What is everyone's thoughts on Genetically Engineered foods? (1 Viewer)

[Rayderr]

I don't think it makes any sense to simply copy and paste 1,700-word articles just because they contain a headline that backs up your argument. If you have an opinion, then do your own research and then write about what you find. It is a waste of time to read an entire article just to take away a few relevant statements that were made back in 2012.

Why should I rewrite what a vast majority of scientists have already written? (seriously, did you know that there is more scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs than there is on man-made warning? Think about that for a second.)

 

[ChainsawU]

Dude it just makes it look like you didn't put any effort into the message you are trying to get across when you copy and paste stuff without any formatting. The two articles that were defending GMO crops by muckraking scientists protested way too much. But the Popular Science one was well written and informative. It just means more, especially when you're so passionate about the whole thing, if you pick and choose exactly what you want to say and then back it up with actual research instead of just copying and pasting an article that some dude wrote. I'm just saying man. It's a bad way to make a point. All I ever did was research real studies and then say what they said, with citations. It means more when you do your own research and it lets the reader know what they are dealing with.

 

[ChainsawU]

Three crops (corn, cotton, and soybeans) make up the bulk of the acres planted to GE crops. U.S. farmers planted about 169 million acres of these GE crops in 2013, or about half of total land used to grow crops. Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops have traits that allow them to tolerate more effective herbicides, such as glyphosate, helping adopters control pervasive weeds more effectively. U.S. farmers used HT soybeans on 93 percent of all planted soybean acres in 2013. HT corn accounted for 85 percent of corn acreage in 2013, and HT cotton constituted 82 percent of cotton acreage.

Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, et al. "Genetically engineered crops in the United States." USDA-ERS Economic Research Report 162 (2014). pdf

 

[dparker713]

Why do 64 industrialized nations require mandatory GMO labeling on their foods? Why is the United States one of the two industrialized nations that doesn't require it?

Most people are stupid. People comprise governments. Therefore most governments are stupid. Simple logic.

 

[Rayderr]

Dude it just makes it look like you didn't put any effort into the message you are trying to get across when you copy and paste stuff without any formatting. The two articles that were defending GMO crops by muckraking scientists protested way too much. But the Popular Science one was well written and informative. It just means more, especially when you're so passionate about the whole thing, if you pick and choose exactly what you want to say and then back it up with actual research instead of just copying and pasting an article that some dude wrote. I'm just saying man. It's a bad way to make a point. All I ever did was research real studies and then say what they said, with citations. It means more when you do your own research and it lets the reader know what they are dealing with.

Only to an anti-GMO person could posting scientific papers and articles be considered "a bad way to make a point."

 

[ChainsawU]

So wait, is this a ruse? Dang dude, I can't tell if you're being serious or not? It's either very funny or very scary now. Hey, regardless, I hope you were able to take something away from our conversation. As for me I was actually inspired to pick up a copy of Fast Food Nation today. Made it through the first chapter already. It laid the groundwork about how the industry got started in LA/Anaheim back in the day as the automobile was becoming more popular. I think it'll be good. Beneficial to my education. And I think I'm going to try buying more organically-labeled meats from my grocer from now on. So regardless of whatever thanks for inspiring me bro.

 

[renesauz]

I'm against the labeling not because people shouldn't be informed, but because they are so poorly informed and ignorant now.

Far too many people see GMO as something akin to cyanide.

 

[Hilts]

Why do 64 industrialized nations require mandatory GMO labeling on their foods? Why is the United States one of the two industrialized nations that doesn't require it?

I always loathe this argument (I've noticed it's also common for immigration related debates). Who gives a damn what other countries do? We're supposed to let their idiocy influence us? Besides, shouldn't we be setting examples for the world to see and ultimately follow?

 

[ChainsawU]

Why do 64 industrialized nations require mandatory GMO labeling on their foods? Why is the United States one of the two industrialized nations that doesn't require it?

I always loathe this argument (I've noticed it's also common for immigration related debates). Who gives a damn what other countries do? We're supposed to let their idiocy influence us? Besides, shouldn't we be setting examples for the world to see and ultimately follow?

That is great, but I am not arguing I am seriously asking a question. Honestly, what was their reasoning.

 

[ChainsawU]

Dudes, I seriously didn't realize this was such a polarizing topic. And I didn't realize that it made people emotional. I have a little bit of formal education on biology and nutrition and love to cook. Detoxing is kind of my thing too as well as fasting. I'm not a political fight'em guy, trust me.

