GMO Food

The USDA Is Considering Some Lousy GMO-Labeling Rules

Once again, bad laws beget bad regulations

|

Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/Newscom

This week saw the end of the period set aside for the public to comment on a set of oft-delayed rules which may govern the state of GMO labeling around the country for years to come.

The federal GMO-labeling law that spurred the rulemaking, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, was signed into law by Pres. Obama in 2016. The law is intended to establish mandatory standards for disclosing to consumers the GMO contents of foods.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agency charged with issuing the GMO-labeling regulations, received more than 14,000 comments on the proposed rules from individuals, nonprofits, businesses, and others. The agency will now take time to consider the public comments it collected before it issues any final rules.

The end of the comment period this week comes at an interesting time, as two largely contradictory studies released last month suggest that mandatory GMO labeling may either decrease or harden public opposition to GMOs.

One study, co-authored by a University of Vermont researcher, looked at that state's short-lived GMO-labeling law, an awful law that spurred both litigation and passage of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The study "found that Vermont's GMO labeling law may have…decreased opposition to GMOs." But another study issued last month—this one by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation—concluded something quite different, namely that "consumers are generally inclined to avoid [bioengineered] foods if they are aware of them."

The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard is extraordinarily problematic, as I described in a May column shortly after the USDA announced it was opening the proposed rules to public comment. One of the key problems with the law is that—though it was billed as a compromise that would put an end to years of ongoing GMO-labeling controversies and litigation—the law instead will likely trigger years (if not decades) of controversy, confusion, and needless lawsuits.

One needn't look further than the USDA's proposed mandatory GMO labels, which the agency publicized for the public comment period, to see the law is a harbinger of nothing good. For example, the agency invited comments on its three different proposed labels for "BE" food. What's "BE" mean, you ask? The USDA proposes to use the term "BE"—short for "bioengineered"—to designate foods that are genetically modified or that contain GMO ingredients.

But a quick Google search of "BE food" shows that roughly no one—neither proponents nor opponents—refers to GMOs as "BEs" or similar. The USDA itself appears to have settled only recently on the "BE" acronym. A USDA hyperlink listed in the agency's request for public comment in this very rulemaking (https://www.ams.usda.gov/?rules-regulations/?gmo) now redirects from the "GMO"-suffixed web address for a page that had been labeled "GMO Disclosure & Labeling" to a "BE"-suffixed web address (https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be) that's now labeled "BE Disclosure & Labeling." If the goal of the proposed USDA rules, then, was to confuse the public rather than inform them, then the agency accomplished its mission.

A random sampling of dozens of public comments, which I pored over this week, demonstrates both the myriad problems with the law and the deep gulf between supporters and opponents of GMOs and mandatory GMO-labeling.

Unsurprisingly, some critics pounced on the USDA's proposed use of "BE" on food labels.

"I think it is ridiculous to use 'BE' for the designation because the average consumer will have no idea what that means, rendering the symbol pointless and a huge waste of money," writes one anonymous commenter.

Some commenters also took issue with the graphic content of the USDA's proposed labels, singling out the not-so-subtle smiley faces the agency may use as part of its "BE" label.

Many commenters appear to be deeply skeptical of GMO foods. For example, Holly Wells writes "I do not currently support GMOs due to the lack of information on them and the clear manipulation and vast financial resources that are being sent to keep information on GMOs suppressed from customers, and the public citizenry in general." Commenters also appear largely to favor mandatory labeling of GMO foods. Like Wells, commenter Barbara Cole demanded GMO labeling. "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!" she writes. "I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I AM EATING!!"

Commenter Rick Auman didn't comment on the proposed rules per se but did offer a broad (if unspecified) indictment of the current food system. "I think there is enough pollution, corruption in the world," Auman writes. "It's way past time to clean it up, purify everything, especially our food. If you can't eat healthy, we're all in trouble. It's no fun going through life fighting unhealthy bodily conditions. "

Comments submitted in support of the proposed rules were, frankly, difficult to locate.

"I support the proposed rules as a sensible and largely evidence-based approach to informing consumers without scare-mongering," wrote commenter Barry Bradford. Others offered more qualified support. The American Phytopathological Society, which dubs itself as "the premier scientific society on the biology and management of plant diseases," suggests a few tweaks to the proposed rules in its comments but seems generally supportive of the rules. In its comments to the USDA, the IFIC Foundation highlighted its recent study and suggested additional research may be necessary before the USDA issues any final rules.

