Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:25:39 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 20:01:34 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 2014-11-09 11:25 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Most of CO is indeed wide open spaces and farms and ranches and rural
> >> > > folks with greenhouses. The folks there do indeed have a reason to
> >> > > object since such a labeling law will cost them more money for the
> >> > > products they do buy. See my other posts for exactly why it isn't "just
> >> > > a label" and there are real, substantial costs associated with it.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > It sounds more like the expense you fear is actually segregating the GMO
> >> > from the non-GMO. Since so many products now contain GMO all they need
> >> > to do is to slap a label on when there is GMO products, and they know
> >> > know when the stuff comes into the mill that it is GMO. I guess the
> >> > strategy is to just go ahead with this genetic experiment and foist the
> >> > results on people whether like it or not, whether they know or not.
> >>
> >> As they found with meat in the UK, you cannot rely on products to come
> >> in properly labeled from your suppliers. The expense is every company
> >> having to have an in house lab that can do DNA testing, and/or a
> >> warehouse to store ingredients while waiting for results from an outside
> >> lab.
> >
> >Oh, gee. What a hardship to balance truth in labeling against pure
> >profit.
>
> "No, I can't tell you what's in my product. That would make it too
> expensive."
>
> Yeah, right.

Yes, right. If you want to be willfully ignorant of the facts of the
matter, so be it, but f' off in trying to force your paranoia and laws
on me.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-09 20:21, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>
> >> It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying that
> >> it is or is not GMO.
> >
> > Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> > change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> > operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
> >
> Is it wilful ignorance to suggest that if they product they are
> producing is made with ingredients that are from GMO seed could be
> labelled as such? Companies that want to cater to people not wanting GMO
> food can purchase their grains from non GMO sources and label it as such.

Those companies are free to provide such labeling today and some do.
When one of the suppliers to those producers negligently or willfully
falsifies a non-GMO label on ingredients it sells to your boutique
non-GMO food producer what are you going to do?

Again, the only way a non-GMO label can be implemented with any
credibility is if each raw ingredient can be validated by the producers
of the finished product. The producers of packaged lasagna and whatnot
in the UK and France found this when they purchased "ground beef" from
their meat suppliers which was actually ground horse.

It is willful ignorance to suggest that legislating that across the
entire food industry would not notably increase costs to everyone,
including the 95% of the population who are not paranoid about GMOs.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:16:38 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > On 2014-11-09 20:21, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying that
> > >> it is or is not GMO.
> > >
> > > Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> > > change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> > > operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
> > >
> > Is it wilful ignorance to suggest that if they product they are
> > producing is made with ingredients that are from GMO seed could be
> > labelled as such? Companies that want to cater to people not wanting GMO
> > food can purchase their grains from non GMO sources and label it as such.
>
> Thank you.

Feel the ignorance, revel in the ignorance. The truth doesn't matter,
only that you've found someone else to share your ignorance with.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 20:21:18 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2014-11-09 10:12 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Recall the meat scandal that rocked the UK and is still ongoing. If you
> > > > have to keep your processing plant GMO free does that mean you need to
> > > > build quarantine warehouses and DNA testing labs so you can verify that
> > > > the 50 tons of wheat flour the truck brought in doesn't contain any GMO
> > > > wheat varieties? Do you think this will not increase food costs
> > > > substantially?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying that
> > > it is or is not GMO.
> >
> > Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> > change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> > operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
>
> That's only a problem for those who don't want to disclose the
> information.

Your ignorance is astounding.

It's a problem for any producer of a food product, be it as simple as a
loaf of bread or as complex as a packaged lasagna. Those producers would
not be able to rely on a GMO/non-GMO label on the ingredients they buy
and would instead have to test the ingredients themselves, either
in-house or send to an independent lab, in order to ensure the
GMO/non-GMO label they put on their finished product is accurate.

The producers in the UK and France of packaged lasagna, meatballs and
whatnot found themselves in exactly this situation when the "ground
beef" they purchased from their meat suppliers was in reality ground
horse. This was a single ingredient in their finished products, but
caused a huge recall, scandal, damage to brands, etc.