 

[Rayderr]

Dudes, I seriously didn't realize this was such a polarizing topic. And I didn't realize that it made people emotional. I have a little bit of formal education on biology and nutrition and love to cook. Detoxing is kind of my thing too as well as fasting. I'm not a political fight'em guy, trust me.

Oh, well in that case, I should trust your judgement over the thousands of scientists who have performed thousands of studies over the past 2 decades and have determined that Genetically engineered food is safe and in some cases safer than their non engineered counterparts.

 

[ChainsawU]

Who hurt you, bro?

 

[[icon]]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

 

[Rayderr]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

yes

 

[[icon]]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

yes

It was?

 

[Rayderr]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

yes

It was?

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)

It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

 

[jhib]

Dudes, I seriously didn't realize this was such a polarizing topic. And I didn't realize that it made people emotional. I have a little bit of formal education on biology and nutrition and love to cook. Detoxing is kind of my thing too as well as fasting. I'm not a political fight'em guy, trust me.

What kind of detoxing are you talking about here? The actual medical kind or the pseudo scientific version?

 

[biju]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

yes

It was?

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)

It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

But you've again missed the point that if the bill (in the OP) passes it also makes labeling things as "Organic" illegal unless it is certified as such and there is no process in place to do so. To me, this is GMO shills who want to further obfuscate the issue.

I just can't see how less information on food is a bad thing. Yes, the general world population is stupid and irrational, but I don't see that as a valid argument as to not try to inform. It's like the UL rating on your power source, or sunblock. I'd like to hear an argument other than "people will run from GMOs because they're stupid". To me, I don't care if GMO producing companies die as long as the food stays the same price for me.

 

[ChainsawU]

Dudes, I seriously didn't realize this was such a polarizing topic. And I didn't realize that it made people emotional. I have a little bit of formal education on biology and nutrition and love to cook. Detoxing is kind of my thing too as well as fasting. I'm not a political fight'em guy, trust me.

What kind of detoxing are you talking about here? The actual medical kind or the pseudo scientific version?

The only kind I know of is to just eating non-toxic foods for a few days. Just a natural detox after like two straight days of binge drinking. Simply just fresh veggies, fresh meats, and a lot of fiber. No bread. It's easy since I cook all my own food and only eat once a day at night. And I personally really, really dislike (hate) any type of detox anyone tries to sell, medical or otherwise, so thank you for asking. Retail detoxes are nutritional quackery. But yeah, that is the only type of true detox in my opinion - just eating clean foods for a few days. Our livers and kidneys are powerful.

 

[Hilts]

Why do 64 industrialized nations require mandatory GMO labeling on their foods? Why is the United States one of the two industrialized nations that doesn't require it?

I always loathe this argument (I've noticed it's also common for immigration related debates). Who gives a damn what other countries do? We're supposed to let their idiocy influence us? Besides, shouldn't we be setting examples for the world to see and ultimately follow?

That is great, but I am not arguing I am seriously asking a question. Honestly, what was their reasoning.

Fearful morons have led the charge elsewhere. They've yet to push America to ignore science on this front.

 

[Rayderr]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

yes

It was?

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)

It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

But you've again missed the point that if the bill (in the OP) passes it also makes labeling things as "Organic" illegal unless it is certified as such and there is no process in place to do so. To me, this is GMO shills who want to further obfuscate the issue.

I just can't see how less information on food is a bad thing. Yes, the general world population is stupid and irrational, but I don't see that as a valid argument as to not try to inform. It's like the UL rating on your power source, or sunblock. I'd like to hear an argument other than "people will run from GMOs because they're stupid". To me, I don't care if GMO producing companies die as long as the food stays the same price for me.

In that case, why not just have rules for those that wish to be "certified organic"? Why double up? As already mentioned, GM corn and soy is everywhere and being in just about everything that's not organic.

And scientists have been trying to inform. But for some reason people would rather listen to someone who once took a biology class and has a blog instead of them. (btw the points I mentioned are those raised by scientists. If you think they are gmO shills, well then you're part of the problem.)

And as far as the bolded, if GMOs go away, there's no way your food prices don't go up. The drop in crop yield alone guarantees that. Not to mention that non GM crops require for more water (money), herbicides (money), pesticides (money) and time (money.)

