Re: GMO labeling

Greg & Lei Gunthorp (hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com)
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:49:19 -0500

Aren't operations that have sales less than a hundred thousand dollars a
year exempt from nutrition labeling? Also, on side note on meat labeling
people do not have to submit for label approval if the plant already has a
label on a product such as bacon, ham, keilbasa, etc if all that is being
changed is the name on the label. In fact approval isn't needed if the
predominant meat is not changed. For example I had keilbasa made. The plant
had a label for a pork and beef keilbasa that was 80% pork and 20% beef. I
had a 100% keilbasa made. I didn't need to submit for label approval. I
should have only had to send it to the printing shop. Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS) told me AFTERWARDS that I didn't need to get the
label approved because the plant already had a label and I didn't change the
predominant meat. Anyhow, I don't have any nutritional information on my
labels. Just ingredients on processed products. I look forward to the day
my sales exceed the level that requires nutrition labelling!!!
Best wishes,
Greg Gunthorp
-----Original Message-----
From: Bluestem Associates <bluestem@webserf.net>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Date: Monday, December 13, 1999 6:19 PM
Subject: RE: GMO labeling

>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:37:56 -0600, Fulton, John wrote:
>
>> I'd hate to mandate that everyone pay more for labeling that, at
>>present, concerns only a minority.
>
>We already pay for a lot of labelling that concerns only a minority.
>Look at the 'Nutrition Facts' on virtually any food sold in the States.
>Please tell me, who cares about the protein content of mineral water?
>More useful on the tequila with the worm in it ! Those nutrient content
>tests you have to buy from Covance (or their competitors) don't come
>cheap.
>
>More disturbing is to hear the government saying (on the one hand) 'We
>shouldn't label for GMOs because it would confuse consumers.' yet on
>the other hand to remember that the government had to be pressured to
>include 'calories from fat' on those same Nutrition Fact labels. The
>same FDA folks suggesting that consumers aren't sophisticated enough to
>understand a GMO label felt that those same consumers were
>sophisticated enough to know that fat contains 9 Calories per gram, and
>to multiply the number of grams of fat times 9 and divide the result by
>the total number of Calories. They flat out refused to do the logical
>thing, which is to have a straightforward listing of the percentage of
>Calories from fat.
>
>The simple fact of the matter is that the food industry vetoed it. So
>now the US has the most complete, most complicated nutrition labelling
>in the world, for our 'unsophisticated' consumers. Best labels, but we
>are the most obese, most poorly nourished nation in the world.
>Obviously only a few of us pay attention to those labels.
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
>

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail