Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you are in California, please vote YES on 37. -Updated [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)113. Scientists from AAAS - Yes: Food Labels Would Let Consumers Make Informed Choices
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods
Yes: Food Labels Would Let Consumers Make Informed Choices - Scientists from AAAS
By Patricia Hunt of Washington State University and 20 other scientists
Environmental Health News 2012
The paternalistic assertion that labeling of genetically modified foods "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers" is an Orwellian argument that violates the right of consumers to make informed decisions. Civilization rests on the confidence that an individual's basic human rights will be respected by the government, including the 'right to know.' The AAAS board failed to note that the FDA's testing program for GM foods is voluntary.
As a group of scientists and physicians that includes many long-standing members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), we challenge the recent AAAS Board of Directors statement opposing efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants. Their position tramples the rights of consumers to make informed choices.
The statement argues: "These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow 'unnatural' and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm."
This narrow focus on GMO safety ignores the broader life-cycle impacts of GMO crops. Many GM crops are engineered to be herbicide-resistant, which has led to the evolution of weeds resistant to widely used herbicides, including RoundUp and its active ingredient glyphosate. This, in turn, has led to increased herbicide use and to searches for alternatives. Thus, herbicide-resistant GMOs are committing us to a chemical treadmill.
<>
Yes: Food Labels Would Let Consumers Make Informed Choices - Scientists from AAAS
By Patricia Hunt of Washington State University and 20 other scientists
Environmental Health News 2012
The paternalistic assertion that labeling of genetically modified foods "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers" is an Orwellian argument that violates the right of consumers to make informed decisions. Civilization rests on the confidence that an individual's basic human rights will be respected by the government, including the 'right to know.' The AAAS board failed to note that the FDA's testing program for GM foods is voluntary.
As a group of scientists and physicians that includes many long-standing members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), we challenge the recent AAAS Board of Directors statement opposing efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants. Their position tramples the rights of consumers to make informed choices.
The statement argues: "These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow 'unnatural' and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm."
This narrow focus on GMO safety ignores the broader life-cycle impacts of GMO crops. Many GM crops are engineered to be herbicide-resistant, which has led to the evolution of weeds resistant to widely used herbicides, including RoundUp and its active ingredient glyphosate. This, in turn, has led to increased herbicide use and to searches for alternatives. Thus, herbicide-resistant GMOs are committing us to a chemical treadmill.
<>
Link from: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26559.cfm
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
170 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Best and saddest expert analysis I have encountered on GMOs ever - discovered yesterday.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#158
I have a scientist acquaintance whom I respect a great deal who advocates voting no for these
Brickbat
Nov 2012
#11
I strongly suspect a lot of people would turn down a product with a label that said:
jeff47
Nov 2012
#14
The public doesn't care about Hydrogen in food, they care about Genetic manipulation of their food
blazeKing
Nov 2012
#22
So your cited article shows that the toxin is lasting in the soil for 180 days vs 24 hrs
Tumbulu
Nov 2012
#129
I saved you the time of reading to the end of the thread so you can read this full article.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#130
Related material here:“No studies to date have experimentally examined the causal relationship btwn"
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#132
Well the British people and people from Europe that I knew asked me how Americans could be misled
Tumbulu
Nov 2012
#106
if by nature, you mean Man...then yes...man has engineered corn for thousands of years...
yawnmaster
Nov 2012
#42
Because the very process of genetic modification itself creates unintended ancillary consequences.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#155
As an aside, for health reasons the future of food is not the biotech pseudo-food variant.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#93
Harvard, man, both of 'em. Do not mock their training, expertise, research, or integrity.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#107
This, too (and upon reflection not my call to say which is worse re:post #75).
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#81
Exactly. The only reason for lying is because they have something to hide. nt
Live and Learn
Nov 2012
#29
I'm not decided. I'm in favor of labeling, but I'm not convinced this prop is well written.
LeftyMom
Nov 2012
#39
Monsanto have been a pestilence world-wide, suing farmers out of existence,
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#54
why not just put the chemical compounds found in the food? well...because labeling can become...
yawnmaster
Nov 2012
#43
The animals in the OP picture were fed IIRC, check the articles, 100% GMOs.
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#70
If you want to be up-to-date, you'll peruse the thread below and find your links debunked.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#154
Scientists from AAAS - Yes: Food Labels Would Let Consumers Make Informed Choices
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#113
Check out this definitive article written twelve years ago. The argument for labeling is compelling.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#117
doing what a majority of Californians want gives liberals a bad name?
DisgustipatedinCA
Nov 2012
#134
They've spent over $7 million dollars to block this measure in just one state, they've purchased an
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#135
Statement on Election Results from the California Right to Know Campaign
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#166
Samples of three fraudulent mailers sent to California voters provided at link below (will not C+P).
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#169