 

[jhib]

But you've again missed the point that if the bill (in the OP) passes it also makes labeling things as "Organic" illegal unless it is certified as such and there is no process in place to do so. To me, this is GMO shills who want to further obfuscate the issue.

That seems like something completely separate from the question Rayderr was answering.

Also, don't you already need to go through a certification process to label your food "Organic"? That in and of itself seems like a good thing, since you shouldn't want such deceptive marketers claiming their food is something it's not. In fact, I occasionally hear gripes from organic food fans about how the restrictions are too lax, making the term essentially meaningless.

I'm not saying I agree with the bill - in fact, I'm wondering what the bill actually changes on the organic front. Do you have any clarifying info?

 

[jhib]

I just can't see how less information on food is a bad thing. Yes, the general world population is stupid and irrational, but I don't see that as a valid argument as to not try to inform.

Where does it end?

Why don't we just have a listing of every variety of produce used in a product under the ingredient label. That would surely be more informative than a scary GMO label.

Why don't we require a "Pesticides were used in the production of this product" label? The organic marketers wouldn't be happy with that, I'm sure, since there are plenty of pesticides used on organic foods. Sure, they might be "natural" instead of synthetic, but that has little to do with safety and you couldn't tell the difference just by the names with some of them.

 

[Rayderr]

I just can't see how less information on food is a bad thing. Yes, the general world population is stupid and irrational, but I don't see that as a valid argument as to not try to inform.

Where does it end?

Why don't we just have a listing of every variety of produce used in a product under the ingredient label. That would surely be more informative than a scary GMO label.

Why don't we require a "Pesticides were used in the production of this product" label? The organic marketers wouldn't be happy with that, I'm sure, since there are plenty of pesticides used on organic foods. Sure, they might be "natural" instead of synthetic, but that has little to do with safety and you couldn't tell the difference just by the names with some of them.

On those lines, In the 20 years GMOs have been around, haven't really been any stories of people getting sick, going to the hospital or even dying from eating GMOs. Yet, almost every year people get E.Coli (and occasionally die as a result) from eating organic food.

 

[The Commish]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

An argument? Yes. A good one? No.

 

[The Commish]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

yes

It was?

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)

It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

It doesn't create confusion to safety. It informs people that the food is genetically modified. If the individual cares, they can do research like you and me. Lays is required to label their potato chip ingredients which are oil, salt, potato so the federal gov't requires labeling for tons of things that aren't harmful.

One can play the semantics game that it's not the actual food that people take issue with all they want. The reality is, a very large portion of GMO foods are modified to withstand systemic chemicals made by companies like Monsanto. Someone here said something to the effect of "just wash your food" or some nonsense before and that just illustrates the lack of knowledge when it comes to the byproducts of using GMO products and why it's disingenuous at best to look at the food, isolated in a vacuum. "It's not the food that is bad for you, it's the chemicals in them that you should take issue with" is pretty silly in this particular context.

 

[The Commish]

Why do 64 industrialized nations require mandatory GMO labeling on their foods? Why is the United States one of the two industrialized nations that doesn't require it?

I always loathe this argument (I've noticed it's also common for immigration related debates). Who gives a damn what other countries do? We're supposed to let their idiocy influence us? Besides, shouldn't we be setting examples for the world to see and ultimately follow?

Have you paid attention to the state of this country lately? We aren't in a position to tell anyone anything at the moment. We are a train wreck.

 

[jhib]

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)


It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

It doesn't create confusion to safety. It informs people that the food is genetically modified. If the individual cares, they can do research like you and me. Lays is required to label their potato chip ingredients which are oil, salt, potato so the federal gov't requires labeling for tons of things that aren't harmful.

One can play the semantics game that it's not the actual food that people take issue with all they want. The reality is, a very large portion of GMO foods are modified to withstand systemic chemicals made by companies like Monsanto. Someone here said something to the effect of "just wash your food" or some nonsense before and that just illustrates the lack of knowledge when it comes to the byproducts of using GMO products and why it's disingenuous at best to look at the food, isolated in a vacuum. "It's not the food that is bad for you, it's the chemicals in them that you should take issue with" is pretty silly in this particular context.

Meanwhile, non-GMO varieties are being developed by "natural" methods (including mutagenesis, and I'm not sure why that gets a pass) to withstand chemicals made by companies like BASF (the largest chemical producer in the world). So what's the issue - the pesticide use or whether or not they were developed "naturally?"

