PDA

View Full Version : The FDA FORBIDS Labelling Non-GM Salmon etc (Report)




sailingaway
02-06-2013, 11:55 AM
I'm sure that the fact that legal eagles for monsanto now head the FDA and Ag dept have absolutely nothing to do with this.

You are not ALLOWED to know what is in your food, even at the voluntary cost of the packager.


When the FDA approves genetically modified salmon, you would think that it would, at least, be possible to avoid it. Certainly, any producer of non-GM salmon would be sure to label it, since the vast majority of people want to know. However, in the Monsanto-controlled FDA, what the people want has little to do with what they get. The agency will not allow foods to be labeled as non-genetically engineered, and excuses are as absurd as can be imagined.
The FDA’s Claims
Only Following the Law

The FDA claims that there is no material difference between genetically engineered foods and their natural counterparts. Apparently, the inclusion of genes from other species in every single cell in the organism doesn’t amount to a “material difference” in their deliberations.

So, the FDA says that they’re only trying to follow the law that makes misleading labels illegal.
Public’s Dumb As a Rock

Then, there’s the “public is dumb as a rock” pretext. This line of thinking says that the public would be confused by labels on non-genetically engineered foods. According to David Edwards of the Biotechnology Industry Organization:

Extra labeling only confuses the consumer. It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.

This is the most insulting claptrap imaginable—but when you don’t have the truth on your side, any rationale will do.
The Real Reason

The FDA is on the verge of approving genetically engineered salmon. To do so, it must rule that it isn’t materially different from regular salmon. The fact that it grows at an enormously increased rate doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that it has genes from other species doesn’t make any difference to them. The fact that it hasn’t been tested on the public doesn’t matter. The fact that it hasn’t been independently tested doesn’t matter.

To appease their Agribusiness masters, the FDA will approve it. Then, they’ll go after any salmon seller that makes the truthful claim that their fish has not been genetically engineered. So, we will have no way of knowing what we’re eating.

This isn’t new. In 2002, the FDA sent letters to six natural foods manufacturers warning them that they must change labels stating their products were free of genetically modified foods. The companies decided that they couldn’t fight the FDA, so withdrew the labeling. Interestingly, the FDA claimed that they were not “warning letters”, but that they “simply reference how the companies label their products”. Up is down, left is right, and there’s no difference between GM and non-GM foods.

more: http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/02/04/the-fda-forbids-labelling-non-gm-salmon/

and this ethics probe into the FDA on this topic is interesting http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/28/obamas-science-commitment-fda-face-ethics-scrutiny-in-wake-of-gmo-salmon-fiasco/ the author seems to be saying the White House is anti science if it doesn't approve GM modified fish.

ZENemy
02-06-2013, 12:13 PM
Things like this solidifies my belief that votes are NOT counted. Prop 37 went from 90% support to 20% overnight. LOL, big fat joke and we are the punchline.

kcchiefs6465
02-06-2013, 12:16 PM
SMDH. Bureaucracy and government/corporation collusion at it's worst.

Danke
02-06-2013, 02:05 PM
When some of the GMO fish escape, will labels matter anymore?

fisharmor
02-06-2013, 02:13 PM
When some of the GMO fish escape, will labels matter anymore?

No. But it'll likely be years before we'll know who to blame.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110720/NEWS06/107200395/Asian-carp-U-S-much-blame-fish-farms-escape


It's true that a fish farmer was the first to bring three species of Asian carp into the U.S., but from there, the carp ended up in the hands of government agencies that spawned them in research ponds, stocked them in sewage lagoons as an alternative to chemicals
......
Heads of some of the state and federal agencies that raised the carp admit that they were lax in the 1970s and early 1980s
......
Although a now-deceased fish farmer from Lonoke, Ark., Jim Malone, brought in the first documented Asian carp in the early 1970s, he gave the fish largely to various government agencies to experiment with.
Malone's fish went to agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency...
Those fish, which are almost as abundant in the wild as bighead, definitely didn't escape from fish farms

GunnyFreedom
02-06-2013, 02:28 PM
The FDA needs abolished. Decades ago.