Now multiply the issue to each and every ingredient that needs to be
validated, from the ground beef, to the tomatoes, to the cheese, to the
herbs and spices. To claim that somehow your GMO/non-GMO label is "just
a label" and doesn't cost anything to add is truly absurd.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-09 20:10, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2014-11-09 3:04 PM, graham wrote:
> >>> On 09/11/2014 12:58 PM, sf wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:41:28 -0800 (PST), dalep
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My current complaint is when I opened a bag of Birds Eye frozen veg
> >>>>> and noticed the small print that it was a product of China. WHAT?!
> >>>>> Now I notice that many frozen foods are not listing any country of
> >>>>> origin. Most items at TJs don't seem to be labeled.
> >>
> >> Some Green Giant products are also from China these says.
> >>
> >>>> I am so accustomed to not having that kind of information, I forget to
> >>>> look for it.
> >>>
> >>> One can also be lulled into a false assumption. Safeway had some
> >>> barramundi in the freezer section and the label was something like
> >>> "Australibrand" or something that implied an Australian origin. When I
> >>> opened the bag later, it was from a Vietnamese fish farm!
> >>
> >
> >> Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
> >> is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
> >
> > It's still the best the folks in Europe get...
> >
>
> Is that a fact? I just bought some strawberries from California. Holy
> crap they are bad.

Indeed, and they aren't even GMO. They are unfortunately a variety that
produces large, uniform and bruise resistant fruit which lowers picking
costs and shipping losses, but unfortunately they are also rather
tasteless.

In article >,
says...
>
> Dave Smith wrote:

> > Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
> > is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
>
> It's still the best the folks in Europe get...

Dream on

European food-labelling legislation is way ahead of the USA in
compulsory country of origin labelling AND GMO labelling

http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/c...belling-under-
the-eu-food-info/

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotec...belling_en.htm


Janet UK

In article >,
says...

> I think Europe has a much worse problem with mislabeled food items and
> counterfeited food in general (think: truffles and horsemeat labeled
> as beef).

The point was, that it was the routine DNA testing required in the EU
that uncovered the presence of horsemeat in processed meat products
labelled beef.

http://www.europeanmovement.ie/just-...ts-horse-meat/

as for truffles

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...s/0602080096_1
_truffles-chinese-japan

'In France, mislabeling Chinese truffles as domestic is punishable by a
fine and jail time, but no such law regulates U.S. menus'


Janet

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > > Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
> > > is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
> >
> > It's still the best the folks in Europe get...
>
> Dream on
>
> European food-labelling legislation is way ahead of the USA in
> compulsory country of origin labelling AND GMO labelling
>
> http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/c...belling-under-
> the-eu-food-info/
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotec...belling_en.htm

They can label all they want, that has nothing to do with quality. It
also didn't in any way stop them from getting ground horse instead of
ground beef, getting traces of pork in their "Halal" meats, etc. and it
will in no way keep them from getting GMO ingredients in their non-GMO
labeled foods when the same criminals who labeled ground horse as ground
beef decide they can make a buck (or Euro) labeling GMO wheat or
whatever as non-GMO.

Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:28:16 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 16:26:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2014-11-09 3:04 PM, graham wrote:
> >> > On 09/11/2014 12:58 PM, sf wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:41:28 -0800 (PST), dalep
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> My current complaint is when I opened a bag of Birds Eye frozen veg
> >> >>> and noticed the small print that it was a product of China. WHAT?!
> >> >>> Now I notice that many frozen foods are not listing any country of
> >> >>> origin. Most items at TJs don't seem to be labeled.
> >>
> >> Some Green Giant products are also from China these says.
> >>
> >> >> I am so accustomed to not having that kind of information, I forget to
> >> >> look for it.
> >> >
> >> > One can also be lulled into a false assumption. Safeway had some
> >> > barramundi in the freezer section and the label was something like
> >> > "Australibrand" or something that implied an Australian origin. When I
> >> > opened the bag later, it was from a Vietnamese fish farm!
> >>
> >> Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
> >> is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
> >>
> >I think Europe has a much worse problem with mislabeled food items and
> >counterfeited food in general (think: truffles and horsemeat labeled
> >as beef).
>
> Are they doing worse than the US because they have these problems or
> are they doing better because they find out about them?

They are doing worse mostly due to their being a collection of
relatively small countries with an exceptionally convoluted cross border
food distribution network (this was covered by the BBC). This gives a
lot of opportunities for criminals to re-pack and mislabel products
along the way. US food distribution, particularly meats is a lot less
convoluted with the bulk being produced in the US or Canada, and having
far fewer intermediate stops where things could be manipulated.

In article >,
says...