The USDA has no unique ability to, as the expression goes, polish a turd. As I wrote in May, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act is a bad law, and the passage of bad laws makes drafting good regulations to implement the law nearly impossible.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

151 responses to “The USDA Is Considering Some Lousy GMO-Labeling Rules

  1. Soylent Green

    Ingredients: Soy, lentils, people, salt, modified food starch…

    1. Green number 3 – –

      1. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site….. http://easyjob.club

      2. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site….. http://easyjob.club

    2. My closest companion’s ex makes Bucks75/hr on the PC. She has been jobless for eight months yet a month ago her wage with huge extra was over Bucks8000 simply chipping away at the workstation for a couple of hours. Read more on this site….. https://howtoearn.club

    3. Remember: Tuesday is Soylent Green Day.

  2. So how does the label get applied?
    BE if you fiddle with the genes in the lab, but not BE if you fiddle with the genes in the field (cross breed)?

    1. A worthwhile distinction. For cross-breeding, all the raw materials have been through the sieve of natural selection, meaning that they, and we, have had eons to adapt to each other.

      Lab engineering, on the other hand, promises combinations of genes and characteristics which have never been tested in nature?meaning that the range of human upsides and natural downsides, both, are far greater. Natural downsides tend to become human downsides in short order.

      More generally, solutions cooked up by natural selection?even natural selection helped along by cross breeding?are not as free to respond to badly motivated decision making as are GM solutions. Mother nature selects characteristics with far less attention to profitability than to survivability and stability. Lab engineers reverse that. Solutions that deliver excellent profitability combined with reduced survivablity and stability suggest hellish consequences down the road?but may prove almost impossible to control by policy.

      However healthy GM food may or may not be, it’s damn dangerous technology in the context of the natural environment upon which human survival depends.

      1. A worthwhile distinction. For cross-breeding, all the raw materials have been through the sieve of natural selection, meaning that they, and we, have had eons to adapt to each other.

        A worthless distinction, because your definition sets a time limit of “eons” on how recent such cross-breeding can be.

        1. How is it worthless to know people have been eating something for hundreds or thousands of years without it causing cancer or outright killing people on the spot?

          Seems to me that the free part of a free market pretty much requires that people be free to make choices along those lines, when it comes to the food they eat.

      2. However healthy GM food may or may not be, it’s damn dangerous technology in the context of the natural environment upon which human survival depends.

        The first part of this sentence is so self-contradictory as to be meaningless, and the second part is more pablum. If GMO food is healthy (spoiler alert: no scientific study has ever found otherwise), then it is isn’t dangerous. And human survival hasn’t depended on nature for survival since the first tool-makers and fire-bringers. (“the context of the natural environment upon which human survival depends” — do you work for the government, or some eco-freak money-grubbing pressure group? It has all the stink of a grant application.)

      3. Stephen thanks for proving people fervently on the left are as anti-science as those fervently on the right.

        who is “mother nature”?

        Humans have been altering crops forever. I can promise you virtually no non-GMO food you are buying and eating is as “mother nature” designed. All the non gmo has also not “been tested” by “mother nature ” as well. “filtered by eons” 200 years or 5,000 years out of billions is not eons.

        Per ton of food produced GM food takes less land out of wild habitat, uses less water, uses less pesticides, uses less hydrocarbons both in fuel an fertilizer, and has in every way less harmful impacts on environment. Do you really think the US prairies look like they do due to GM? China’s rice paddies? Conventionality non scientific farming is what has destroyed the environment

        If you want “hellish” keep up your anti science views

        1. “who is “mother nature”?”

          When this term is used, un-ironically, in an argument, you know you are dealing with a religious claim absent any evidence at all.
          Pure appeal to emotion, as Lathrop makes abundantly clear.

          1. Mother nature is typically considered non-humans.

            1. why? do we believe in the supernatural now and include humanity in it?

              1. It does not have to be supernatural.

                Its a way to classify non-human and human manipulation of plants and animals.

            2. loveconstitution1789|7.7.18 @ 5:12PM|#
              “Mother nature is typically considered non-humans.”
              IOWs, it is a religious concept. Thank you for proving so.

              1. Thank you for proving that you refuse to accept skepticism aginst the dogma that is mother GMO.

                1. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 12:32AM|#
                  “Thank you for proving that you refuse to accept skepticism aginst the dogma that is mother GMO.”