That also leads me to another issue with the GMO labeling and why it creates confusion: it is such a broad label. Things like those Arctic apples that were recently approved that have some genes silenced to result in less production of pollyphenol oxidase to reduce browning are lumped in with others created by much different processes. That's the kind of thing that adds to confusion.

 

[Eminence]

I think it's dumb. First off, what are the risks? Second off, I'd rather create millions of jobs by banning GMOs and offering $20 an hourly farming jobs to whoever in America wants to take one.

 

[onionsack]

muckraking scientists

 

[renesauz]

Not reading the thread.... Has anyone proposed an argument against labeling that outside the "it costs a couple bucks a year" argument?

yes

It was?

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)

It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

But you've again missed the point that if the bill (in the OP) passes it also makes labeling things as "Organic" illegal unless it is certified as such and there is no process in place to do so. To me, this is GMO shills who want to further obfuscate the issue.

I just can't see how less information on food is a bad thing. Yes, the general world population is stupid and irrational, but I don't see that as a valid argument as to not try to inform. It's like the UL rating on your power source, or sunblock. I'd like to hear an argument other than "people will run from GMOs because they're stupid". To me, I don't care if GMO producing companies die as long as the food stays the same price for me.

And if probably won't! A disturbingly high % of people have an irrational fear of GMO and it WILL drive up the prices of many foods.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Because Uncle Sam is all about big business.

 

[Rayderr]

For those demanding labeling, do you have any reasons besides "because."?

What type of labeling are you wanting? just having it listed in the ingredients (i.e. Liberty Link Corn) on the side of the box written in the tiny font to fit in that tiny nutrition box? Or a big sticker on the front reading "WARNING! Contains GMOs!"?

 

[The Commish]

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)


It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

It doesn't create confusion to safety. It informs people that the food is genetically modified. If the individual cares, they can do research like you and me. Lays is required to label their potato chip ingredients which are oil, salt, potato so the federal gov't requires labeling for tons of things that aren't harmful.

One can play the semantics game that it's not the actual food that people take issue with all they want. The reality is, a very large portion of GMO foods are modified to withstand systemic chemicals made by companies like Monsanto. Someone here said something to the effect of "just wash your food" or some nonsense before and that just illustrates the lack of knowledge when it comes to the byproducts of using GMO products and why it's disingenuous at best to look at the food, isolated in a vacuum. "It's not the food that is bad for you, it's the chemicals in them that you should take issue with" is pretty silly in this particular context.

Meanwhile, non-GMO varieties are being developed by "natural" methods (including mutagenesis, and I'm not sure why that gets a pass) to withstand chemicals made by companies like BASF (the largest chemical producer in the world). So what's the issue - the pesticide use or whether or not they were developed "naturally?"

That also leads me to another issue with the GMO labeling and why it creates confusion: it is such a broad label. Things like those Arctic apples that were recently approved that have some genes silenced to result in less production of pollyphenol oxidase to reduce browning are lumped in with others created by much different processes. That's the kind of thing that adds to confusion.

Do they get a pass? Many don't like the use of pesticides period. What passes for "organic" by our gov't standards is a joke. It's not as cut and dry as people in this thread presented, not even close. People really need to educate themselves on our gov't agencies when it comes to our food. For instance, many people believe that "organic" means there are no pesticides used in the growing of the foods. There are plenty of loopholes in the rules to get around that.

Again...a genetically modified product is a genetically modified product. It's not confusing. One can argue that there are "good" reasons for the GMOs or "bad" reasons for the GMOs I suppose, but in the end, they are GMOs. If one wants to argue there is a negative stigma associated with GMOs I'd agree. Those companies insisting on using/creating them should do more to educate the public to remove that stigma. They choose to produce them, it's on them to educate IMO.

 

[The Commish]

For those demanding labeling, do you have any reasons besides "because."?

What type of labeling are you wanting? just having it listed in the ingredients (i.e. Liberty Link Corn) on the side of the box written in the tiny font to fit in that tiny nutrition box? Or a big sticker on the front reading "WARNING! Contains GMOs!"?

Some of those reasons have been presented many times in the past and in this thread. As for labeling, I'm fine with it being in the ingredient list...said that many times around here. This notion that it's "too expensive" is pretty silly. Companies alter recipes all the time and as a result have to change their ingredient lists all the time. It's SOP in the industry.