> As they found with meat in the UK, you cannot rely on products to come
> in properly labeled from your suppliers.

Which is why food imports in the UK and EU are routinely tested and
investigateed by public health services. That's how the horsemeat DNA
was picked up.

EU food-supply tracking is how the horsemeat was easily traceable
right back to the origin meat supplier, AND to all the processors in
Europe it had supplied.

Janet

On 2014-11-09 11:05 PM, Bruce wrote:

>> Pshaw... it would be incumbent upon the supplier to provide the
>> information. You are suggesting that it would cost a fortune in testing
>> at the manufacturer's level when the onus should be on the supplier. The
>> labelling requirement would go upstream to the suppliers.
>
> Yes, as if the supplier doesn't know if their own product is GMO or
> not.

It would be easy enough to find out when they buy it from the producers.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > As they found with meat in the UK, you cannot rely on products to come
> > in properly labeled from your suppliers.
>
> Which is why food imports in the UK and EU are routinely tested and
> investigateed by public health services. That's how the horsemeat DNA
> was picked up.
>
> EU food-supply tracking is how the horsemeat was easily traceable
> right back to the origin meat supplier, AND to all the processors in
> Europe it had supplied.

That wonderful tracking still hasn't told them where the meat was
mislabeled. They know where the shipment originated, and that the horse
meat was listed as horse meat when it left customs in Romania, and
somewhere in France it was labeled as beef, but they still don't know
when it was changed or by whom.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-09 11:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
> >> Pshaw... it would be incumbent upon the supplier to provide the
> >> information. You are suggesting that it would cost a fortune in testing
> >> at the manufacturer's level when the onus should be on the supplier. The
> >> labelling requirement would go upstream to the suppliers.
> >
> > Yes, as if the supplier doesn't know if their own product is GMO or
> > not.
>
> It would be easy enough to find out when they buy it from the producers.

All that tells you is what the package says. The producers in France
bought meat with packages that said beef and later found out that it was
horse. Labels can be faked, look at all the fake UL labels on stuff from
China. Unless the producer tests every ingredient they buy, and that's a
lot of ingredients for most food products, they have no way of having
any confidence that what they bought is or isn't GMO and thus no
confidence on the label they put on their end product.

On 2014-11-10 6:49 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>>>> Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
>>>> is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
>>>
>>> It's still the best the folks in Europe get...
>>>
>>
>> Is that a fact? I just bought some strawberries from California. Holy
>> crap they are bad.
>
> Indeed, and they aren't even GMO. They are unfortunately a variety that
> produces large, uniform and bruise resistant fruit which lowers picking
> costs and shipping losses, but unfortunately they are also rather
> tasteless.
>

No one said they were GMO. We were talking about deceptive packaging.
There is a line of frozen products called Europe's Best, and the name
suggests that they are from Europe. If they were more honest about the
place of origin they would be called China's best.

In article >, says...

> Again, the only way a non-GMO label can be implemented with any
> credibility is if each raw ingredient can be validated by the producers
> of the finished product. The producers of packaged lasagna and whatnot
> in the UK and France found this when they purchased "ground beef" from
> their meat suppliers which was actually ground horse.

The point is that the obligatory labelling/food tracking system that
exists in Europe, is backed up by testing and checking. So accidents and
deliberate fraud can both be detected and traced to source.

Which is exactly how the horsemeat issue came to light.

Janet UK

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-10 6:49 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>>> Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
> >>>> is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
> >>>
> >>> It's still the best the folks in Europe get...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is that a fact? I just bought some strawberries from California. Holy
> >> crap they are bad.
> >
> > Indeed, and they aren't even GMO. They are unfortunately a variety that
> > produces large, uniform and bruise resistant fruit which lowers picking
> > costs and shipping losses, but unfortunately they are also rather
> > tasteless.
> >
>
> No one said they were GMO. We were talking about deceptive packaging.
> There is a line of frozen products called Europe's Best, and the name
> suggests that they are from Europe. If they were more honest about the
> place of origin they would be called China's best.

So now you are proposing to regulate what companies can name their
brands?