ClydeCoulter
02-06-2013, 02:48 PM
No material difference? Then what are they patenting?

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 02:50 PM
When some of the GMO fish escape, will labels matter anymore?

Are you kidding? they'll sue under the patent like Monsanto did the farmer who's non Gmo grain reproduced with the modified stuff and carried traces of patented elements in the next generation (seed corn) They will own all our fish.

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 02:51 PM
No material difference? Then what are they patenting?

EXCELLENT point - you MUST show a difference to get a patent....

kcchiefs6465
02-06-2013, 02:53 PM
When some of the GMO fish escape, will labels matter anymore?
A better question would be, "Will Monsanto 'own' all the salmon?"

Working Poor
02-06-2013, 03:02 PM
$@$%*+-!

FrancisMarion
02-06-2013, 03:16 PM
I've been searching to try and find a primary source for this? Does anybody have one? I'd like to see that this is credible before I go ape shit.

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 03:17 PM
I've been searching to try and find a primary source for this? Does anybody have one? I'd like to see that this is credible before I go ape shit.

good idea. I'll see what I can find.

acptulsa
02-06-2013, 03:21 PM
Legislating ignorance.

What nation is this? I don't recognize it.

Seraphim
02-06-2013, 03:24 PM
I can attest to the power of the Monsanto lobby and US Federal regulators fucking everything up.

There is a fantastic juice/smoothie maker from California - Bolthouse.

I buy their products a lot.

One day I noticed they had labelled "Non-GMO".

Within a month such a label was no where to be seen.

Fuck you Feds/Monsanto. Fuck you hard.

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 03:26 PM
Here are a few things, it sounds like an administrative decision over the holidays and they are nearing a general decision on salmon

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ready-to-eat-the-first-gm-fish-for-the-dinner-table-8430639.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/this-gm-breakthrough-could-be-the-first-of-many-8430642.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/26/news/la-heb-aquabounty-gmo-salmon-fda-20121226

"Obama's Science Commitment, FDA Face Ethics Scrutiny in Wake of GMO Salmon Fiasco" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/28/obamas-science-commitment-fda-face-ethics-scrutiny-in-wake-of-gmo-salmon-fiasco/

but apparently at THAT point at least it was a draft enviromental assessment , so it was the agency opinion but still subject to comment and ultimate decision. I don't know the exact state of it now. I am going to put 'report' in the title, to hedge a bit

mad cow
02-06-2013, 04:06 PM
The FDA needs abolished. Decades ago.

Yep.Laws against fraud already exist and a seller should be able to put as many or as few qualifiers on his product as he wishes,as long as they are truthful.

The label "Fresh,wild-caught,Salmon Filets from the mouth of the Mackenzie River,Non-GMO $X.XX/lb."is,and should be,covered by laws against fraud.So should the label "Fish,a buck apiece".

GunnyFreedom
02-06-2013, 04:15 PM
Yep.Laws against fraud already exist and a seller should be able to put as many or as few qualifiers on his product as he wishes,as long as they are truthful.

The label "Fresh,wild-caught,Salmon Filets from the mouth of the Mackenzie River,Non-GMO $X.XX/lb."is,and should be,covered by laws against fraud.So should the label "Fish,a buck apiece".

yes.

dannno
02-06-2013, 04:48 PM
No material difference? Then what are they patenting?

It's hard to believe these people call themselves scientists... we know enough about science to be able to show and prove that there is a material difference at the DNA level, yet we have these fraud scientists saying exactly the opposite just because they have been paid to hold that "opinion". I can't figure out how there are so many scientists in this country who cling to the establishment when it is so obvious that the biggest scientists within the establishment are complete phonies.

jclay2
02-06-2013, 04:57 PM
If you still think they are not out to kill/depopulate the planet, I really don't know what to say to you...

pcosmar
02-06-2013, 05:30 PM
Shopping list

Salmon

Danke
02-06-2013, 05:33 PM
Shopping list

Salmon

I'm pretty sure Pacific / Alaskan salmon is good to go. I think they even advertise it as being wild caught.

