Most likely an artificial dye in the flour mixture. Just doesn't look great, plus, hate to be the cook who flips the buns...how do you distinguish between cooked and burnt :P
I think it's ridiculous. Humans have been practicing genetic modification for years, we just got better at it recently. Do people think any of the corn they eat today is like the corn that existed 500 years ago? Or ANY of their produce really? Humans have been creating hybrid crops for centuries, and selectively breeding plants and animals to better express the traits we like ever since we started doing herding and agriculture. Nothing you eat would be 'all natural' if you want to go by their terminology. Who cares if we change things up by more directly rearranging the genome instead of through selective breeding? If the FDA said they can label it that way as long as it wasn't synthetically produced, then there's zero basis for any lawsuits. If they don't like GMO's, then they should be lobbying the government for labeling law changes, not suing companies who are following the current labeling regulations.
I dunno, to me (and i suspect most people) selective breeding and direct genetic modification are two different things. Sure the end result is the same but the sentiments between the two phrases is where the complaint stems from. More than anything the lawsuit is most likely to highlight the lack of labeling information regarding GMO's than trying for damages.
It's not easy, I can't disagree there. But you can't find people guilty of breaking a law that doesn't exist either. You have to make the law before you're allowed to hold people accountable to it. In this case, they say if it comes from a plant or animal, rather than being synthetic, it's "natural". Therefore the case should be thrown out. And MG, I think it really is just a publicity stunt, which is partly why it annoys me. There's far too many cases of suing for stupid reasons already.
While there are many frivolous lawsuits about, this one i don't think is for a stupid reason. I agree with Lynog, sure it's a stunt but it does thrust a legitimate issue into the public front and creating awareness in a much more effective way than plain lobbying would. As we've seen before law changes for the better are rare events that were not easily accomplished. This might just speed things up.
I think it's frivolous. Sure you want to create publicity, but it doesn't add validity to a case when the accused is following current laws and regulations. I'm sure it will accomplish their goals, but in terms of a legal action, it's invalid. The issue of being for or against GMO's is separate from the issue of being allowed to sue in a case like this in my mind. They should be talking to the FDA about their definitions instead of suing a company that is innocent of this "trickery" they are accused of.
" ‘Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,’ biotech spokesman says
That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.
In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.”
The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones. It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms. It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food."
[b]So, yeah. It's only been 17-18 years now trying to get it labeled.[/b]
I know there's been some efforts here, doesn't change my mind about the legal aspect though.
The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.
This sounds legitimate to me, although it's obviously being presented in a very slanted way. You can't label something hormone free if it is not in fact hormone free. Seems fairly common sense. In fact, it's not like they don't have a point about consumers being easily confused; they're probably saving these people a future lawsuit of their own when some sue-happy person thinks, 'Yay my milk is COMPLETELY hormone free!' Then, gasp! they find out it still has natural cow hormones, which still have some effect on people , and BAM, lawsuit over mislabeling. :P
It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.
Also a valid objection in my mind. GMO's are extensively tested before being approved and allowed to enter the market, and we've been eating them for decades, as well as feeding them to the animals we eat. I'm not really against more specific labeling if that's what people want, but I'm not scared of them the way you guys seem to be. =P I very much sympathize with the idea that consumers might freak out while having no clue about the actuality of the situation.
You're being ridiculous - which hormones that are being used can be labeled. [rBGH] some companies willingly label it rBGH-free. Again, use common sense, don't continue to back your stance even when presented with strong facts discrediting your initial stance
GMOs have positive and negative effects and need to be labeled. According to the World Health Organization http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html - While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.
Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.
Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.
Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.
Feasibility and methods for post-marketing monitoring of GM food products, for the continued surveillance of the safety of GM food products, are under discussion.
this is the main reason why: it allows for more food to be grown. Simple.
Now if we could just stop murdering millions of people with our tax dollars and feed, educate, and create jobs for people the world could afford to have some people not eat GM food.
Do a quick search on hormones in milk, rBGH is not the only one people are concerned about. Cow's milk carries natural hormones from the cow even when they're not being given anything extra. This can cause a lot of concern, because you can check things like estrogen levels in the milk, and it's pretty high, because cow milk has it naturally, but also most producers milk a lot of cows while they are pregnant, and during that time the level of estrogen found in the milk of the pregnant cow increases something like 30x. Ingesting high levels of estrogen can have a big effect, namely a relationship to cancer, but as well, it's linked to early sexual maturation in female children.
Now, imagine that rBGH-free milk being allowed to label itself as hormone free, when in fact, it may contain high levels of estrogen and other hormones. Aren't estrogen levels also a valid concern for people? Again, common sense here, you shouldn't be allowed to label something as hormone free when it's obviously not. But as you pointed out, they can certainly specify that it's free of certain hormones, such as the milk which is labeled as rBGH-free.
And like I tried to say, I'm not against labeling, I'm against frivolous lawsuits in which the defendant has done nothing illegal.
I'd hate to make a simple argument after some thorough (for SK IQ standards) debate, but why in the hell do humans drink cows milk in the first place? Through adulthood? For thousands of years.
I'll tell you why - because our ancestors weren't pussies. Everyone's worried about unnatural things going into our bodies. Bullshit, you sit next to a computer indoors for hours at a time as it spews out pollution (oh yes it does).
Edit: Sometimes I feel like some people should hire actuaries for their own livelihoods.
I like the idea of it, but i question it's practicality outside of being a message/news board and as a trippy digital window to fool people with using various screensavers/videos. I mean it's not something you'll want for general computing use since it lacks the inherent privacy of a regular computer/tablet screen.
I wonder how his possession of them came to the authorities attention, whether he turned them in or he was reported. Other than that good thing Ixta didn't get a hold of them or she'd have kick started her conquering of NZ...
Man, Russia is definitely the place for getting free weapons. you just have guns and tanks and aircraft randomly popping up everywhere out in the countryside.
What I like about that screen is less for general computing use, and more for streaming tv/movies/music and such. Or just as a TV entirely. It'd be great to have something like this, that can be a window when you're not using it, and a tv when you are. I kind of doubt I'd feel like sitting down and writing papers on it, but I could totally see myself putting on in the kitchen and flipping between a movie stream and recipe pages. Keeping a laptop on the counter while making a new dish can be a bit chancy... I almost lost one this Christmas doing that.
Again, my point is that you can label for/against certain hormones. The owners can label if they give additional hormones to cattle. You're making a case against an issue that doesn't exist - consumers do not want to know about naturally-occurring hormones that the products contain [nuts/beans have estrogen, not labeled] as they can look that up.
What the consumer wants is labeling for irregular (levels) of hormones. The lawsuit, AGAIN, is because it's been almost 20 years of trying to force the bought-out FDA to do something about it. For example, America's hat has BANNED rBGH.
The lawsuit will fail. It will be challenged. It will go up the circuit in court and possibly up to the state supreme court and set a precedent. It will then have a standing in law that the FDA must abide by. The longer it is an issue, the more public-awareness will be raised about the issue.
It's not "just a lawsuit". There's a lot more to it.
lews- The majority of the SK population on the forums are stupid and childish. I wouldn't expect a relatively decent discussion with many of them.
You're taking my "case" beyond the context in which I said it. My case, such as it is, is only that I agree with them disallowing the label of something being hormone-free when it is not. Ironically, I think this is similar to the problem you have with companies labeling things as all-natural when they are GMOs.
However, I don't agree with your casual dismissal regarding what the consumer wants or doesn't want. I bet if you took a poll, most people wouldn't realize that cows milk contains any hormones at all, much less understand the risks associated with them. And even if they do know about milk, do they realize that the hormones are carried in the milk fat and cross over to other dairy products as well?
I think it's short sighted to only focus on the things you consider unnatural, while ignoring the fact that the natural chemicals at normal levels can be just as harmful, or even more so in some cases. If you're going to campaign for raising public awareness on one issue, why not give similar weight to others?
The fact is that the information is readily available as far as what hormones are present in beans, nuts, milk, meat, etc. What is NOT readily available is what is added.
A consumer database of those that are naturally occurring would be beneficial for those that don't know how to use google. That I can agree with.
Comments
Very disappointing doesn't begin to describe the handling of this...
I meant to post this when it came out but i forgot. Interesting lawsuit, shame it's not likely to win but it does raise a good point about GMO's.
lol. I bet it's never been brought to their attention.
Oh wait: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/
"
‘Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,’ biotech spokesman says
That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.
In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.”
The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.
It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.
It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food."
[b]So, yeah. It's only been 17-18 years now trying to get it labeled.[/b]
The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.