On 2014-11-10 7:33 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>> Are they doing worse than the US because they have these problems or
>> are they doing better because they find out about them?
>
> They are doing worse mostly due to their being a collection of
> relatively small countries with an exceptionally convoluted cross border
> food distribution network (this was covered by the BBC). This gives a
> lot of opportunities for criminals to re-pack and mislabel products
> along the way. US food distribution, particularly meats is a lot less
> convoluted with the bulk being produced in the US or Canada, and having
> far fewer intermediate stops where things could be manipulated.
>


And of course the US does not have any similar problems. There have been
lots of reports of the same sorts of things happening in the US. There
was a recent article about mislabeled. Diners in US restaurants are
often given some fish other than what was offered. Pork cutlets are
being sold as veal. Honey is usually adulterated with corn syrup.
Cinnamon is usually cassia cinnamon, not the real thing from Sri Lanka.
Canned pumpkin... not pumpkin.

On 2014-11-10 8:03 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>> It would be easy enough to find out when they buy it from the producers.
>
> All that tells you is what the package says. The producers in France
> bought meat with packages that said beef and later found out that it was
> horse. Labels can be faked, look at all the fake UL labels on stuff from
> China. Unless the producer tests every ingredient they buy, and that's a
> lot of ingredients for most food products, they have no way of having
> any confidence that what they bought is or isn't GMO and thus no
> confidence on the label they put on their end product.
>

True. Some people use false labels. A local wine producer was
congratulated by a friend who had been in China on business and saw his
ice wine on sale there. The guy had never send his product to China. It
was not his ice wine and the labels were forged.

There isn't much you can do about false labels when there are no laws
required for labeling. There is no problem with not labeling the product
as GMO when it is in fact entirely GMO if there is no requirement.

In article >,
says...
>
> Janet wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
> > > > is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
> > >
> > > It's still the best the folks in Europe get...
> >
> > Dream on
> >
> > European food-labelling legislation is way ahead of the USA in
> > compulsory country of origin labelling AND GMO labelling
> >
> > http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/c...belling-under-
> > the-eu-food-info/
> >
> > http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotec...belling_en.htm
>
> They can label all they want, that has nothing to do with quality. It
> also didn't in any way stop them from getting ground horse instead of
> ground beef, getting traces of pork in their "Halal" meats, etc. and it
> will in no way keep them from getting GMO ingredients in their non-GMO
> labeled foods when the same criminals who labeled ground horse as ground
> beef decide they can make a buck (or Euro) labeling GMO wheat or
> whatever as non-GMO.

However, from the consumer POV, the important thing is that crime and
human error gets detected and stopped and those responsible prevented
from repetition.

To do that you need obligatory labelling and traceability, and a
system to investigate and test producer compliance. Which is what Europe
has. The horse meat discovery was an example of the regulatory/test
system working.

Janet UK

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
>
> > Again, the only way a non-GMO label can be implemented with any
> > credibility is if each raw ingredient can be validated by the producers
> > of the finished product. The producers of packaged lasagna and whatnot
> > in the UK and France found this when they purchased "ground beef" from
> > their meat suppliers which was actually ground horse.
>
> The point is that the obligatory labelling/food tracking system that
> exists in Europe, is backed up by testing and checking. So accidents and
> deliberate fraud can both be detected and traced to source.
>
> Which is exactly how the horsemeat issue came to light.
>
> Janet UK

My point (and the point of the majority of voters) is that we are not
willing to pay more for our food in order to humor the GMO paranoia of a
tiny minority. That tiny minority needs to come to grips with the fact
that the majority do not agree with them, rather than pretending they
are smarter than the majority and somehow the majority is just ignorant
of the issue. The same applies to the "progressives" who can't come to
grips with the smack down they just received from the voters.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-10 7:33 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> Are they doing worse than the US because they have these problems or
> >> are they doing better because they find out about them?
> >
> > They are doing worse mostly due to their being a collection of
> > relatively small countries with an exceptionally convoluted cross border
> > food distribution network (this was covered by the BBC). This gives a
> > lot of opportunities for criminals to re-pack and mislabel products
> > along the way. US food distribution, particularly meats is a lot less
> > convoluted with the bulk being produced in the US or Canada, and having
> > far fewer intermediate stops where things could be manipulated.
> >
>
> And of course the US does not have any similar problems. There have been
> lots of reports of the same sorts of things happening in the US. There
> was a recent article about mislabeled. Diners in US restaurants are
> often given some fish other than what was offered. Pork cutlets are
> being sold as veal. Honey is usually adulterated with corn syrup.
> Cinnamon is usually cassia cinnamon, not the real thing from Sri Lanka.
> Canned pumpkin... not pumpkin.

