Parmesan cheese you sprinkle on pasta may contain wood pulp

[WelshBloke]

well, imo it isn't parmesan if it isn't parmigiano reggiano, which is the same as Champagne, really.

This. Parmigiano-Reggiano is a specific cheese from a specific geographical area. If it's not made there it's not Parmisan.

Though, there isn't anything particularly special about Champagne compared to "sparkling wine,"

The méthode champenoise is pretty codified, you can't just pump some CO2 into white wine from the Champagne region and call it Champagne.

 

[WelshBloke]

The issue at hand wrt that type of labeling is that GMO is a process. It tells you nothing about the how the food was grown, what properties may have been altered, etc...

So? It's just there to tell you if something is a GMO, it's not there to tell you anything else.

It's akin to labeling the food "picked by a Mexican day laborer on a Tuesday."

No its not.

It's not materially relevant and tells you nothing.

Maybe it's not materially relevant to you but why should you be the one that gets to decide that for everyone?
It tells you if something contains a GMO, how is that telling you nothing?

 

[Newbian]

It tells you if something contains a GMO, how is that telling you nothing?

The problem is what constitutes being labeled as a gmo these days?

A lot of the milk you get in ice cream or cheese contains certain types of milk that could be viewed as it so should they be labeled as it also?

Or anything that uses corn that has been modified.

Not to mention there are varying descriptions of gmo much like we see in organic food these days as some people believe crafting or hybrids like honeycrisp apples are forms of gmo.

 

[MongGrel]

This. Parmigiano-Reggiano is a specific cheese from a specific geographical area. If it's not made there it's not Parmisan.



The méthode champenoise is pretty codified, you can't just pump some CO2 into white wine from the Champagne region and call it Champagne.

I may have linked the wrong cheese up there earlier anyway, but I do not think so.

The wife is the Roma Italian in the family, she acquired it 🙂

 

[WelshBloke]

The problem is what constitutes being labeled as a gmo these days?

That's pretty simple. It's anything that contains a GMO.

Not to mention there are varying descriptions of gmo much like we see in organic food these days as some people believe crafting or hybrids like honeycrisp apples are forms of gmo.

Yeah there's certainly been an attempt at "muddying the waters" by some in the industry.

 

[WelshBloke]

I may have linked the wrong cheese up there earlier anyway, but I do not think so.

The wife is the Roma Italian in the family, she acquired it 🙂

Pecorino is a different thing. It's still bloody fantastic though.

 

[Brainonska511]

So? It's just there to tell you if something is a GMO, it's not there to tell you anything else.



No its not.



Maybe it's not materially relevant to you but why should you be the one that gets to decide that for everyone?
It tells you if something contains a GMO, how is that telling you nothing?

Why inform about "GMO" specifically but not whether something was created with radiation mutagenesis, chemical mutagenesis, or a wide-cross? There is nothing inherently riskier than those methods, yet the latter methods undergo far less testing, simultaneously alter far more genes, and don't carry a stigmatizing label. "GMO" doesn't even tell you what has changed. It doesn't tell you how it was grown. It doesn't even tell you who was responsible for originally making it (whether it was an academic group, small company, or a large corporation). It only either serves as a form of economic protectionism on the country level or as a way for one industry to try and scare low-information consumers to their own products.

 

[Newbian]

That's pretty simple. It's anything that contains a GMO.

Then you do realize about 90% of the things you purchased probably would be classified as it as even stuff like oil in foods contains it these days?

 

[Brainonska511]

Then you do realize about 90% of the things you purchased probably would be classified as it as even stuff like oil in foods contains it these days?

That's an even bigger ridiculous part of labeling laws I forgot to mention. Many of the laws require sugar to be labeled, despite sugar from GMO sugar beets being identical to sugar from non-GMO sugar beets being identical to sugar from non-GMO sugar cane. Same goes for other highly refined products, like oils.

But strangely (not really), when it comes to cheese, these laws are relatively quiet. For example, GE rennet purified from genetically-engineered bacteria doesn't make a cheese GMO.