Anti Federalist
02-06-2013, 05:38 PM
A better question would be, "Will Monsanto 'own' all the salmon?"

The short answer?

Yes.

Anti Federalist
02-06-2013, 05:42 PM
Legislating ignorance.

What nation is this? I don't recognize it.

The mask is off...fallen to the ground actually.

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

GunnyFreedom
02-06-2013, 05:52 PM
I'm pretty sure Pacific / Alaskan salmon is good to go. I think they even advertise it as being wild caught.

yeah, 'wild caught' is still good, until the FDA bans that as 'too confusing for the consumer.'

FrancisMarion
02-06-2013, 06:37 PM
My gripe remains in the situation that food producers could not rightfully advertise what they are selling. I'll trust you all that this Monsato conglomerate is bad, but this thread peaked my curiosity and attention due to the former.

I've copied this right from the FDA's website:


Can FDA require additional labeling on the basis of consumer interest alone, in the absence of a material difference between the foods from a GE organism and a non-GE organism?

No. Under current law, FDA does not have the authority to require labeling based on consumer interest alone. For example, in Stauber v. Shalala, the court explained that, absent evidence of a material difference between milk from rBST-treated cows and non-rBST-treated cows, the use of consumer demand as a rationale for mandatory additional labeling would violate the law.[26]

In Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala, a coalition of groups and individuals challenged FDA’s decision not to require additional labeling of foods from GE organisms.[27] The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that FDA’s failure to require additional labeling for foods from the GE plants was arbitrary and capricious.[28] Further, the plaintiffs claimed that the process of genetic modification was a material fact, and FDA should have considered the widespread consumer interest in having foods made from GE organisms labeled.[29]

The court denied the plaintiffs’ claims, deferring to FDA’s determination that, in general, genetic engineering does not materially alter foods.[30] Further, the court held that consumer demand alone was not sufficient to require additional labeling of foods made from GE organisms.[31] The court explained that only when “materiality has been established may the FDA consider consumer opinion to determine whether a label is required to disclose a material fact.” The court held that “[g]iven these facts, the FDA lacks a basis upon which it can legally mandate labeling, regardless of the level of consumer demand.”[32]

Even though FDA may not require it, can a producer or manufacturer put additional information on the label about whether the food is or is not made from a GE organism?

Yes. As with all foods, producers and manufacturers can include additional information on the labeling of their products, so long as the information is truthful and not misleading. A manufacturer or producer should be able to substantiate that its claims are truthful and not misleading.



http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuidanceRegulatoryInformation/Topic-SpecificLabelingInformation/ucm222608.htm

So then according to that, if you sell non-GM salmon you can rightfully say so.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Remember when Kentucky Fried Chicken lost the chicken in their labeling?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEo6ykcGrUaEvIMk7NND05fqh9sS-uCgZBjs0jr39Mweo42BIy

GunnyFreedom
02-06-2013, 06:52 PM
My gripe remains in the situation that food producers could not rightfully advertise what they are selling. I'll trust you all that this Monsato conglomerate is bad, but this thread peaked my curiosity and attention due to the former.

I've copied this right from the FDA's website:



http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuidanceRegulatoryInformation/Topic-SpecificLabelingInformation/ucm222608.htm

So then according to that, if you sell non-GM salmon you can rightfully say so.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Remember when Kentucky Fried Chicken lost the chicken in their labeling?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEo6ykcGrUaEvIMk7NND05fqh9sS-uCgZBjs0jr39Mweo42BIy

This presumes that the oligarchs have some desire to follow their own rules....

gerryb1
02-06-2013, 07:04 PM
This is the organization some "libertarians" want MANDATING labels on our small farmers and markets?

GunnyFreedom
02-06-2013, 07:35 PM
This is the organization some "libertarians" want MANDATING labels on our small farmers and markets?

like who? :confused:

ghengis86
02-06-2013, 07:46 PM
I'm pretty sure Pacific / Alaskan salmon is good to go. I think they even advertise it as being wild caught.

