8 beers you should stop drinking immediately

[fuzzy2133]

Not sure I could get past drinkin' someone else's spit?!...

But it gets boiled for 60min and then fermented... Yea I would have to pass on that one too.

 

[C-Rider]

So what's wrong w/any GMO'S????

But since I make my own beer AG My beer is SAFE!

 

[Revvy]

So what's wrong w/any GMO'S????

But since I make my own beer AG My beer is SAFE!

Growing our own grain are we?

Folks worry about that too, even on here evidently. GMO Cargill Malts, Organic, Gmo free. That's actually the main issue in all that hullabaloo, is the grain that made your beer GMO free.

 

[shoreman]

So what's wrong w/any GMO'S????



But since I make my own beer AG My beer is SAFE!

The main problem people have with GMOs is that they haven't been heavily tested. So what's the after effect of crossing a salmon gene with a tomato for instance? What's the long term cause and effect of this transaction - well no one knows.

Most people that are against GMOs including myself just want food/beer labeled so we can avoid it (and possibly avoid growing a fish tail from our neck, who knows?). The food industry behind GMOs are fighting that with a lot of money....why? Well who knows, but I have a hunch why.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[GrogNerd]

have the NON-GMO food labelled as such, if ORGANIC doesn't already cover it

problem solved

 

[shoreman]

have the NON-GMO food labelled as such, if ORGANIC doesn't already cover it

problem solved

Certified Organic is non GMO and has to be by law.

I'm curious why you think it should be the reverse when it comes to labelling?

I just don't understand these companies that think this is the future of food and nothing is wrong with GMOs why they won't boast it loudly to the public.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[GrogNerd]

if there are already labels to tell you the food is NON-GMO, why would you need more labels to tell you it IS GMO?

you have the problem with GMO, YOU PAY for the certification. why should I pay more for my food when I DON'T CARE if it is GMO?

you care, you pay.

 

[fearwig]

Not to take a side on that point, but I'm confused why it would cost a company to label its food as containing GMOs. That would not require certification by an authority since it's an admission...

Resistance to labeling food with GMOs is purely about not wanting to have a label on it that could (rightly or wrongly) drive away consumers, any company that says it's about regulatory costs is playing martyr. It's a marketing concern.

 

[GrogNerd]

yes, I'm sure designing new labels and packaging is FREE

like FREE health care, nobody has to pay for it!

 

[fearwig]

yes, I'm sure designing new labels and packaging is FREE

like FREE health care, nobody has to pay for it!

So you're saying the principal cost of GMO labeling you're talking about is the literal design and printing of the label. The actual, physical label. And that's the red gubmint tape that's would oppress ma and pa GMO farmer. I don't think that adds up.

Not even going to address the last bit, seems like you want to go down the rabbit hole.

 

[shoreman]

if there are already labels to tell you the food is NON-GMO, why would you need more labels to tell you it IS GMO?

you have the problem with GMO, YOU PAY for the certification. why should I pay more for my food when I DON'T CARE if it is GMO?

you care, you pay.

The ingredients labeling is already in place - we passed that for consumers a while back. All they have to add right after the list is "made with GMO ingredients" you don't have to change anything or make them get certified.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[fearwig]

The ingredients labeling is already in place - we passed that for consumers a while back. All they have to add right after the list is "made with GMO ingredients" you don't have to change anything or make them get certified.

Yes, but how will they afford the ink? That's 22 letters! Next you'll be saying we need free highways.

 

[GrogNerd]

the problem is ALREADY solved by food ALREADY BEING LABELLED as NON-GMO. what is the point of labelling everything else?

"gee, it doesn't say NON-GMO, does that mean it's NON-GMO?"

 

[shoreman]

I said this previously in a post here but if people are into GMO food and want to take part in that experiment, I'm all for it. Maybe you love science, I don't really care but if I want the choice not to be part of that, I should have the choice. Buying 100% certified organic should not be the only choice b/c it's very expensive and a small portion of Americas food landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[lotusworker]

The USA is one of the few countries that does not have a ban or labeling of GMOs. I guess we just know better.

 

[fearwig]

the problem is ALREADY solved by food ALREADY BEING LABELLED as NON-GMO. what is the point of labelling everything else?

