Does this really matter?

[jseth]

Matters to me...

Adios, Starbucks...

...sigh... guess I'll return the remainder of that French Roast I bought at Costco...

[rhancox]

Originally Posted by KYDeadhead

The price will be higher, but it's primarily due to increased input costs, not necessarily lower yields per acre.

And we're not just talking about produce. GMO's can show up in packaged food as well.

We don't get labeling on produce. You look at an apple, you know it's an apple. Of course, what you don't know is what went in to producing that apple. Fertilizers, pesticides, post-production additives, etc.

For packaged food, we have labeling, but who knows what half of the stuff really is? Some of the ingredients could be GMO's, others are additives for one reason or another.

I don't see what's wrong with knowing more about what we consume.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

As evidenced by the prototypical and obvious partisan ad hominem attacks returned. Wouldn't it have been better to let him state his opinion and move on w/o challenging it.
Speaking of which, I will now follow my own advice.

\
Wrong read the replies. They question the validity of the tactic not the integrity of the person ...

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by DesolationAngel

Or not... Snopes

Interesting while they label the poster as false yet they actually go on to affirm that the ingredients listed on the poster are indeed actually in the drink. But simply show FDA notations about the coloring and preservatives not being a problem. Which is highly debatable

Originally Posted by KevWind

Interesting while they label the poster as false yet they actually go on to affirm that the ingredients listed on the poster are indeed actually in the drink. But simply show FDA notations about the coloring and preservatives not being a problem. Which is highly debatable

There were two parts to the claim: 1. the ingredients contain toxins 2. Starbucks is hiding the ingredient list.

Here are the ingredients readily viewable on the Starbuck's website:

SUGAR, CONDENSED NONFAT MILK, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, ANNATO (FOR COLOR), NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, CARAMEL COLOR, SALT, POTASSIUM SORBATE (PRESERVATIVE).

Obviously there are healthier choices in a drink, but the graphic you posted earlier smacks of drama, fear-mongering, and an agenda against the company (I'm not saying you were intending that, but whoever came up with that graphic).

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Yet here you are posting about it, starting a discussion which would never have happened without Mr. Young having brought it to your attention.

Why can't people address the issue instead of the messenger? Too wrapped up in politics to wonder if your health might be getting compromised?

I am posting because Mr. Young represents an all to common type of hype that stirs people up who do not have enough information or who do not take the time to see if an old picker is a good source of information. He singled out Starbucks. Grocery Manufacturers Association, of which Starbucks is a member, is who brought the lawsuit. Here is the membership:
Members[edit]
Jeffrey Ansell, Chairman, President and CEO of Sun Products[6]
J.P. Bilbrey, President and CEO of The Hershey Company[6]
J.S. Brown III, President and CEO of Bruce Foods[6]
John Bryant, President and CEO of Kellogg Company[6]
Mark Clouse, President for North America of Mondelēz International[6]
Sean Connolly, CEO of Hillshire Brands[6]
Brian C. Cornell, CEO of Pepsico Americas Foods[6]
James R. Craigie, Chairman and CEO of Church & Dwight[6]
George E. Deese, Chairman and CEO of Flowers Foods[6]
J. Alexander M. Douglas Jr., President for North America of The Coca-Cola Company[6][7]
Brian J. Driscoll, CEO of Diamond Foods, Inc[6]
Stanley K. Dunbar, President and CEO of Moody Dunbar[6]
Gregg L. Engles, Chairman and CEO of Dean Foods[6]
Jeffrey M. Ettinger, Chairman, President and CEO of Hormel[6]
Tom Ferriter, President and CEO of Bush Brothers and Company[6]
Joseph E. Gallo, President and CEO of E & J Gallo Winery[6]
Robert J. Gamgort, CEO of Pinnacle Foods[6]
David N. Geise, Chairman and CEO of Furmano Foods[6]
William G. Gisel Jr., President and CEO of Rich Products[6]
Paul Grimwood, Chairman and CEO of Nestlé USA, Inc[6]
Kenneth E. Guise Jr., President and CEO of Knouse Foods[6]
James B. Hannan, CEO and President of Georgia-Pacific[6]
Melanie L. Healey, Group President for North America of Procter & Gamble Company[6]
Kevin J. Hunt, President and CEO of Ralston Foods[6]
Bradley C. Irwin, President and CEO of Welch's[6]
William R. Johnson, Chairman, President and CEO of the H.J. Heinz Company[6]
Donald R. Knauss, Chairman and CEO of Clorox[6]
Kees Kruythoff, President for North America for Unilever[6]
Christopher D. Lischewski, President and CEO of Bumble Bee Foods[6]
Reid V. MacDonald, President and CEO of Faribault Foods[6]
Apu Mody, President for North America of Mars, Incorporated[6]
John S. Morgan, Chairman and CEO of Morgan Foods[6]
Denise M. Morrison, President and CEO of Campbell Soup Company[6]
Gregory R. Page, Chairman and CEO of Cargill[6]
Randy C. Papadellis, President and CEO of Ocean Spray[6]
Clement Pappas, CEO of Clement Pappas[6]
Christopher J. Policinski, President and CEO of Land O'Lakes[6]
C. Larry Pope, President and CEO of Smithfield Foods[6]
Gary J. Prince, President of Bimbo Bakeries USA[6]
Richard K. Smucker, CEO of The J.M. Smucker Co.[6]
Thomas Stokes, President and CEO of Tree Top, Inc.[6]
W. Anthony Vernon, President for North America of Kraft Foods[6]
David J. West, President and CEO of Del Monte Foods[6]
Alan D. Wilson, Chairman, President and CEO of McCormick & Company[6]
David J. Yanda, President and CEO of Lakeside Foods[6]