 

[Rayderr]

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)


It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

It doesn't create confusion to safety. It informs people that the food is genetically modified. If the individual cares, they can do research like you and me. Lays is required to label their potato chip ingredients which are oil, salt, potato so the federal gov't requires labeling for tons of things that aren't harmful.

One can play the semantics game that it's not the actual food that people take issue with all they want. The reality is, a very large portion of GMO foods are modified to withstand systemic chemicals made by companies like Monsanto. Someone here said something to the effect of "just wash your food" or some nonsense before and that just illustrates the lack of knowledge when it comes to the byproducts of using GMO products and why it's disingenuous at best to look at the food, isolated in a vacuum. "It's not the food that is bad for you, it's the chemicals in them that you should take issue with" is pretty silly in this particular context.

Meanwhile, non-GMO varieties are being developed by "natural" methods (including mutagenesis, and I'm not sure why that gets a pass) to withstand chemicals made by companies like BASF (the largest chemical producer in the world). So what's the issue - the pesticide use or whether or not they were developed "naturally?"

That also leads me to another issue with the GMO labeling and why it creates confusion: it is such a broad label. Things like those Arctic apples that were recently approved that have some genes silenced to result in less production of pollyphenol oxidase to reduce browning are lumped in with others created by much different processes. That's the kind of thing that adds to confusion.

Do they get a pass? Many don't like the use of pesticides period. What passes for "organic" by our gov't standards is a joke. It's not as cut and dry as people in this thread presented, not even close. People really need to educate themselves on our gov't agencies when it comes to our food. For instance, many people believe that "organic" means there are no pesticides used in the growing of the foods. There are plenty of loopholes in the rules to get around that.

Again...a genetically modified product is a genetically modified product. It's not confusing. One can argue that there are "good" reasons for the GMOs or "bad" reasons for the GMOs I suppose, but in the end, they are GMOs. If one wants to argue there is a negative stigma associated with GMOs I'd agree. Those companies insisting on using/creating them should do more to educate the public to remove that stigma. They choose to produce them, it's on them to educate IMO.

Ever argue with a conspiracy theorist? It's like that. Monsanto comes out with research showing GMOs are safe (or safer) and the reaction is "Of course a corporation is going to say that. They're all liars." Independent scientists and universities publish their own studies saying the same thing, and the reaction is "Well the corporations clearly paid them off." and then they point to the guy thought about staying at a holiday inn express last night who has a free wordpress page as evidence that GMO's are going to kill us all.

 

[Rayderr]

For those demanding labeling, do you have any reasons besides "because."?

What type of labeling are you wanting? just having it listed in the ingredients (i.e. Liberty Link Corn) on the side of the box written in the tiny font to fit in that tiny nutrition box? Or a big sticker on the front reading "WARNING! Contains GMOs!"?

Some of those reasons have been presented many times in the past and in this thread. As for labeling, I'm fine with it being in the ingredient list...said that many times around here. This notion that it's "too expensive" is pretty silly. Companies alter recipes all the time and as a result have to change their ingredient lists all the time. It's SOP in the industry.

Hey, I've had to repeat reasonings against labelling many times in this thread. Now it's your turn. What reason besides "because" should there be labeling.

And as far as just having it in the ingredients list, do people even know the names GM crops. Instead of seeing "corn" listed as an ingredient "they see "Silver Queen Corn" (my personal favorite corn on the cob back when I lived in MD.) Is that a GM corn? What about Aspen Corn? Triple Play corn? Could people without using google be able to identify a single GMO by name only?

 

[The Commish]

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)


It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

It doesn't create confusion to safety. It informs people that the food is genetically modified. If the individual cares, they can do research like you and me. Lays is required to label their potato chip ingredients which are oil, salt, potato so the federal gov't requires labeling for tons of things that aren't harmful.

One can play the semantics game that it's not the actual food that people take issue with all they want. The reality is, a very large portion of GMO foods are modified to withstand systemic chemicals made by companies like Monsanto. Someone here said something to the effect of "just wash your food" or some nonsense before and that just illustrates the lack of knowledge when it comes to the byproducts of using GMO products and why it's disingenuous at best to look at the food, isolated in a vacuum. "It's not the food that is bad for you, it's the chemicals in them that you should take issue with" is pretty silly in this particular context.