This sounds legitimate to me, although it's obviously being presented in a very slanted way. You can't label something hormone free if it is not in fact hormone free. Seems fairly common sense. In fact, it's not like they don't have a point about consumers being easily confused; they're probably saving these people a future lawsuit of their own when some sue-happy person thinks, 'Yay my milk is COMPLETELY hormone free!' Then, gasp! they find out it still has natural cow hormones, which still have some effect on people , and BAM, lawsuit over mislabeling. :P
It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.
Also a valid objection in my mind. GMO's are extensively tested before being approved and allowed to enter the market, and we've been eating them for decades, as well as feeding them to the animals we eat. I'm not really against more specific labeling if that's what people want, but I'm not scared of them the way you guys seem to be. =P I very much sympathize with the idea that consumers might freak out while having no clue about the actuality of the situation.
GMOs have positive and negative effects and need to be labeled. According to the World Health Organization http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html - While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.
Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.
Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.
Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.
Feasibility and methods for post-marketing monitoring of GM food products, for the continued surveillance of the safety of GM food products, are under discussion.
----
Willingly not informing consumers about whether or not their food is genetically modified is wrong. Being absurdly worried about using GM food is not necessary for most people - it does [in my opinion] more good than harm having GMOs:
http://books.google.com/books?id=h---EInqYncC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=GMO+allows+for+more+aluminum&source=bl&ots=mZd7YtRnfI&sig=2wcW5Jnp3tnwYERqX2w_VGrszY0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ccwPT7jTEIb3gAeBqvzRAw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
this is the main reason why: it allows for more food to be grown. Simple.
Now if we could just stop murdering millions of people with our tax dollars and feed, educate, and create jobs for people the world could afford to have some people not eat GM food.
Now, imagine that rBGH-free milk being allowed to label itself as hormone free, when in fact, it may contain high levels of estrogen and other hormones. Aren't estrogen levels also a valid concern for people?
Again, common sense here, you shouldn't be allowed to label something as hormone free when it's obviously not. But as you pointed out, they can certainly specify that it's free of certain hormones, such as the milk which is labeled as rBGH-free.
And like I tried to say, I'm not against labeling, I'm against frivolous lawsuits in which the defendant has done nothing illegal.
I'll tell you why - because our ancestors weren't pussies. Everyone's worried about unnatural things going into our bodies. Bullshit, you sit next to a computer indoors for hours at a time as it spews out pollution (oh yes it does).
Edit: Sometimes I feel like some people should hire actuaries for their own livelihoods.
This is cool
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/odd/12594725/russian-villager-mistakenly-buys-kalashnikov-arsenal/
I wonder how his possession of them came to the authorities attention, whether he turned them in or he was reported. Other than that good thing Ixta didn't get a hold of them or she'd have kick started her conquering of NZ...
What I like about that screen is less for general computing use, and more for streaming tv/movies/music and such. Or just as a TV entirely. It'd be great to have something like this, that can be a window when you're not using it, and a tv when you are. I kind of doubt I'd feel like sitting down and writing papers on it, but I could totally see myself putting on in the kitchen and flipping between a movie stream and recipe pages. Keeping a laptop on the counter while making a new dish can be a bit chancy... I almost lost one this Christmas doing that.
What the consumer wants is labeling for irregular (levels) of hormones. The lawsuit, AGAIN, is because it's been almost 20 years of trying to force the bought-out FDA to do something about it. For example, America's hat has BANNED rBGH.
The lawsuit will fail. It will be challenged. It will go up the circuit in court and possibly up to the state supreme court and set a precedent. It will then have a standing in law that the FDA must abide by. The longer it is an issue, the more public-awareness will be raised about the issue.
It's not "just a lawsuit". There's a lot more to it.
lews- The majority of the SK population on the forums are stupid and childish. I wouldn't expect a relatively decent discussion with many of them.
However, I don't agree with your casual dismissal regarding what the consumer wants or doesn't want. I bet if you took a poll, most people wouldn't realize that cows milk contains any hormones at all, much less understand the risks associated with them. And even if they do know about milk, do they realize that the hormones are carried in the milk fat and cross over to other dairy products as well?
I think it's short sighted to only focus on the things you consider unnatural, while ignoring the fact that the natural chemicals at normal levels can be just as harmful, or even more so in some cases. If you're going to campaign for raising public awareness on one issue, why not give similar weight to others?
A consumer database of those that are naturally occurring would be beneficial for those that don't know how to use google. That I can agree with.