Fish has long been an issue. I've never heard of pork as veal, that
sounds like urban myth as they would have little chance of getting away
with it since the two are very different.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > Janet wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
> > > > > is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
> > > >
> > > > It's still the best the folks in Europe get...
> > >
> > > Dream on
> > >
> > > European food-labelling legislation is way ahead of the USA in
> > > compulsory country of origin labelling AND GMO labelling
> > >
> > > http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/c...belling-under-
> > > the-eu-food-info/
> > >
> > > http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotec...belling_en.htm
> >
> > They can label all they want, that has nothing to do with quality. It
> > also didn't in any way stop them from getting ground horse instead of
> > ground beef, getting traces of pork in their "Halal" meats, etc. and it
> > will in no way keep them from getting GMO ingredients in their non-GMO
> > labeled foods when the same criminals who labeled ground horse as ground
> > beef decide they can make a buck (or Euro) labeling GMO wheat or
> > whatever as non-GMO.
>
> However, from the consumer POV, the important thing is that crime and
> human error gets detected and stopped and those responsible prevented
> from repetition.
>
> To do that you need obligatory labelling and traceability, and a
> system to investigate and test producer compliance. Which is what Europe
> has. The horse meat discovery was an example of the regulatory/test
> system working.
>
> Janet UK

Labeling is not in any way a prerequisite for testing and investigation.
The US does indeed have testing and investigation and tracability, and
we do not need the added expense of labeling. The voters have spoken on
the issue multiple times, but the paranoid "cult of the non-GMO" can't
accept it. It's rather like any religion really, the majority tells them
to **** off yet they persist in whining and trying to "save" those who
disagree with their superstitions.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-10 8:03 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> It would be easy enough to find out when they buy it from the producers.
> >
> > All that tells you is what the package says. The producers in France
> > bought meat with packages that said beef and later found out that it was
> > horse. Labels can be faked, look at all the fake UL labels on stuff from
> > China. Unless the producer tests every ingredient they buy, and that's a
> > lot of ingredients for most food products, they have no way of having
> > any confidence that what they bought is or isn't GMO and thus no
> > confidence on the label they put on their end product.
> >
>
> True. Some people use false labels. A local wine producer was
> congratulated by a friend who had been in China on business and saw his
> ice wine on sale there. The guy had never send his product to China. It
> was not his ice wine and the labels were forged.
>
> There isn't much you can do about false labels when there are no laws
> required for labeling. There is no problem with not labeling the product
> as GMO when it is in fact entirely GMO if there is no requirement.

There are laws that require the product to be what the label claims it
is. We do not need a stupid GMO label and all the overhead that goes
with it to increase our costs. The voters have spoken on this multiple
times and the "cult of the non-GMO" is going to have to accept it.

On 2014-11-10 8:15 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>>
>> No one said they were GMO. We were talking about deceptive packaging.
>> There is a line of frozen products called Europe's Best, and the name
>> suggests that they are from Europe. If they were more honest about the
>> place of origin they would be called China's best.
>
> So now you are proposing to regulate what companies can name their
> brands?
>


So now you are jumping to idiotic conclusions? I didn't think it was
that comment would be so hard to understand. I pointed it out the name
Europe's Best suggests that the product is from Europe.

On 11/10/2014 8:26 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-11-10 7:33 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>>> Are they doing worse than the US because they have these problems or
>>> are they doing better because they find out about them?
>>
>> They are doing worse mostly due to their being a collection of
>> relatively small countries with an exceptionally convoluted cross border
>> food distribution network (this was covered by the BBC). This gives a
>> lot of opportunities for criminals to re-pack and mislabel products
>> along the way. US food distribution, particularly meats is a lot less
>> convoluted with the bulk being produced in the US or Canada, and having
>> far fewer intermediate stops where things could be manipulated.
>>
>
>
> And of course the US does not have any similar problems. There have been
> lots of reports of the same sorts of things happening in the US. There
> was a recent article about mislabeled. Diners in US restaurants are
> often given some fish other than what was offered. Pork cutlets are
> being sold as veal. Honey is usually adulterated with corn syrup.
> Cinnamon is usually cassia cinnamon, not the real thing from Sri Lanka.
> Canned pumpkin... not pumpkin.