Uh, you mean the Fukushima Fish? Might want to stick with Atlantic

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 07:47 PM
My gripe remains in the situation that food producers could not rightfully advertise what they are selling. I'll trust you all that this Monsato conglomerate is bad, but this thread peaked my curiosity and attention due to the former.

I've copied this right from the FDA's website:



http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuidanceRegulatoryInformation/Topic-SpecificLabelingInformation/ucm222608.htm

So then according to that, if you sell non-GM salmon you can rightfully say so.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Remember when Kentucky Fried Chicken lost the chicken in their labeling?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEo6ykcGrUaEvIMk7NND05fqh9sS-uCgZBjs0jr39Mweo42BIy

Thank you. this indicated a recent change though for a specific case that is assumed will change the rules for all. but I appreciate that. I am not sure how much of this is trying to report an outcome and how much is to prevent one, at this point. If people CAN advertise non GMO than all we have to do is write to distributors and make it clear it is a decision point on purchase so those who don't use GM ingredients can say so.

Carson
02-06-2013, 08:01 PM
When some of the GMO fish escape, will labels matter anymore?


Wouldn't they be released into the wild knowing that after fattening up return to the river they were released in?

sailingaway
02-06-2013, 08:04 PM
Wouldn't they be released into the wild knowing that after fattening up return to the river they were released in?

If so the patented elements WOULD get in other fish and Monsanto has already claimed in court cases that when that sort of thing happens the owner of the patent owns it. It was seed corn in the farmer's case.

Danke
02-06-2013, 08:04 PM
Wouldn't they be released into the wild knowing that after fattening up return to the river they were released in?

I have no idea what Frankenstein fish will do or where they will end up.

Carson
02-06-2013, 10:10 PM
I don't see how this would stand up in any court.

GunnyFreedom
02-06-2013, 11:20 PM
I don't see how this would stand up in any court.

and yet they've been doing it for like 10 years at least.

RickyJ
02-06-2013, 11:22 PM
This is crazy! Forbid truthful advertising? What the heck?

RickyJ
02-06-2013, 11:39 PM
I don't see how this would stand up in any court.

I sure hope it doesn't. If it does then those that do only use non-GM salmon have the right to advertise that fact! Freedom of speech is trying to be denied here.

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2013, 12:16 AM
once again, I am a Cassandra amongst a whole movement of nothing but Cassandras themselves. :p The GMO issue is where voluntaryists, anarchists, and radical libertarians are always screaming bloody murder at me and totally distorting what I say into something awful. Like federal mandates for GMO labeling. Something I have never and would never support ever. And yet, God forbid I mention that the States have a right to require GMO labeling -- and should do so until the FDA is abolished and we have restored a free market -- and from listening to these people you will swear that I am a worse evil than the bastard child of Bush and Obama.

Natural Citizen
02-07-2013, 12:46 AM
yeah, 'wild caught' is still good, until the FDA bans that as 'too confusing for the consumer.'

Yeah. Hm. But isn't it just a hoot that the intelligence of the citizen is never up for discussion. We're always the consumer. Nothing more.

What happens when...as consumers...we and our offspring must comply to paying royalties to these multinational corporations because they own us. You know? You are what you eat, they say. Make no mistake about it. This is a continued attack against humanity itself.

And, as always, the people will love them for it. It's the "free market" and all of that happy...shit.

osan
05-28-2013, 06:40 AM
Apparently, the inclusion of genes from other species in every single cell in the organism doesn’t amount to a “material difference” in their deliberations


So let me get this straight: were I to splice the genes of fugu into salmon or your tomatoes such that the result was full of tetrodotoxin, the consumption of which would kill, that would not amount to a material difference?

Let me get out my broken record: we are being made war upon. No question. No doubt.

Grubb556
05-28-2013, 07:28 AM
I used to think patent stupidity was only with computers (copy and paste being patented), boy was I wrong.