                  Thank you for proving you’re a fucking luddite ignoramus.

                  1. Fantastic argument for a luddite. This article should hit 100 comments soon.

        2. Wild berries?

          Tree nuts?

          Seaweed?

          You are giving humans far too much credit.

          Science in food is outstanding but acting like GMO or any technology is infaliable is actually the opposite of pro-science.

      4. Stephen Lathrop|7.7.18 @ 8:26AM|#
        “A worthwhile distinction.”

        Luddite bullshit.

        1. Luddite calling people names for questing the dogma of GMO.

          1. “Luddite calling people names for questing the dogma of GMO.”
            Ignorant luddite with no concept of the meaning.
            Fuck off.

            1. Aw, poor mother GMO supporter cannot handle criticism of mother GMO dogma.

              Humans will save us from safe and nutritious food based on science that like global warming does not accept questioning settled science.

              1. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 12:34AM|#
                “Aw, poor mother GMO supporter cannot handle criticism of mother GMO dogma.
                Humans will save us from safe and nutritious food based on science that like global warming does not accept questioning settled science.”

                Aw, poor fucking luddite will fail to accept that his/her obsolete methods are obsolete.

                1. My methods work great and support my family.

                  Delicious nonGMO corn….mmmmmm.

      5. Mother nature selects characteristics with far less attention to profitability than to survivability

        But that’s survivability of the organism itself, not of the organisms that eat it.

      6. No it’s not, and you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. GMO foods are safe. Now go talk to the aliens who abducted you last summer.

        1. Mark, when you confine consideration to GMO foods themselves, while ignoring the farming methods they are designed to promote, you make a mistake. You have to consider both together to understand whether GMO is “safe.” There is no safety in eating a nutritious, inexpensive, carcinogen-free meal, if its production lays waste to all the insects in the vicinity of the field it was produced in. A world without insects isn’t just unsafe, it’s unsurvivable.

          There is a particular kind of ignorance about natural process which characterizes folks who have descended now for a few generations from residents of cities and suburbs, where natural process, and the changes that take place, are hard to observe. Lots of that kind of ignorance on display in this thread.

          Assuming, however, that the remark above isn’t to your taste, consider the obvious flaw in your reasoning. When you say, “GMO foods are safe,” that is a completely empty assertion, in the absence of some kind of reasoned support to explain what imparts the safety. Safe in all cases? Safe in the cases so far? Safe even if malign engineers are trying to make them dangerous? Every GM organism is a separate instance of creation. There is no reason to suppose that anything about their style of creation imparts dependable safety in each instance.

    2. Labelling should require a rethink back to the field.

      We created a cronyist distortion when we allowed hybridized patented seeds to settle existing commodity contracts – a long long time ago. By definition, a commodity is fungible not differentiated. A patent is obviously extremely differentiated. A hybrid destroys the feature of commodity contracts that ensured market competitiveness – the ability to buy a contract and freely plant it instead of eat/destroy it.

      The legal system has now – Diamond v Chakrabarty; JEM AgSupply v Pioneer, Diamond v Monsanto – virtually eliminated the ability for farmers to create their own differentiation by destroying the underlying commodity contract. That ain’t gonna change – we are a now a totally corrupted cronyist country.

      Our patent/IP system has now completely trashed the line between invention v discovery.

  3. Why isn’t the science settled here?

    1. Testing on humans is prohibitively expensive and time consuming, so many in the food industry want to stall as long as possible on this issue to allow time to be the primary study on GMO effects on humans.

      No correlated effects, GMO is safe!

      1. “No correlated effects, GMO is safe!”

        More luddite bullshit

        1. Very convincing argument.

          You must convince a lot of people who are skeptical of changing food for the sake of changing food to patent the changes.

          1. loveconstitution1789|7.7.18 @ 1:28PM|#
            “Very convincing argument.”

            More than a luddite deserves. You’re not ‘skeptical’, you’re pitching some edenic religion.

            1. You’re the goofball dipshit who cannot take a skeptical view.

              Food that we consume is safe and has been for the hundreds and thousands of years that the food we eat has been available.

              GMO food has the burden of showing that it causes no harm.

              The other point of why I am against most GMO food is that is locks out traditional food supplies of the market. Seed companies try not to sell seeded food that does not produce seeds. So you cannot regrow next years food from the seeds of your grown food.