There are several different species plants which are called cinnamon,
according to:
gernot-katzers-spice-pages.com/engl/.html


Ceylon Cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum)

Indonesian Cinnamon (Cinnamomum burmannii, Padang cassia)

Vietnamese cinnamon (Cinnamomum loureiroi/loureirii, Saigon cassia)

Cassia (Cinnamomum cassia, Chinese Cinnamon)

The Ceylon (or Sri Lankan) species has the most authentic cinnamon taste
and the others are popularly called "cassia".



--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:33:10 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> >
> > The fact remains that your group of people don't care, in spite of
> > your false claim that they do care, because they grown their own.
> >
> > It certainly would not kill them (or us) to label a product as
> > "contains GMO". I know word games are played on the nutrition label
> > when they pretend something in an amount of less than .5% doesn't
> > exist - but I want to see those items listed. Same deal with GMOs.
> > Give me honest information and let me decide.
>
> If you want that "honest information", you can pay for it from producers
> who voluntarily mark their products as GMO/non-GMO just as you can pay
> more for "organic". Don't try to force a law on the rest of us to
> increase our costs soothe your paranoia.

Your costs will be going up no matter what and a simple label change
that reflects what producers already know will have little to do with
it. Funny how they want to use GMO seeds, but don't want to let the
consumers know what they are eating. If it was something consumers
considered a good thing and wanted, you can be sure there would be big
letters saying "Contains GMO!" on the label. Nope. They know is
something they know a large part of the public and would not buy a
product with that said it contained GMOs anywhere on the label so they
hide the information. Your support of keeping the public uninformed
and ignorant is astounding.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:42:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:16:38 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On 2014-11-09 20:21, Pete C. wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying that
> > > >> it is or is not GMO.
> > > >
> > > > Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> > > > change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> > > > operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
> > > >
> > > Is it wilful ignorance to suggest that if they product they are
> > > producing is made with ingredients that are from GMO seed could be
> > > labelled as such? Companies that want to cater to people not wanting GMO
> > > food can purchase their grains from non GMO sources and label it as such.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> Feel the ignorance, revel in the ignorance. The truth doesn't matter,
> only that you've found someone else to share your ignorance with.

You are one who is in favor of ignorance. The rest of us have the
right to know.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:41:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> Those companies are free to provide such labeling today and some do.
> When one of the suppliers to those producers negligently or willfully
> falsifies a non-GMO label on ingredients it sells to your boutique
> non-GMO food producer what are you going to do?

Business doesn't do anything that benefits the public until it's give
a huge kick in the backside and told to do it.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:15:12 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> Janet wrote:
> >
> > In article >, says...
> >
> > > Again, the only way a non-GMO label can be implemented with any
> > > credibility is if each raw ingredient can be validated by the producers
> > > of the finished product. The producers of packaged lasagna and whatnot
> > > in the UK and France found this when they purchased "ground beef" from
> > > their meat suppliers which was actually ground horse.
> >
> > The point is that the obligatory labelling/food tracking system that
> > exists in Europe, is backed up by testing and checking. So accidents and
> > deliberate fraud can both be detected and traced to source.
> >
> > Which is exactly how the horsemeat issue came to light.
> >
> > Janet UK
>
> My point (and the point of the majority of voters) is that we are not
> willing to pay more for our food in order to humor the GMO paranoia of a
> tiny minority. That tiny minority needs to come to grips with the fact
> that the majority do not agree with them, rather than pretending they
> are smarter than the majority and somehow the majority is just ignorant
> of the issue. The same applies to the "progressives" who can't come to
> grips with the smack down they just received from the voters.

Typical Republican midterm election rhetoric.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:47:54 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 20:21:18 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2014-11-09 10:12 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Recall the meat scandal that rocked the UK and is still ongoing. If you
> > > > > have to keep your processing plant GMO free does that mean you need to
> > > > > build quarantine warehouses and DNA testing labs so you can verify that
> > > > > the 50 tons of wheat flour the truck brought in doesn't contain any GMO
> > > > > wheat varieties? Do you think this will not increase food costs
> > > > > substantially?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying that
> > > > it is or is not GMO.
> > >
> > > Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> > > change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> > > operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
> >
> > That's only a problem for those who don't want to disclose the
> > information.
>
> Your ignorance is astounding.
>
> It's a problem for any producer of a food product, be it as simple as a
> loaf of bread or as complex as a packaged lasagna. Those producers would
> not be able to rely on a GMO/non-GMO label on the ingredients they buy
> and would instead have to test the ingredients themselves, either
> in-house or send to an independent lab, in order to ensure the
> GMO/non-GMO label they put on their finished product is accurate.
>
> The producers in the UK and France of packaged lasagna, meatballs and
> whatnot found themselves in exactly this situation when the "ground
> beef" they purchased from their meat suppliers was in reality ground
> horse. This was a single ingredient in their finished products, but
> caused a huge recall, scandal, damage to brands, etc.
>
> Now multiply the issue to each and every ingredient that needs to be
> validated, from the ground beef, to the tomatoes, to the cheese, to the
> herbs and spices. To claim that somehow your GMO/non-GMO label is "just
> a label" and doesn't cost anything to add is truly absurd.