I am not saying GMO's are good or bad. What they do offer is disease and drought resistance. They also require less pesticides and herbicides. They have been in use for 20 years.

What you have to ask yourself is, do you know enough about the use of GMO's to say they cause a health risk?

Will you be able to afford food if farmers are no longer able to use GMO's?

Now, is Neil Young really who you what as an information source? Does he provide a level of balance and knowledge that makes him able to educate others about GMO's. If he is successful, will that result in something positive?

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

I am posting because Mr. Young represents an all to common type of hype that stirs people up who do not have enough information or who do not take the time to see if an old picker is a good source of information. He singled out Starbucks. Grocery Manufacturers Association, of which Starbucks is a member, is who brought the lawsuit. Here is the membership:
Members[edit]
Jeffrey Ansell, Chairman, President and CEO of Sun Products[6]
J.P. Bilbrey, President and CEO of The Hershey Company[6]
J.S. Brown III, President and CEO of Bruce Foods[6]
John Bryant, President and CEO of Kellogg Company[6]
Mark Clouse, President for North America of Mondelēz International[6]
Sean Connolly, CEO of Hillshire Brands[6]
Brian C. Cornell, CEO of Pepsico Americas Foods[6]
James R. Craigie, Chairman and CEO of Church & Dwight[6]
George E. Deese, Chairman and CEO of Flowers Foods[6]
J. Alexander M. Douglas Jr., President for North America of The Coca-Cola Company[6][7]
Brian J. Driscoll, CEO of Diamond Foods, Inc[6]
Stanley K. Dunbar, President and CEO of Moody Dunbar[6]
Gregg L. Engles, Chairman and CEO of Dean Foods[6]
Jeffrey M. Ettinger, Chairman, President and CEO of Hormel[6]
Tom Ferriter, President and CEO of Bush Brothers and Company[6]
Joseph E. Gallo, President and CEO of E & J Gallo Winery[6]
Robert J. Gamgort, CEO of Pinnacle Foods[6]
David N. Geise, Chairman and CEO of Furmano Foods[6]
William G. Gisel Jr., President and CEO of Rich Products[6]
Paul Grimwood, Chairman and CEO of Nestlé USA, Inc[6]
Kenneth E. Guise Jr., President and CEO of Knouse Foods[6]
James B. Hannan, CEO and President of Georgia-Pacific[6]
Melanie L. Healey, Group President for North America of Procter & Gamble Company[6]
Kevin J. Hunt, President and CEO of Ralston Foods[6]
Bradley C. Irwin, President and CEO of Welch's[6]
William R. Johnson, Chairman, President and CEO of the H.J. Heinz Company[6]
Donald R. Knauss, Chairman and CEO of Clorox[6]
Kees Kruythoff, President for North America for Unilever[6]
Christopher D. Lischewski, President and CEO of Bumble Bee Foods[6]
Reid V. MacDonald, President and CEO of Faribault Foods[6]
Apu Mody, President for North America of Mars, Incorporated[6]
John S. Morgan, Chairman and CEO of Morgan Foods[6]
Denise M. Morrison, President and CEO of Campbell Soup Company[6]
Gregory R. Page, Chairman and CEO of Cargill[6]
Randy C. Papadellis, President and CEO of Ocean Spray[6]
Clement Pappas, CEO of Clement Pappas[6]
Christopher J. Policinski, President and CEO of Land O'Lakes[6]
C. Larry Pope, President and CEO of Smithfield Foods[6]
Gary J. Prince, President of Bimbo Bakeries USA[6]
Richard K. Smucker, CEO of The J.M. Smucker Co.[6]
Thomas Stokes, President and CEO of Tree Top, Inc.[6]
W. Anthony Vernon, President for North America of Kraft Foods[6]
David J. West, President and CEO of Del Monte Foods[6]
Alan D. Wilson, Chairman, President and CEO of McCormick & Company[6]
David J. Yanda, President and CEO of Lakeside Foods[6]

I am not saying GMO's are good or bad. What they do offer is disease and drought resistance. They also require less pesticides and herbicides. They have been in use for 20 years.

