods will be thrown to history's dustbin as something harmful, or some of them will be and which, then I still think there should be an inscription on the list
And may whoever wants ignore it and whoever doesn't don't.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Japher
my problem with requiring GM foods to contain such a lable is that there have not been any studies that have shown that it is worse or different than any of the normal products made, while there are studies showing the contrary. If one were to lable the GM food as GM food the uneducated target would assume it is worse or different than the normal product.

Whoa, there partner! The consumer should not be deprived of full information on a product due to potential ignorance. It is up to the producer to educate the consumer. (I.e. Monsanto could advertise "see, almost no flipper babies have ever been born after mom ate frankenpotatos.")

On the other hand, not labeling GM foods is in some ways irrelevant because organic and non-GM producers will label their own foods as 'natural' or 'non-GM'. My bigger worry is nuisance lawsuits brought by the likes of Monsanto against organic producers. We can all at least agree that one is entitled to market their food as GM-free if the food is in fact GM-free right?

This would hurt the manufacturer, who the FDA is suppose to protect, as well as the consumer.

Talk about a conflict of interest! No the FDA is not supposed to protect the manufacturer (although the USDA does have this conflicting dual role ...)

The who reason for GM food is to help feed the growing population, yet if you require this labeling without need than you are denying the public of it's need nutrients...

Labeling won't do this. Who, if they are starving, is going to choose death over golden rice? The big problem is not with starvation but agricultural markets. Europeans won't buy GM foods, so African farmers who depend on European markets won't plant the stuff. But the Europeans are entitled to their values right? Their freedom of choice, right? If they want to buy only non-GM foods they should be allowed to do so right? And if this puts the African farmer in a dilemma, that's the farmer's problem, right?

This is just classical libertarianism, you know.

Yes, it would be nice to know what it is I am eating or buying. Yet I don't know this when I go to a restaurant, not many people even bother to ask. With the ignorant scare for genetics that is going on someone would be dumb to actually advertise this let alone have a restaurant that lists all the ingredients they use in their food for the consumer to decide if they want it.

I don't know where you live, but around here macrobiotic and organic restauraunts are quite vocal about the provenance of their ingredients. One may assume then, that (given the added expense involved with those ingredients) that any restauraunt not touting their ingredients is using just any old ingredients.

I think my "what is this" thread proved that not only the average consumer but us here at poly are rather ignorant to ingredients of consumable products that we use everyday, and electing things as GM is just one more thing to think shouldn't be in our food when it hasn't been proven to hurt. Like glycerin in a lot of things we use; the word people associate with explosives and not a food.

It's one thing to be ignorant because you don't care, and another thing to care and not be able to get the information because Monsanto doesn't want you to have an informed choice because "they know better".

[The Andy-Man]

it should be for society to decide, if it wasn't for the fact the EU had already corrupted them with extremley biased propaganda.

'Geneticly Modified' brings up images of green slimy monsters to most europeans now.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Look how France continues to ban British beef

The ban is still on? Funny, I used to think it was lifted in October 2002.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DanS


The problem with that analogy is that Philip Morris generated data in the 50s showing this causal link. Further, it didn't have to submit this data to the relevant authorities. Lastly, the industry sought to keep any scientific information about this link out of the public eye. Indeed, the tobacco industry did most of its business under cover of attorney-client privilege in order to attempt to shield itself from litigation and regulation.

None of these aspects are what is happening with GM foods.

Once someone argues the specifics of a clever jab instead of the substance of your argument, you know you have won the argument.

Have anything to say about the Monsanto suit, or consumer choice, or maximization of individual values via the marketplace?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Oerdin
When will it ever be enough for these people and don't you find it suspecious that they are the ones who are financially benifiting from the continued restricts?

And you thionk the US pushes GM food because they want to combat hunger in Africa? Look atyour government, Bush received large donations from Monsanto, Ashcroft too, Anne Veneman (Agricultural Secretary) was a manager for Calgene, a subfirm of Monsanto, Rumsfeld was CEO of a pharmaceutical company closely related to the same conglomerate of corporations...