Boo hoo to you.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:27:33 -0000, Janet > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
> > I think Europe has a much worse problem with mislabeled food items and
> > counterfeited food in general (think: truffles and horsemeat labeled
> > as beef).
>
> The point was, that it was the routine DNA testing required in the EU
> that uncovered the presence of horsemeat in processed meat products
> labelled beef.
>
> http://www.europeanmovement.ie/just-...ts-horse-meat/
>
> as for truffles
>
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...s/0602080096_1
> _truffles-chinese-japan
>
> 'In France, mislabeling Chinese truffles as domestic is punishable by a
> fine and jail time, but no such law regulates U.S. menus'
>
The biggest difference is Europe does regular testing for deceptive
products via government oversight and we don't. EVOO and wine are
more areas that are rampant with consumer fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...cide.html?_r=1
UC Davis tests olive oil and publishes the results, but they are not
contracted by the government to do it. In the mean time, we're
growing our own olives and producing EVOO here at home.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 2014-11-10 1:23 PM, sf wrote:

>> Feel the ignorance, revel in the ignorance. The truth doesn't matter,
>> only that you've found someone else to share your ignorance with.
>
> You are one who is in favor of ignorance. The rest of us have the
> right to know.
>
>



I guess it is okay to be ignorant of something if it is cheaper.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:22:16 -0800, sf > wrote:

> They know is
> something they know a large part of the public and would not buy a
> product with that said it contained GMOs anywhere on the label so they
> hide the information.

Poor editing, sorry.

They know a large part of the public would not buy a product that said
it contains GMOs anywhere on the label so they hide the information
and use the poor excuse about added cost. Funny how they can't wait
to alter labels to proclaim a product contains something the public
actually wants!


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 2014-11-10 2:03 PM, sf wrote:
..
>
> They know a large part of the public would not buy a product that said
> it contains GMOs anywhere on the label so they hide the information
> and use the poor excuse about added cost. Funny how they can't wait
> to alter labels to proclaim a product contains something the public
> actually wants!
>
>

That's different. That is a bit like the way gas pump prices soar when
the price of crude rises a bit or if there is a situation that might
cause the price to rise, but when the prices drop and the situations are
resolved the pump price is much slower going down.

I refuse to buy the argument that it would be a major expense to simply
indicate on the packaging that the product uses GMO, especially when the
issue is primarily about grains. Wheat comes in by the truckload from
farms and it goes into the elevators, so GMO grain can go into one
storage compartment and the non GMO into another. When it goes into the
mill they can keep track of which is GMO and which is not. I don't think
anyone is pushing for absolute purity, but when you are getting a back
of flour it should not be hard to figure out if it is GMO or not.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:11:13 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> I refuse to buy the argument that it would be a major expense to simply
> indicate on the packaging that the product uses GMO, especially when the
> issue is primarily about grains. Wheat comes in by the truckload from
> farms and it goes into the elevators, so GMO grain can go into one
> storage compartment and the non GMO into another. When it goes into the
> mill they can keep track of which is GMO and which is not. I don't think
> anyone is pushing for absolute purity, but when you are getting a back
> of flour it should not be hard to figure out if it is GMO or not.

Agree, but I'd still want it tested because Monsanto has a way of
infecting non-GMO crops and I'd like to see them be held accountable
for that instead of suing the innocent party for "stealing pollen" and
getting away with it. If they can't keep their pollen on their side
of the fence, then they need to fix the problem. In any case, it
won't be long before we'll need to figure out another way to pollinate
plants because the pesticide on seeds (which are sown by air) is
killing off bees by the millions.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:02:45 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-11-10 1:23 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >> Feel the ignorance, revel in the ignorance. The truth doesn't matter,
> >> only that you've found someone else to share your ignorance with.
> >
> > You are one who is in favor of ignorance. The rest of us have the
> > right to know.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> I guess it is okay to be ignorant of something if it is cheaper.