              Let the market decide and the market is deciding that GMO sucks and is too expensive.

              1. The market is deciding. And its deciding that gmo is awesome and *cheap*. Which is how its ‘locking’ traditional food out of the market.

                1. Nothing to discuss then. In your world GMO is accepted by the market. There is no dissent and everything is fine…fine….fine.

                  In the real world, I refuse to buy GMO food and I save money doing so.

                  I will continue to sue food companies for fraud for including ingredients that are not listed on the labeling.

                  1. you aren’t saving money by doing so – you are still buying gmo food.

                    1. I dont buy GMO food.

                      I also dont feed my animals GMO food.

                      Keep pushing the narrative, its really working.

                  2. Your fulminations are hardly an invitation to or even a part of a discussion.
                    If you don’t want GMO, don’t buy it.
                    But where’s the constitutional justification for these labeling laws?
                    Where’s the dividing line between GMO, so-called, and all the ways we mess with genomes of food stocks?
                    Don’t forget to factor grafting and natural chimeras into your analysis.

                    1. Your pushing GMO food is not helpful to the argument either.

                      I am discussing my thoughts on the topic.

                      It funny when people mix all other methods of plant and animal manipulation with adding genes to an animal or plant and call it the same thing.

              2. You’re pushing the precautionary principle? Seriously?

                Seedless watermelons.
                Seedless grapes.
                The seeds in apples do not germinate the variety you’re eating.
                Etc.
                As to the absurd claim that the food we consume is safe, hardly.
                From contamination to allergies to fugu to choking to death on a fish bone, the ‘safety’ of food is a rhetorical ploy, not an unalloyed truth.
                Or as Lily Tomlin remarked “I’ve been to every store in town trying to by a can of rat hair and animal impurities, but every single one had tuna fish in it.”

                1. All food companies have a duty to make sure their food is safe for human consumption and does not cause injury.

                  Basic product liability.

                  Your absurd bathering is very convincing though.

                  1. What damages have occurred?
                    Absent damage, what liability?

                    1. Product liability.

                      GMO Food that makes people sick. GMO Food that produces injury rather than safe and proven foods on the market.

                    2. loveconstitution1789|7.7.18 @ 7:39PM
                      “GMO Food that makes people sick. GMO Food that produces injury rather than safe and proven foods on the market.”
                      Luddite bullshit.

                      “Fraudulent labeling.”
                      Luddite bullshit.

                      “Actual damages or even nominal damages.”
                      Luddite bullshit.

                    3. Fraudulent labeling.

                    4. Actual damages or even nominal damages.

                    5. Damage? Giant declines in insect populations, and in natural plant diversity. Those are facts now, and also trends. Continue the trends and you arrive at catastrophe.

                      Maybe you aren’t old enough to remember when driving through agricultural areas entailed periodic (frequent) stops to wipe bugs off your windshield, so you could see enough to resume driving. Almost no bug splats is the rule now, nearly everywhere. That change should scare the crap out of people.

                    6. Enormous environmental damage from glyphosate is beyond question. The World Health Organization has called it a probable human carcinogen.

              3. loveconstitution1789|7.7.18 @ 5:00PM|#
                “You’re the goofball dipshit who cannot take a skeptical view.”

                You are confused far beyond you limited mental abilities; STFU.

                1. You cannot even understand basic scientific concepts that question what morons like you superficially read on the narrative newsletter.

                  1. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 12:36AM|#
                    “You cannot even understand basic scientific concepts that question what morons like you superficially read on the narrative newsletter.”

                    Aw, poor fucking luddite one again proves an inability to understand the concept of evidence. Did you get thrown out of school in the 5th grade, or are you just too stupid to understand the concept?

                    1. Wow. Just when your arguments were really getting dumb you double down on your sock puppets.

    2. Haha. “Settled science”.

    3. Because so many on both sides refuse to accept that the opposition might have a point. In addition, it is difficult to prove something completely safe without a shadow of a doubt. You’d have to perform prohibitively expensive medication trials on a product with famously tiny margins. Then, given the religious devotion that most of the anti group have, you would still not convince them.

      1. Ben of Houston|7.7.18 @ 11:17AM|#
        “Because so many on both sides refuse to accept that the opposition might have a point.”

        Luddites have religion; not an argument.

        1. Luddites refuse to discuss skepticism in how good a new type of food is.

          I think its very telling that people like you, call people ‘luddites’ because they want to know what is in their food.

