"Okay, so the DNA thing just shows how uninformed/uneducated people are. Sort of like the classic survey to ban "Dihydrogen Monoxide(which is really just water)".
But, 82% of our customers want GMO foods labeled. They will get their wish. The only thing we need to look at is whether agricultural groups should be the ones writing it, or should we just continue to dig in our heels and eventually, let someone else write the legislation that will make it happen.
Measure 92 in Oregon failed by a couple hundred votes. With a margin that thin, they will try again. GMO labeling failed in California as well, but again, by a margin that makes me certain we'll see it on the ballot again. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Monsanto has become public enemy #1. I think Farm Bureau, and all of the rest of the commodity groups are going to start to get a real black eye if we continue to lobby along with Monsanto against labeling. I don't think it is the kind of press agriculture really needs right now.
Now I'm glad 92 failed in Oregon, as it was a very poorly written piece of legislation. But if we don't want to get stuck with something like that, agriculture needs to get out ahead of this issue and get some labeling legislation out there that we can live with. Preferably at the national level so we don't end up with bastard state specific laws.
I would compare this to the rBST labeling. I've asked lots of people about the rBST labeling. Guess what? No one looks at it aside for a small minority that is concerned about it. So, they can buy rBST free milk now if they choose, and the rest of us can buy cheaper milk. The same thing will happen with GMO labeling, IMO. A few years ago it was a big issue, now very few can even remember what is was all about. The quickest way for us to end this debate is to get some small statement to the effect of "This product may contain GMO ingredients, which have been proven safe by the USDA, etc"
This issue is NOT going to go away. We can continue to just deny, deny, deny, and let the Sierra Club types write it for us, or we can be part of the conversation."
I agree. What are your thoughts?
Ed
The discussion should really not be just about labeling, but about the whole infrastructure required, like how do you make sure that the crops got harvested separately without costing an arm and a leg, how do you make sure that non-GMO growers have non-GMO elevators nearby, how do you make sure that the non-GMO seed is at least 99% non-GMO, etc. So yes, the discussion should be in the open and it should not be a fight between proponents and opponents. It's also a great opportunity to educate both sides about science matters, answer each other's concerns, and make your own research instead of using a kit of ready-made answers from Monsanto or from anti-GMO organizations. Direct communication via townhall meetings would probably be more neutral ground and more effective.
ReplyDeleteBut there's so much harm done by Monsanto especially that it's hard to remove the confusion between what genetic engineering is or what potential it has, and what biotech companies make out of it. They really did not help on the debate...
We don't and it's become a big problem! It's hard to find corn that will test even 95% pure!
DeleteI see the problem with GMO labeling as an issue of who will need to meet the regulations and what will the regulations be. So, I would agree with your commentary. The Ag Community needs to take the issue seriously. I would say that the people who want GMO should be able to get it and so we should all get together and write the regulations and come up with a plan that will work. Preferably that people who want GMO will create a market and then the suppliers will insure GMO free product. As someone who sells nonGMO grain I would like to see the GMO people pay for the testing but I don't see how you can have that work.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I've talked to a few anti-GMO people and it is a religion. They don't want anyone to eat anything imagined to contain the nefarious GMO dust which they are sure (insert conspiracy theory here) will kill us all.
I think the Oregon law would have hurt me as I would have had to prove nonGMO and I'm tired of arguing about it. I just tell them if they are worried about genetically modified barley that they should buy from someone else and sometimes i insult them. (In a clever way they don't realize till they are at home) Perhaps this why I have no customers currently. Hmmmm....
I'm currently a Farm Bureau member, and have been for 35+ years. I probably will not renew my membership again though. They don't represent me on GMO labeling nor amnesty for illegal aliens, plus, I now have insurance that's far cheaper than that which the company that they're aligned with offers. I'm of no use to them, either, since I no longer farm, so I can't pretend to representative of farmers. I will say that I believe in EXHAUSTIVE labeling details for two simple reasons. Some people have such horrible allergies that they can literally die in minutes from eating the wrong thing. The other reason is very different, anyone who wants to hide what is in his product already KNOWS that he's doing SOMETHING wrong. Most folks in agriculture will disagree with the last statement, but I believe it's true.
ReplyDeleteWe all know who is behind this cause. The Organic Consumer Assn needs this label to gain market share with fear. That's all they really need. There is no credible proof of these claims they make. These are the same people that used your statement to further their cause in the past.
ReplyDeleteI have seen numerous percentages quoted indicating that is the percentage of consumers who want gmos labeled. What you fail to recognize is those figures come from polls of a limited number of people - usually 1,000 or less - usually by phoning people that meet a certain demographic. They are certainly not representative of the American public.
ReplyDeleteThank you all. This is the most civil discussion we have had in this section of my blog. Every one of you bring up issues I have dealt with and I have sided with people like Gorges, Budde and Chimel. It wasn't easy but after too much reading and talking with scientists and people I trust. that is what I believe.
ReplyDeleteStill, I lost another follower today and I assume it is over the topic and my belief. It is dangerous for me to even mention GMO because it splits my readership, much like it has split the nation. Most of the poeple I know agree on this issue so it is representative of my public. Maybe we are a minority but I bet my life we aren't.
My readership took a big hit on my last few posts on the subject. Some of my best friends quit reading because they didn't think I took a strong enough stand on the issue.
It is not at the top of the problems we face in this country but it is right up there.
Thanks again for your very civil discussion. I appreciate it.
Ed
Ed, I do not understand the hostility that you sometimes provoke. You bring up issues that we need to think about and you bring them up from the perspective of an advocate of Agriculture. I believe the GMO issue might be a bunch of baloney thought up by special interest groups but it is not going away in the near future. On the other hand I do not understand the farmer loyalty to a huge corporation which changes them .25 cents per corn seed. I don't understand why just raising the issue that perhaps farmers should think about being proactive on labeling issues.
DeleteI suspect that the GMO issue won't actually have an effect on farmers who are growing GMO seed. The regulations will make people who are GROWING NONGMO seed prove that their product is free of GMO.
I also suspect that many farmers wear their underwear way too tight and you are better off without them.
I also have to thing about reading an old Farm Journal where farmers were so convinced that DDT was safe that a husband and wife decided to take pills filled with DDT every day. I wonder what happened to them? I suppose their egg shells were soft...
A quarter a seed, you hit the nail on the head. As far as controversy, it's part my curiousity and it's part my poor wording or thinking something out before I head Publish.
DeleteGMO does split my readership and splits the nation. The latest Pugh poll says scientists are 88% behind the GMO concepts but only 37% of the public is.
Did science ram something down our throats again or is it a lack of understanding of basic science?
I am not sure. I do my own testing and bounce the results off a lot of good minds so I am not trying to shoot my mouth off when I take a stand.
Ed
I don't see labeling as a big issue. If it doesn't say organic or GMO free, assume it is GMO.
ReplyDeleteEd, you do nothing out of line, either in choosing your subjects, or in choosing your words. Some folks simply can't disagree without being disagreeable. As for DDT, Budd, I think it would still be a good thing to use if used WITHIN PROPER BOUNDARIES. BUT, there lies the problem, too many folks can't use something without MISusing it.
ReplyDelete