"gee, it doesn't say NON-GMO, does that mean it's NON-GMO?"

Because if labeling is voluntary there is an ambiguity between non-GMO foods and foods that don't specify (most don't).

 

[shoreman]

the problem is ALREADY solved by food ALREADY BEING LABELLED as NON-GMO. what is the point of labelling everything else?



"gee, it doesn't say NON-GMO, does that mean it's NON-GMO?"

Next time you go to the supermarket count how many of those labels you see. The ones that have it had to form their own organization and band resources to pull it off. It's a minute sampling of the goods in the market with that label.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[GrogNerd]

if it's labelled NON-GMO, presume it's NON-GMO. I would be OK with harsh penalties if companies label their products fraudulently

if it's not labelled anything, presume it's GMO

shop accordingly

 

[bob1852]

Everything I see on the interwebz (so it must be true) says that products labeled "non-GMO" can still be up to ~5% GMO.

Similar to how "Trans-fat free!" doesn't actually mean zero trans-fats, "gluten free" doesn't mean zero gluten, and "no added nitrate/nitrite" sausages just mean they get their nitrate/nitrates from natural souces such as celery juice (aka, it's still full of nitrate/nitrite, it's just a labelling loop hole).

 

[GrogNerd]

Next time you go to the supermarket count how many of those labels you see. The ones that have it had to form their own organization and band resources to pull it off. It's a minute sampling of the goods in the market with that label.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

good for them. bet that sh*t costs more

if you want to pay for it, by all means, it's your right to eat whatever you want

just don't ask me to pay for it if I don't want it. & extend to me the same courtesy of the right to eat what I want

 

[GrogNerd]

Everything I see on the interwebz (so it must be true) says that products labeled "non-GMO" can still be up to ~5% GMO.

Similar to how "Trans-fat free!" doesn't actually mean zero trans-fats, "gluten free" doesn't mean zero gluten, and "no added nitrate/nitrite" sausages just mean they get their nitrate/nitrates from natural souces such as celery juice (aka, it's still full of nitrate/nitrite, it's just a labelling loop hole).

analogy here would be to force companies to label all non-gluten-free, non-sugar-free and non-fat-free foods as containing such

ridiculous

 

[shoreman]

So now I have to rely solely on an unregulated, self appointed group of companies that have come up with this nongmo labeling you are talking about. That's not the obvious answer to this problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[fearwig]

analogy here would be to force companies to label all non-gluten-free, non-sugar-free and non-fat-free foods as containing such

ridiculous

That's called an ingredients list and a nutrition table, so yeah, we have that. Ridiculous or not.

If "corn" is in the ingredients, you don't know jack about that corn. This could be as simple as having an asterisk after ingredients that may contain GMOs. The opposition to it is not about compliance cost, it's about refusal to disclose.

 

[hunter_le five]

*yawn*

 

[bob1852]

That's called an ingredients list and a nutrition table, so yeah, we have that. Ridiculous or not.

Yet, legally a label can say "0g transfat" while the ingredient list says partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil.

See the problem?

 

[boydster]

Yet, legally a label can say "0g transfat" while the ingredient list says partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil.

See the problem?

It needs to specify "per serving" though, which should be an easy tip-off.

And I'm late, so I won't go back over all of the comments, but... Growing fish tails from our neck from eating a genetically modified organism (not you, AZ, I know)?? That is some alarmist BS. The products should absolutely be tested and proven safe before hitting the consumer market, but can we please leave senseless fearmongering out of the conversation?

 

[shoreman]

That wasn't fearmongering and after the statement I said, who knows? I was proving a point about the cause and effect of taking genes from fish and placing them in vegetables-that wasn't to be taken literally, just want to clear that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[fearwig]

Yet, legally a label can say "0g transfat" while the ingredient list says partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil.

See the problem?

I was referring to being able to identify gluten, sugar, and fat, not this. Yes, of course the existing standards have exploitable loopholes (more or less intentionally). This has to do with rounding

 

[krackin]

If GMO doesn't happen in nature how would one explain the evolution of life on Earth? Creationism? Alien planting? A whole lot of mini big bangs?

 

[bob1852]

It needs to specify "per serving" though, which should be an easy tip-off.

But, it can legally up to 0.5g of transfat per serving and be labeled at 0g transfat per serving...