          Eat whatever crap people tell you to eat shit-for-brains.

          1. You think you know what’s in your food?
            You think we ever have?
            smdh

            1. My family has run farms for generations, so we know whats in most of my daily food.

              You and Aggybaby don’t. You both are repeating the same narrative.

              1. loveconstitution1789|7.7.18 @ 7:03PM|#
                “My family has run farms for generations, so we know whats in most of my daily food.”

                Luddite bullshit.

                1. Sevo, Another luddite argument that convinces the masses.

                  1. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 12:36AM|#
                    “Sevo, Another luddite argument that convinces the masses.”

                    Once again proving to be an ignoramus. Are you proud of being so stupid?

                    1. Did you get my grow some balls joke, dumb dumb?

                      We’re discussing your anti-science position and I tell you to gorw some balls. Hilarious!

  4. I am fine with labeling because fraud is a crime. Saying a product is something that it is not, is fraud.

    I don’t think the government needs a huge bureaucracy to accomplish limited rules for food safety and labeling.

    I would 100% support the food industry being responsible for their own food labeling and food safety, if you could sue the food companies for fraud and foodborne illness and get so much it would cause them to clean up their operations.

    Product liability is a great way to product our food supply. The judgments just have to have the possibility to cause the companies pause if the injury is bad.

    GMO is not the same thing as traditional plant breeding. I don’t see how people who cannot be honest about this can effectively discuss this topic.

    1. “GMO is not the same thing as traditional plant breeding.”
      Correct.
      It is far superior.

      1. No its not. Many GMO plants dont produce food that has seeds that you can use to grow your own crops from that infertile food.

        Its also more expensive. Its why processed food is so expensive compared to fresh food.

        1. now you’re conflating ‘processed’ with gmo?

        2. Seedless watermelons and seedless grapes were created using traditional methods, not in vitro genetic manipulation.
          As to GMO food being more expensive, have you done any research on that? Care to provide a cite or three?

          1. When you shop at a grocery store and price fresh food vs GMO processed food, you can see the price difference.

            1. So no, you don’t have a cite. And “fresh” is not an antonym of GMO, which is not synonymous with “processed.” You don’t even know what foods you eat are GMO or not. You’re like caricature of an idiot who can’t tell his ass from his elbow.

              1. Fresh food being the opposite of processed food.

                Twinkies are not “fresh food” but are processed food.

                Food you have to prepare and cook is different than food that you have to pull the container out of the box and put in the microwave.

                Its funny when people like you never grow anything and then attempt to talk like experts on fresh food. You’re idiots who unfortunately convince other idiots within your circle of dumb-asses.

        3. loveconstitution1789|7.7.18 @ 5:02PM|#
          “No its not.”

          Yes, it is, luddite bullshitter.

          1. Genius. Which part of scientific method allows for never questioning GMO dogma?

    2. We can, and have for generations, induced mutagenesis with natural compounds such as colchicine.
      We then select the desired offspring, if any.
      How is this not GMO? Equally, how is this not traditional plant breeding?

      1. GMO is manipulating the genes of plants and animals to get a desired effect. This is all well and good but its also an experiment. You don’t know that genetic mutation is safe for human consumption until humans ingest the food.

        Just prove GMO food is as safe as traditional food and I am on board.

        I find the utter horror that people want to control their food supplies fascinating. I don’t mean big old government agencies forcing labeling. I mean the market demanding GMO labeling and companies and people freaking out about it. If you’re a Libertarian, you should always be skeptical of people pushing thing on you and this feels like people pushing GMO food on me.

        I want my food labeled whether it has GMO ingredients in it so I can decide to buy it or not.

        1. when plants and animals are mutated, inbred, and then . . . hmm, at what point is any testing done to see if they’re safe.

          well beyond ‘Tony ate one and didn’t die’?

          1. Not every injury is death or no death.

        2. And despite your allegiance to the constitution and your proclamations of being a libertarian, you want the government to mandate this labeling.
          If GMOs are more expensive, as you claim, they won’t do well in the market, labels or not.
          You’re just a closet fascist who is satisfied that your preferences are generally satisfied by the constitution, as you imagine it to be.

          1. If you read all the great posts that I posted, you would see that I want market only labeling.

            We have government labeling, so its need to be accurate.

            The Constitution also does allow for regulation of interstate commerce and food and drink has always been regulated in some manner since the USA was founded.