What you have to ask yourself is, do you know enough about the use of GMO's to say they cause a health risk?

Will you be able to afford food if farmers are no longer able to use GMO's?

Now, is Neil Young really who you what as an information source? Does he provide a level of balance and knowledge that makes him able to educate others about GMO's. If he is successful, will that result in something positive?

That's a LOT of food/companies people are going to have to boycott to be consistent

[Dirk Hofman]

So I think it's good that you're discussing the content of the issue, and I'm really glad someone is pointing out that he's wrong in this case. I read the article when you posted it, and thought it was clear that Starbucks isn't involved.

If someone had said that Neil Young is out to lunch on this issue, I would have no problem at all. Looks to me like he's out to lunch on this one. But what followed was:

This is the same Neil Young who flies around in private jets lecturing the unwashed masses about the environment, and who said that fighting ISIS is not worth the carbon footprint.

I like some of his songs, but I will never take seriously anything this clueless old fool says.

ISIS. Seriously. In a post about GMO foods. Totally and completely political. That and calling him a fool.

I never took him seriously when he was a clueless young fool...

I don't give a crap what Neil Young has to say about anything.

...his life style choices do not make him a good spokesperson

Neil's never taken the effort to become a US citizen and yet he wants to be a key activist here in the states.

What I said after all that was, "Why can't people (meaning all who attacked him personally) address the issue instead of the messenger?

I simply react to the level of discourse. It happens all the time on here that people don't listen to content because of the source. It's fine if people don't like Neil Young, but to utterly dismiss anything he's saying because you don't like him, isn't terribly smart. Calling him an old fool is just bad form IMO.

Especially in a situation where he's clearly wrong. Easy enough just to say that, and on point. But we all know what the source of the reaction to Neil Young really is.

I think despite his mistake about Starbucks, the issue of GMO food labeling is an important one worth discussing.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by GraceGuitars

There were two parts to the claim: 1. the ingredients contain toxins 2. Starbucks is hiding the ingredient list.

Here are the ingredients readily viewable on the Starbuck's website:

SUGAR, CONDENSED NONFAT MILK, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, ANNATO (FOR COLOR), NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, CARAMEL COLOR, SALT, POTASSIUM SORBATE (PRESERVATIVE).

Obviously there are healthier choices in a drink, but the graphic you posted earlier smacks of drama, fear-mongering, and an agenda against the company (I'm not saying you were intending that, but whoever came up with that graphic).

Perhaps not
The "readily available" list on the web sight is only listing the ingredients in take home version of the syrup not what is sold at the shops( is it the same ? we do not know with out disclosure( labeling law) for the shops as well) .

AND the list on the web sight does not actually list the particular exact kinds of carmel color etc, nor the amounts, nor whether the milk is a GMO or not . Which is important because these additives may not be dangerous in specifically small amounts but in large amounts or in accumulative small amounts they can be and they are used in multiple foods.
So without adequate labeling the consumer has no way of calculating the actual amounts they may be taking in on daily basis.

for example from Web MD
"ANNATTO OVERVIEW INFORMATION
Annatto is a plant. The seed and leaf are used to make medicine.

People take annatto for diabetes, diarrhea, fevers, fluid retention, heartburn, malaria, and hepatitis. They also use it as an antioxidant and bowel cleanser.

Annatto is sometimes put directly on the affected area to treat burns and vaginal infections and to repel insects.

In foods, annatto is used as a coloring agent.

How does it work?
There isn't enough information to know how annatto works.

Side Effects and Dangers of Potassium Sorbate
In most cases, potassium sorbate is considered non-toxic and safe for use in commercial and culinary applications. However, some scientists believe that the addition of synthetic ingredients to foods, especially foods which are consumed quite regularly, can cause long term side effects which can be harmful.

Those who consume large amounts of food containing potassium sorbate may suffer from diarrhea which can cause them to deplete the nutrient value in their system. In lesser cases, the patient may suffer from nausea as your body becomes overwhelmed with the amount of potassium in your system."

I think the bottom line is are we asking the right questions? I think the right question is "If" there is nothing to hide in what is being put into the foods then WHY try to hide it buy fighting a labeling disclosure law ???????????????????

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

So I think it's good that you're discussing the content of the issue, and I'm really glad someone is pointing out that he's wrong in this case. I read the article when you posted it, and thought it was clear that Starbucks isn't involved.

If someone had said that Neil Young is out to lunch on this issue, I would have no problem at all. Looks to me like he's out to lunch on this one. But what followed was:



ISIS. Seriously. In a post about GMO foods. Totally and completely political. That and calling him a fool.