 

[borosp1]

Jewel-Osco pulls Parmesan cheese found to have high levels of wood pulp:

Jewel-Osco has pulled Essential Everyday Parmesan Cheese from all 185 of its stores amid concerns that the grated cheese contains high levels of cellulose, an anti-clumping agent made from wood.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-parmesean-cheese-jewel-0220-biz-20160219-story.html

 

[MagickMan]

For laughs I looked at the grated Parmesan at my local store (Kroger) and @2/3rds have natural cellulose as a major ingredient. They aren't hiding it, people simply don't read ingredients labels.

 

[OverVolt]

For laughs I looked at the grated Parmesan at my local store (Kroger) and @2/3rds have natural cellulose as a major ingredient. They aren't hiding it, people simply don't read ingredients labels.

Probably because I'm simply never buying it :awe:

 

[WelshBloke]

Why inform about "GMO" specifically but not whether something was created with radiation mutagenesis, chemical mutagenesis, or a wide-cross? There is nothing inherently riskier than those methods, yet the latter methods undergo far less testing, simultaneously alter far more genes, and don't carry a stigmatizing label. "GMO" doesn't even tell you what has changed. It doesn't tell you how it was grown. It doesn't even tell you who was responsible for originally making it (whether it was an academic group, small company, or a large corporation). It only either serves as a form of economic protectionism on the country level or as a way for one industry to try and scare low-information consumers to their own products.

You're assuming that people's reasons for wanting to know if something is a GMO are the same as yours.

Should we scrap all labeling of country of origin because it has nothing to do with nutritional information?

 

[Brainonska511]

You're assuming that people's reasons for wanting to know if something is a GMO are the same as yours.

Should we scrap all labeling of country of origin because it has nothing to do with nutritional information?

Country of origin labeling might actually tell you about something, like maybe knowing a country's record on human rights. What does saying GMO do that's so concerning to you? What specific concerns do you have?

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[WelshBloke]

Country of origin labeling might actually tell you about something, like maybe knowing a country's record on human rights.

So labeling not to do with nutritional information does have a place on food packaging?

What does saying GMO do that's so concerning to you? What specific concerns do you have?

Does it matter? Why shouldn't it be there if people want that information?

 

[Matthiasa]

If people want it there let the markets decided, don't force it then...

 

[WelshBloke]

If people want it there let the markets decided, don't force it then...

Does that go for all food labeling or just the labeling that you decide is unnecessary?

 

[Matthiasa]

A lot of current labeling got pushed through because of demand...

 

[WelshBloke]

A lot of current labeling got pushed through because of demand...

Well there's certainly demand for labelling of GMOs.

And labelling without regulation is useless so...

You agree with me then?

 

[Matthiasa]

If something is going to be labeled it should be labeled truthfully... but that's a whole different issue.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well there's certainly demand for labelling of GMOs.

And labelling without regulation is useless so...

You agree with me then?

In the US, there already is a voluntary labeling system in place. If you're so concerned about GMO labeling, you can buy USDA-Organic or choose products that state GMO-free.

And the demand for GMO labeling may not be as great as you think.

http://humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_pdf/news/gmlabelingperceptions.pdf
(From only 3 years ago)

To better understand public sentiment regarding food labeling in general and GM food labels specifically, the researchers asked about labeling in several ways. Before introducing the idea of GM foods, the survey participants were asked simply “What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already on there?” In response, most said that no additional information was needed on food labels. Only 7% of respondents raised GM food labeling on their own. A similar number (6%) said they wanted more information about where the food product was grown or processed.
....
Finally, when asked directly whether GM foods should be required to be labeled, 73% said yes.

Based on this survey, GMO-labeling is a niche issue. People only wanted it when they are prompted in the question, likely because they care enough about the issue to think of it unprompted or they don't know. And if it was the latter, who would say "no" to more information, even if it was empty information (and on that note, there was a study from the University of Oklahoma that found 80%+ of respondents wanted foods with DNA labeled).

Food labels should be factual and grounded in science. To slap an empty label on a food that says "GMO" while simultaneously avoiding the labeling of methods that alter even more genes and without giving any context screams of empty fear-mongering about a 30 year old technology.

But what I'm trying to get at is what's your particular concern and why you think you have a right to know. And why do those concerns not apply to other tools in the biotech toolbox?