    3. You know how traditional plant breeding works?

      You take seeds and expose them to powerful mutagenics (radiation or chemical) and damage the DNA in the seeds – randomly. Then you plant those seeds and those which are still viable you observe to see what happened and whether or not a useful mutation was created.

      Then you plant the seeds of that one until you get enough and you cross-breed (ie, *inbreed*) those plants that display the trait you want until you get some that reliably display that trait. Then you sell them for food.

      Testing? No testing. Oh, and they have innumerable secondary mutations from the process that you have no real control over.

      Genetic engineering allows you to target the specific gene you want to change without all the random bullshit that the older process requires. Its *superior* to the existing standard method of genetic engineering we use now. And yes, what we do now and have done for hundreds of years is still genetic engineering, just with crude tools.

      1. Traditional food even plants and animals that have been breed to be better still has nature to decide if the new animal or plant will survive.

        GMO food is an experiment. You are changing genes without knowing what all the consequences are. Until a human ingests it, you don’t 100% know if it safe to ingest. The burden is on GMO producers to show that it is as safe as traditional food.

        Until then, I want my food labeled and dont buy GMO products.

        1. No they do not. They have men in whote coats to decide if they’re *profitable* or not.

          Just like all the ‘natural’ foods you eat – beef? corn? soy? tomato? green beans? chicken? radishes?

          all , in th

          1. all those are, on their modern form, created by *mutation* – from radiation or chemical exposure – and the carefully nurtured and shepherded by humans.

            1. Mutation via breeding is different than manipulating the genes in a lab.

              I grow my own corn, beans, tomatoes, squash, and cucumbers that has been in my family for generations.

              The beef and chicken that I eat are fed with non-GMO feed like grass and non-GMO vegetable scraps. The fish that I eat is harvested from the ocean.

              What else you got?

              1. its not mutation through breeding. its mutation through damage to dna.

                thats how mutatipn happens.

                its the ONLY way it happens

                the difference is can you target specific changes or are you firing a shotgun and hopong something useful comes out of the wreckage.

                traditional breeding is the latter.

                1. oh, and the fiaj and chicken you eat, along with the grass they eat, arw genetically modifed.

                  1. The natural grass that grows naturally in Georgia was genetically modified?

                    The non-GMO vegetable scraps that I feed my chickens do not exist?

                    1. where do you get your non-gmo vegetables from? since all the ones on the market have been gmo fo a century now?

                    2. Clearly you have zero idea what you are talking about.

                      There are non-GMO seeds on the market.

                      You know how to tell non-GMO seeds from GMO seeds? Monsato and companies like it want you to sign a contract when you buy their GMO seeds. If you are not signing a contract then you are likely getting non-GMO seeds.

                      Mine have been passed down through my family for generations and my some of my family have been in the USA since before 1776.

                    3. Monsanto! Oh no an evil korporation!!!

                2. Clearly you don’t even know how some GMO food is being altered at the genetic level.

                  Radiation is not the only method for altering DNA.

                  Adding genes to the plant’s genome is another method.

                  1. interspecies genetic *in the wild* are common and occur even in large multicellular organisms like plants.

                    still nothing new here.

                    1. Non-GMO though.

                      There are non-GMO seeds out there.

                      Some families like mine even defy Monsato and Agammamon and only grow non-GMO crops.

                    2. “Some families like mine even defy Monsato and Agammamon and only grow non-GMO crops.”

                      May you go bankrupt quickly.
                      The world does not need buggy-whip makers, nor idiots who grow obsolete crops.

                    3. I make plenty of money. Its more about good safe food and paying $0 royalties.

                      Unlike moronic bloggers like you, I make money and give people something they want. Win-win-win.

                    4. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 12:55AM|#
                      “I make plenty of money. Its more about good safe food and paying $0 royalties.”
                      Idiots and their money are soon parted.

                      “Unlike moronic bloggers like you, I make money and give people something they want. Win-win-win.”
                      You sucker idiots and are proud of it.
                      Fuck off, imbecile.

                    5. More compelling nonsense form you.

                      Grow some balls and maybe you will finally deviate from your anti-science position.

    4. If it was just about ‘truth in labeling’ you’d cause less disruption by requiring manufacturers to label *no-engineered* foods.

      1. I personally don’t want to require food companies to do anything. Under that non-government alternative, I would the food companies into the ground for fraud and product liability if they included ingredients that are harmful.

