The American Medical Association has come out against labeling GMO food. They state that they don't see any known health reason for such labeling. They quantify this by saying that labeling should be done in conjunction with health education. I am not sure what that means.
http://www.huffingto...=green&ir=Green
I believe genetically engineered food should be labeled. As someone who has food allergies, I would want to know if there might be some sort of issue with a food that I wouldn't normally be aware of. If I have a reaction, I'd like to have enough information to know what food I ate might have caused the reaction.
I don't see a general GMO label as being very useful, though. Knowing something has been genetically modified doesn't provide enough information. But, I feel the consumer has a right to know so that they can make choices.
This has been a long battle in the US to push for labeling. I think the AMA statement could set things back.
Are their other countries that use GMO labels on food?
Do you think food should carry a GMO labeled?
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
0
AMA Stance on GMO Labeling
Started by FamilyTreeClimber, Jun 22 2012 10:14 AM
9 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 22 June 2012 - 01:59 PM
It just shows that all the "bigs" are in bed together-in league together.
Big ag, big oil, big pharmaceuticals, big banks.
Screw the little guy.
You do know their tag line don't you-often used by the gop also?
YOYO
You're on your own.
As Yoder puts it so succinctly-they want to keep us like mushrooms=feeding us sh*t and keeping us in the dark.
Big ag, big oil, big pharmaceuticals, big banks.
Screw the little guy.
You do know their tag line don't you-often used by the gop also?
YOYO
You're on your own.
As Yoder puts it so succinctly-they want to keep us like mushrooms=feeding us sh*t and keeping us in the dark.
#3
Posted 24 June 2012 - 12:22 AM
It's really sad to see the AMA come down on the wrong side of this issue. As far as I'm concerned, companies know that the general public doesn't want to consume GMO is at all possible. Otherwise, they would have no problem labeling the food. A label would be a big fat sign on the food and consumers wouldn't want to eat it.
#4
Posted 24 June 2012 - 07:41 AM
Honestly I feel that this is a very hypocritical stance by the AMA, in a profession which champions the fact that all member are to uphold the Hippocratic oath “to do no harm” it is important to understand that food is the most important part of a healthy lifestyle- does anyone else remember the slogan “you are what you eat”.
That said, I think it reiterates a point made recently by an NPR news story which showed that most doctors do not receive extensive training on nutrition as part of their education process and therefore refer their patient to nutritionist regarding health eating habits and regiments.
Just goes to show how much can be missed by professional organizations like the AMA. Case and point might be a little history which showed that until five years before the Surgeon General’s warning regarding smoking became widespread in 1972, the AMA had said that smoking demonstrated no adverse health effects.
Labeling is required for so many facets of our food, consumers need to know what they are buying for their families, and labeling GMO’s is just as needed as calorie counts or other ingredients. I think ShortPoet is right, follow the money of which big companies are contributing funding to the AMA and you will find out why they don’t want labeling of GMO’s.
That said, I think it reiterates a point made recently by an NPR news story which showed that most doctors do not receive extensive training on nutrition as part of their education process and therefore refer their patient to nutritionist regarding health eating habits and regiments.
Just goes to show how much can be missed by professional organizations like the AMA. Case and point might be a little history which showed that until five years before the Surgeon General’s warning regarding smoking became widespread in 1972, the AMA had said that smoking demonstrated no adverse health effects.
Labeling is required for so many facets of our food, consumers need to know what they are buying for their families, and labeling GMO’s is just as needed as calorie counts or other ingredients. I think ShortPoet is right, follow the money of which big companies are contributing funding to the AMA and you will find out why they don’t want labeling of GMO’s.
#6
Posted 24 June 2012 - 11:57 AM
I think Hardison is right, too. If they label genetically altered food, people are not going to want to purchase it. I know I would not knowingly purchase and consume these foods. I am glad that we already try to grow some of our own vegetables and purchase from local farmers and ranchers that are organic.
#7
Posted 24 June 2012 - 12:36 PM
What I found particularly disarming is the idea that there's nothing wrong because no one has found anything wrong. How much research has really been done on the health effects of genetically modified foods? It isn't that old of an industry. So, the possible effects may not be known until a full generation is raised on these foods. I bet there really hasn't been much effort to study them.
I think labeling will have two results. Those, like us, who are skeptical of the claims will steer clear. Others who feel that if they sell it must be safe, will buy it regardless of what label they put on it.
I think labeling will have two results. Those, like us, who are skeptical of the claims will steer clear. Others who feel that if they sell it must be safe, will buy it regardless of what label they put on it.
#8
Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:41 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 24 June 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:
What I found particularly disarming is the idea that there's nothing wrong because no one has found anything wrong. How much research has really been done on the health effects of genetically modified foods? It isn't that old of an industry. So, the possible effects may not be known until a full generation is raised on these foods. I bet there really hasn't been much effort to study them.
I think labeling will have two results. Those, like us, who are skeptical of the claims will steer clear. Others who feel that if they sell it must be safe, will buy it regardless of what label they put on it.
I think labeling will have two results. Those, like us, who are skeptical of the claims will steer clear. Others who feel that if they sell it must be safe, will buy it regardless of what label they put on it.
You're right. It's a new industry and few little research has been done. I studied this technology when I was in college. The hope was that we would be able to produce food that could grow in arid climates. Instead, it's being used to increase profits at the expense of public health. It's really disgusting.
#10
Posted 06 July 2012 - 03:02 AM
This is no surprise, but the "Just Label it" campaign may be an exercise in futility.
The "evil empire of monsanto" (as we like to call it) has spent $1.4 million on lobbying efforts so far in 2012.
They spent $6.3 in 2011.
Article via Treehugger
Here
GMO infographic
The "evil empire of monsanto" (as we like to call it) has spent $1.4 million on lobbying efforts so far in 2012.
They spent $6.3 in 2011.
Article via Treehugger
Here
GMO infographic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users