FDA responds to citizen petition for GMO labeling

[zoobernut]

Bacteria are organisms too.

End digestion now! Do you realize how many bacteria you unknowingly end and digest every single day? I think the most humane thing to do is everyone who doesn't want to harm other creatures should discorporate immediately. It is the only way to save all of Earths precious creatures.

God I hope so.

It is similar to the vegans who wear leather. Those people crack me up.

[dasva]

To be fair, aging nuclear plants that aren't getting the repairs and upgrades we deem necessary for safety only ever grow as a threat. There does come a point where a plant is in sufficient state of disrepair that it makes more sense to shut it down instead of risking a meltdown. Shutdowns can be planned for and accommodated.

This is somewhat true in theory but not as much in practice. More and more often it's about politics and minor problems that are far from meltdown mixed in with some economics and many are shutdown decently ahead of schedule and long before expected to with nowhere near the planning you'd hope

Look at VY... yes there have been some minor leaks years ago here and there but dealt with and just 3-4 years ago they got a renewed 20 year license from the NRC and flew out around 30 people looking to hire 12 for auxiliary operator positions. Clearly intended to continue to operate for awhile. But only 1-2 years after that they announced shutting down. They cited economic reasons due to cheap gas prices which I'm sure was a part of it... but I'm also sure part of that might have had to do with the 7 year long legal battle with the state of Vermont which basically claimed it was another Fukushima waiting to happen (despite the NRC saying otherwise) and they had to deal with people protesting at the plant and thru the town etc. Last I heard the State was suing Entergy to make them eat the entire cost of shutdown and there wasn't really much of a plan on where to get all the electricity to replace all that

Was reading a few years back about some plant people were trying to get shutdown because of a secondary leak that would somehow end all life in Canada

[dasva]

It is similar to the vegans who wear leather. Those people crack me up.

It's ok as long as you don't eat it. I mean who sinks their teeth into a dead animal? Cavemen that's who!

[BaneTheBrawler]

End digestion now! Do you realize how many bacteria you unknowingly end and digest every single day? I think the most humane thing to do is everyone who doesn't want to harm other creatures should discorporate immediately. It is the only way to save all of Earths precious creatures.



It is similar to the vegans who wear leather. Those people crack me up.

You have something like a few billion organisms living in your guts and on your skin. Would you doom them to the abyss as well?

[kuronosan]

You have something like a few billion organisms living in your guts and on your skin. Would you doom them to the abyss as well?

We're both being sarcastic, and that number is far greater than a billion.

Something like 60% of your intestinal volume is microbes.

[Salodin]

Something like 30% of your body weight is microbes living in or on you. Won't some one think of the bacteria!

[BaneTheBrawler]

yeah i started with trillion but didnt have any evidence on-hand to make a gutsy claim like that

[Pirian]

Something like 30% of your body weight is microbes living in or on you. Won't some one think of the bacteria!

The last quote I heard was that it was about the weight of your brain and a quick google says 1-3% of your body weight, so that's a pretty good scale. Significant, sure, but not 30% lol

[BerenTebogo]

So a question for the legal-minded around here.



Why is this not an illegal lawsuit? It goes for all products which have the symbol (many). To me, this should be a clear case of false advertising.

I'm assuming there is some loophole as people get away with it. I'm curious exactly what it is.

[Salodin]

I'm assuming there's some loophole that labels "chemical" as organic molecules synthetically created. That's the only way they could get away with that afaik.

[Prim]

There's only a handful of advertising terms that the FDA and USDA regulates, and "Chemical Free" isn't one of them. It's like saying something is hypoallergenic- anyone can use the term to mean basically whatever they want.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm pretty sure you can't advertise your bread as "arsenic free", because of the implication that others are not.

I don't know why that wouldn't apply here.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Wouldn't that be illegal due more to "inciting panic" type laws than anything else? like you're not allowed to market beef as "Mad-Cow-Free" and shit because it would incite a panic


or at least i think youre not

[Prim]

Actually minor correction- the USDA does regulate that term, FDA doesn't. Can't put it on stuff like beef and poultry.
The FDA does regulate "chemical preservatives" though, which is what "chemical free" is arguably saying it's free from-

21 CFR §101.22 (5) The term chemical preservative means any chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration thereof, but does not include common salt, sugars, vinegars, spices, or oils extracted from spices, substances added to food by direct exposure thereof to wood smoke, or chemicals applied for their insecticidal or herbicidal properties.

Edit: Actually, the FTC just recently updated their Green Guide, adding (among other things), rules for deceptive "Free of..." claims. So "Chemical Free" might indeed be illegal now.

16 CFR §260.9 Free-of Claims
(a) It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package, or service is free of, or does not contain or use, a substance. Such claims should be clearly and prominently qualified to the extent necessary to avoid deception.
(b) A truthful claim that a product, package, or service is free of, or does not contain or use, a substance may nevertheless be deceptive if: (1) the product, package, or service contains or uses substances that pose the same or similar environmental risks as the substance that is not present; or (2) the substance has not been associated with the product category.
(c) Depending on the context, a free-of or does-not-contain claim is appropriate even for a product, package, or service that contains or uses a trace amount of a substance if: (1) the level of the specified substance is no more than that which would be found as an acknowledged trace contaminant or background level;4 (2) the substance’s presence does not cause material harm that consumers typically associate with that substance; and (3) the substance has not been added intentionally to the product.

[Pharaun]

I loved how there was a whole section explaining why the the surveys they used to show consumer interest in labeling were complete shit.

[BerenTebogo]

http://www.sciencealert.com/monsanto...e-and-humanity

L O L

Note that, despite the wording and all the posts on social media to the contrary, this isn't actually a "trial". The "tribunal" holds no legal authority whatsoever.

Summary from FB comment because I can't be assed to write one right now. The world has gone fucking mad.

I know a lot of people are getting excited about this so I hope to put it in perspective. Unfortunately the press releases for this crowd-funded trial attempt to portray it as an official legal proceeding but also unfortunately the International people's tribunal in the Hague isn't an official court and thus has no enforcement authority at all. This "trial" is for raising awareness and Monsanto will likely not even bother defending itself.
Just saying...good to spread awareness, maybe not so good to think this is a big deal with the power to enforce it's decisions from a court without even impartial judges.