        Under the current government rules, food that is altered in the lab needs to be labeled. Call it whatever you want.

        I want to know what I am eating. I want to know which food is traditional unaltered, which food is breed for desired effects, and which food is genetically engineered.

        1. all yer damn food has been altered and you haven’t put up a cogent argument as to why a lab is bad.

          you don’t eben know what an agri-lab looks like. hint: its nearly indistinguishable from a farm.

          1. The lab is not bad.

            Changing safe food to some food that might or might not be safe should not be taken lightly.

            My non-GMO eggs are far superior to chicken eggs using GMO feed. Bigger and tastier and last a lot longer in the refrigerator.

            My non-GMO milk lasts 60 days in the refrigerator.

            1. how do you think the chicken varieties that exist now came to be?

              in a lab. after exposure to mutagens. and inbreeding.

              1. You seem very sure. Since you have such compelling arguments, you are assuredly correct.

                1. you seem very sure that you’re raising Red Junglefowl.

                  1. They are delicious 18th century non-GMO chicken stock.

                    Hmmm.. plump and open range. Huge brown eggs.

            2. Dergader my grand pappy could drive faster than Jeff Gordon durr durr durr my uncle can shoot a watermelon from 6 miles away I swear it durr durr

              1. Great contribution to the discussion.

              2. Who’s Jeff Gordon?

          2. Labs that alter genes of foods look nothing like a farm.

            I have a farm and no lab. I take my dead animals to labs to be evaluated for diseases. I have seen both.

            GMO is not bad. Its the dogma that GMO should be accepted without question that is the problem.

            1. loveconstitution1789|7.7.18 @ 6:06PM|#
              “Labs that alter genes of foods look nothing like a farm.
              I have a farm and no lab. I take my dead animals to labs to be evaluated for diseases. I have seen both.
              GMO is not bad. Its the dogma that GMO should be accepted without question that is the problem.”

              You are a fucking ignoramus.

              1. Another convincing arguent from a luddite who has never grown anything in his life.

                Delicious nonGMO chicken is what I had for dinner.

                I will have delicious nonGMO pork after a hog is butchered on my farm. Mmmmmm….baaacon.

  5. I just skimmed through the article. Label on food will say “BE” instead of “GMO”? Good gravy! Whatever next?! It’s food product labeling nomenclature gone mad!

    *faints*

  6. the law instead will likely trigger years (if not decades) of controversy, confusion, and needless lawsuits.

    “‘Needless’?! Hey, I’ve gotta eat, ‘BE’ or whatever!!”

    /Lawyer

  7. BE better

  8. Does ALL corn come with a GMO warning?

    Because corn, as it was when the pilgrims got here, was rather unpleasant, small ,and decidedly not yellow.

    Mother nature selects characteristics with far less attention to profitability than to survivability and stability.

    1. Corn up until a few decades ago was breed for desirability. They did not change the genes to get desired effects.

      I don’t eat modern corn because it tastes like shit. Thank GMO for that.

      I eat homegrown corn and replant with corn kernals.

      1. which were genetically modified by chemical amd radiation exposure before you were born, inbred, and sold to farmers as more productive crops, outcompeting and driving extinct the version that preceded them.

        1. What part of “In my family for generations” didn’t you read?

          Its why my food tastes better. Its not bred for mass production. Its bred for taste.

          1. and corn was engineered before the US existed. by mutation and inbreeding.

            1. Corn or maize was here in North America for over 4000 years.

              My corn comes from variety that is over 150 years old. Delicious and stays sweet even after being harvested weeks before.

              Its like you have to have everyone comply with growing and eating GMO food or something.

              1. And those varieties don’t scale well.
                I grew up in the seed business. Corn was all hybridized and competed on yield.
                Better yields are a win. (You do know the difference between sweet corn, also highly hybridized, and field corn don’t you? With your generations of family farming.)
                GMO increases yield and decreases use of pesticides, both of which seem to be good things.

                1. Better yields are a win for some markets.

                  I want taste, yield, and safety. I dont get yield like some types of corn but mine tastes better and is free year after year. My only costs is planting and harvesting. I pay $0 in royalties.

                  My ‘field corn’ stays sweet for weeks after harvesting. It stays sweet when frozen and jarred. Thats the normal difference. Typical field corn loses sweetness after harvest. Some hybridized corn repels insects and weeds.