What I said after all that was, "Why can't people (meaning all who attacked him personally) address the issue instead of the messenger?

I simply react to the level of discourse. It happens all the time on here that people don't listen to content because of the source. It's fine if people don't like Neil Young, but to utterly dismiss anything he's saying because you don't like him, isn't terribly smart. Calling him an old fool is just bad form IMO.

Especially in a situation where he's clearly wrong. Easy enough just to say that, and on point. But we all know what the source of the reaction to Neil Young really is.

I think despite his mistake about Starbucks, the issue of GMO food labeling is an important one worth discussing.

What I posted about the grocery association, I discovered in less than 10 seconds.

The membership of the grocery association is on their web site, another 10 seconds.

What I learned about why GMO's are used, a simple read from a farmer, 10 more seconds.

If I were going to bring attention to GMO's, I would first seek to gain some knowledge and then go on recording with a statement. Publically stating that I am boycotting Starbucks is sensational and draws attention, but does not educate or inform anyone. This is why I said, does anyone care (what Neil Young thinks). Why would anyone care about the next protest if its really just all about Mr. Young getting some publicity?

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

What I posted about the grocery association, I discovered in less than 10 seconds.

The membership of the grocery association is on their web site, another 10 seconds.

What I learned about why GMO's are used, a simple read from a farmer, 10 more seconds.

If I were going to bring attention to GMO's, I would first seek to gain some knowledge and then go on recording with a statement. Publically stating that I am boycotting Starbucks is sensational and draws attention, but does not educate or inform anyone. This is why I said, does anyone care (what Neil Young thinks). Why would anyone care about the next protest if its really just all about Mr. Young getting some publicity?

I agree with all that and again, reached the same conclusion after reading the article.

As I've been saying, I think there's a difference between attacking the guy personally, calling him names or attacking him with political comments about the environment and ISIS, and critiquing his stance on this issue specifically. I think your specific critique is spot on.

I still think the topic of GMO labeling is a good one to discuss on the forum. Hope we get to that eventually.

Originally Posted by KevWind

Perhaps not
The "readily available" list on the web sight is only listing the ingredients in take home version of the syrup not what is sold at the shops( is it the same ? we do not know with out disclosure( labeling law) for the shops as well) .

Oh, don't worry. Even if there were a label on the drinks sold in the shop (which I have no reason to believe is any different than what they sell online), then people would say there was a conspiracy to leave certain things out of the label, etc. There will always be cynics. I guess one could go purchase the drink and pay to have it lab-tested if they are really concerned to that degree.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Actually, I wouldn't touch a thing like that with a 10-yard spatula anyway. I wouldn't need someone telling me it's full of crap; just look at it!

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by GraceGuitars

Oh, don't worry. Even if there were a label on the drinks sold in the shop (which I have no reason to believe is any different than what they sell online), then people would say there was a conspiracy to leave certain things out of the label, etc. There will always be cynics. I guess one could go purchase the drink and pay to have it lab-tested if they are really concerned to that degree.

I don't have to worry as I don't Starbucks period....... but that isn't the really point the point is it?
With "adequate" labeling the consumer at least has the opportunity to make informed decisions. With out that they don't..... pretty simple.

You have ignored the the real questions

If there is nothing to hide why hide it. ?

Why would we not want transparency in the ingredients of our food?

If we expect people to be responsible for their own health why would we be against providing the tools to do so?

If we expect people to be responsible for their actions why would not expect businesses to do the same?

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

So I think it's good that you're discussing the content of the issue, and I'm really glad someone is pointing out that he's wrong in this case. I read the article when you posted it, and thought it was clear that Starbucks isn't involved.

If someone had said that Neil Young is out to lunch on this issue, I would have no problem at all. Looks to me like he's out to lunch on this one. But what followed was:



ISIS. Seriously. In a post about GMO foods. Totally and completely political. That and calling him a fool.









What I said after all that was, "Why can't people (meaning all who attacked him personally) address the issue instead of the messenger?

I simply react to the level of discourse. It happens all the time on here that people don't listen to content because of the source. It's fine if people don't like Neil Young, but to utterly dismiss anything he's saying because you don't like him, isn't terribly smart. Calling him an old fool is just bad form IMO.

Especially in a situation where he's clearly wrong. Easy enough just to say that, and on point. But we all know what the source of the reaction to Neil Young really is.

I think despite his mistake about Starbucks, the issue of GMO food labeling is an important one worth discussing.

You left something out.
Why can't people address the issue instead of the messenger? Too wrapped up in politics to wonder if your health might be getting compromised?

You may think you see politics in his post. But he didn't mention it. YOU DID.
Who are you to define peoples thoughts & motives?