These are the same people who love to call voters ignorant.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:47:54 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 20:21:18 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2014-11-09 10:12 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Recall the meat scandal that rocked the UK and is still ongoing. If you
> > > > > > have to keep your processing plant GMO free does that mean you need to
> > > > > > build quarantine warehouses and DNA testing labs so you can verify that
> > > > > > the 50 tons of wheat flour the truck brought in doesn't contain any GMO
> > > > > > wheat varieties? Do you think this will not increase food costs
> > > > > > substantially?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying that
> > > > > it is or is not GMO.
> > > >
> > > > Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> > > > change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> > > > operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
> > >
> > > That's only a problem for those who don't want to disclose the
> > > information.
> >
> > Your ignorance is astounding.
> >
> > It's a problem for any producer of a food product, be it as simple as a
> > loaf of bread or as complex as a packaged lasagna. Those producers would
> > not be able to rely on a GMO/non-GMO label on the ingredients they buy
> > and would instead have to test the ingredients themselves, either
> > in-house or send to an independent lab, in order to ensure the
> > GMO/non-GMO label they put on their finished product is accurate.
> >
> > The producers in the UK and France of packaged lasagna, meatballs and
> > whatnot found themselves in exactly this situation when the "ground
> > beef" they purchased from their meat suppliers was in reality ground
> > horse. This was a single ingredient in their finished products, but
> > caused a huge recall, scandal, damage to brands, etc.
> >
> > Now multiply the issue to each and every ingredient that needs to be
> > validated, from the ground beef, to the tomatoes, to the cheese, to the
> > herbs and spices. To claim that somehow your GMO/non-GMO label is "just
> > a label" and doesn't cost anything to add is truly absurd.
>
> Boo hoo to you.

You have no rational argument, just emotion, so that's all I expect of
you.

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:15:12 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Janet wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >, says...
> > >
> > > > Again, the only way a non-GMO label can be implemented with any
> > > > credibility is if each raw ingredient can be validated by the producers
> > > > of the finished product. The producers of packaged lasagna and whatnot
> > > > in the UK and France found this when they purchased "ground beef" from
> > > > their meat suppliers which was actually ground horse.
> > >
> > > The point is that the obligatory labelling/food tracking system that
> > > exists in Europe, is backed up by testing and checking. So accidents and
> > > deliberate fraud can both be detected and traced to source.
> > >
> > > Which is exactly how the horsemeat issue came to light.
> > >
> > > Janet UK
> >
> > My point (and the point of the majority of voters) is that we are not
> > willing to pay more for our food in order to humor the GMO paranoia of a
> > tiny minority. That tiny minority needs to come to grips with the fact
> > that the majority do not agree with them, rather than pretending they
> > are smarter than the majority and somehow the majority is just ignorant
> > of the issue. The same applies to the "progressives" who can't come to
> > grips with the smack down they just received from the voters.
>
> Typical Republican midterm election rhetoric.

Typical left wing emotional name calling response. The left has no
rational, factual argument so all they have is name calling.

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:41:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > Those companies are free to provide such labeling today and some do.
> > When one of the suppliers to those producers negligently or willfully
> > falsifies a non-GMO label on ingredients it sells to your boutique
> > non-GMO food producer what are you going to do?
>
> Business doesn't do anything that benefits the public until it's give
> a huge kick in the backside and told to do it.

We're well aware of your irrational prejudices.

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:42:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:16:38 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2014-11-09 20:21, Pete C. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying that
> > > > >> it is or is not GMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> > > > > change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> > > > > operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
> > > > >
> > > > Is it wilful ignorance to suggest that if they product they are
> > > > producing is made with ingredients that are from GMO seed could be
> > > > labelled as such? Companies that want to cater to people not wanting GMO
> > > > food can purchase their grains from non GMO sources and label it as such.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > Feel the ignorance, revel in the ignorance. The truth doesn't matter,
> > only that you've found someone else to share your ignorance with.
>
> You are one who is in favor of ignorance. The rest of us have the
> right to know.

I'm in favor of rational regulation, not emotional regulation. Companies
are free to label their products as non-GMO, and you are free to pay
more for them, exactly the same as with organic items. You are not free
to force a cost burden of mandating GMO testing and labeling on all
foods just to suit your minority prejudice. The voters have affirmed
that multiple times now, get over it.