              2. loveconstitution1789|7.7.18 @ 7:28PM|#
                “Corn or maize was here in North America for over 4000 years.”
                Goody.

                “My corn comes from variety that is over 150 years old. Delicious and stays sweet even after being harvested weeks before.”
                Bullshit.

                “Its like you have to have everyone comply with growing and eating GMO food or something.”
                Statement bu easily confused ignoramus.

                1. More convincing arguments from the resident ignoramus.

                  For breakfast, I will be having nonGMO eggs and nonGMO bacon. Throw in some NonGMO spinach and I gots me a nonGMO omlette.

                  1. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 12:42AM|#
                    “More convincing arguments from the resident ignoramus.”
                    More bullshit from the luddite ignoramus.
                    You really don’t understand, do you? There is, in the civilized world, the concept of “evidence”.
                    You have none. You propose your lies and anecdotes as if you hope those who know what “evidence” is will buy your lies and anecdotes.
                    Yes, I’m beating the shit out of you, since shitbags like you need to be beaten into the ground; your lies need to be called on every occasion.
                    Go find a job that helps the world; in your case the best I can think of is cleaning gutters; we do not need your bullshit.

                    1. You would no5 know evidence if you had someone explain it to you.

                      Mmmmmmm. NonGMO yogurt from cows not fed with GMO feed.

                      Sevo, I am eating nonGMO berries in my NonGMO yogurt while I am beatin* your anti-science rants.

                    2. Funny you mentioned gutters.

                      I replaced all my gutters recently too.

  9. BE? Probably because both General Electric and General Motors objected to the GE and GM designations (genetically engineered and genetically modified).

  10. This will be like prop 64. Once everything has that stupid label, it will be ignored.

    1. I would rather the market make companies list ingredients in food but since bitching about this is more important than getting rid of 50%+ of govenrment, I want to know is in my food. I would like to know approximate expiration dates and what the ingr3dients are, so I can make informed choices on what I am eating.

      1. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 12:45AM|#
        I would rather the market make companies list ingredients in food but since bitching about this is more important than getting rid of 50%+ of govenrment, I want to know is in my food. I would like to know approximate expiration dates and what the ingr3dients are, so I can make informed choices on what I am eating.”

        That’s because you are a luddite ignoramus.

        1. You learned how to combine two words. Good for you.

          Maybe some day you will grow something and learn something besides being a propagandist for GMO food.

          Original thought is your friend.

          1. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 1:10AM|#
            “You learned how to combine two words. Good for you.”
            Sorry you haven’t, you pathetic excuse for humanity.
            Fuck off.

            1. Mmmmm…. nonGMO yogurt.

              1. Is that what you call lead based paint?

                1. You loving to eat lead paint explains a lot. A lot.

  11. You put in a full shift, AuthoritarianContard1789.

    1. Got to. So many LINOs, Lefties, anarchists and science haters on here.

      Represent!

      1. I forgot sock puppets too. So many people jumping between socks too.

        Maybe someday Reason will discuss libertarian topics with libertarian positions and provide all the other positions so we can see how ridiculous nonlibertarian positions are.

        1. loveconstitution1789|7.8.18 @ 1:08AM|#
          “I forgot sock puppets too. So many people jumping between socks too.”
          Yeah, it’s a real shame for ignoramuses like you when your stupidity is pointed out by many people.
          Maybe you could learn?
          Naah.
          Luddite religionists never do.

          1. Great argument!

            Too bad you cannot articulate any proscience reasons to stay with Mother GMO.

      2. “Got to. So many LINOs, Lefties, anarchists and science haters on here.”
        Only one so far, LINO, lefty, anarchist and science hater. You’re doing fine.
        Did they laugh at you when they tossed you out of the 5th grade?

        1. That is just what someone who was tossed out of the 4th grade would say.

  12. LC1789 sells a product.

    Non GMO corn.

    It is his market advantage to have required government labeling as “non GMO”.

    Because in a percent of the market as stated above human activity in meddling with DNA is not “natural” and therefore not “healthy”. Then he can sell his corn at a premium price.

    1. GMO does not mean ‘unhealthy’.

      GMO is a very different method of altering our food supply that does not have hundreds and thousands of years of proven safety for humans and nutritional value.

      So, you think an ear of corn should be wrapped in cellophane with a “non-GMO’ sticker on it?

      Good luck with that.

      GMO is new and should be labeled differently than foods without GMO.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.