Meanwhile, non-GMO varieties are being developed by "natural" methods (including mutagenesis, and I'm not sure why that gets a pass) to withstand chemicals made by companies like BASF (the largest chemical producer in the world). So what's the issue - the pesticide use or whether or not they were developed "naturally?"

That also leads me to another issue with the GMO labeling and why it creates confusion: it is such a broad label. Things like those Arctic apples that were recently approved that have some genes silenced to result in less production of pollyphenol oxidase to reduce browning are lumped in with others created by much different processes. That's the kind of thing that adds to confusion.

Do they get a pass? Many don't like the use of pesticides period. What passes for "organic" by our gov't standards is a joke. It's not as cut and dry as people in this thread presented, not even close. People really need to educate themselves on our gov't agencies when it comes to our food. For instance, many people believe that "organic" means there are no pesticides used in the growing of the foods. There are plenty of loopholes in the rules to get around that.

Again...a genetically modified product is a genetically modified product. It's not confusing. One can argue that there are "good" reasons for the GMOs or "bad" reasons for the GMOs I suppose, but in the end, they are GMOs. If one wants to argue there is a negative stigma associated with GMOs I'd agree. Those companies insisting on using/creating them should do more to educate the public to remove that stigma. They choose to produce them, it's on them to educate IMO.

Ever argue with a conspiracy theorist? It's like that. Monsanto comes out with research showing GMOs are safe (or safer) and the reaction is "Of course a corporation is going to say that. They're all liars." Independent scientists and universities publish their own studies saying the same thing, and the reaction is "Well the corporations clearly paid them off." and then they point to the guy thought about staying at a holiday inn express last night who has a free wordpress page as evidence that GMO's are going to kill us all.

Sure....there's always that group in anything we do. Doesn't mean the responsibility isn't theirs There's plenty of legit discussion to be had on this topic, because some are trying to use science to fit a narrative doesn't negate that.

 

[Rayderr]

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)


It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

It doesn't create confusion to safety. It informs people that the food is genetically modified. If the individual cares, they can do research like you and me. Lays is required to label their potato chip ingredients which are oil, salt, potato so the federal gov't requires labeling for tons of things that aren't harmful.

One can play the semantics game that it's not the actual food that people take issue with all they want. The reality is, a very large portion of GMO foods are modified to withstand systemic chemicals made by companies like Monsanto. Someone here said something to the effect of "just wash your food" or some nonsense before and that just illustrates the lack of knowledge when it comes to the byproducts of using GMO products and why it's disingenuous at best to look at the food, isolated in a vacuum. "It's not the food that is bad for you, it's the chemicals in them that you should take issue with" is pretty silly in this particular context.

Meanwhile, non-GMO varieties are being developed by "natural" methods (including mutagenesis, and I'm not sure why that gets a pass) to withstand chemicals made by companies like BASF (the largest chemical producer in the world). So what's the issue - the pesticide use or whether or not they were developed "naturally?"

That also leads me to another issue with the GMO labeling and why it creates confusion: it is such a broad label. Things like those Arctic apples that were recently approved that have some genes silenced to result in less production of pollyphenol oxidase to reduce browning are lumped in with others created by much different processes. That's the kind of thing that adds to confusion.

Do they get a pass? Many don't like the use of pesticides period. What passes for "organic" by our gov't standards is a joke. It's not as cut and dry as people in this thread presented, not even close. People really need to educate themselves on our gov't agencies when it comes to our food. For instance, many people believe that "organic" means there are no pesticides used in the growing of the foods. There are plenty of loopholes in the rules to get around that.

Again...a genetically modified product is a genetically modified product. It's not confusing. One can argue that there are "good" reasons for the GMOs or "bad" reasons for the GMOs I suppose, but in the end, they are GMOs. If one wants to argue there is a negative stigma associated with GMOs I'd agree. Those companies insisting on using/creating them should do more to educate the public to remove that stigma. They choose to produce them, it's on them to educate IMO.

Ever argue with a conspiracy theorist? It's like that. Monsanto comes out with research showing GMOs are safe (or safer) and the reaction is "Of course a corporation is going to say that. They're all liars." Independent scientists and universities publish their own studies saying the same thing, and the reaction is "Well the corporations clearly paid them off." and then they point to the guy thought about staying at a holiday inn express last night who has a free wordpress page as evidence that GMO's are going to kill us all.

Sure....there's always that group in anything we do. Doesn't mean the responsibility isn't theirs There's plenty of legit discussion to be had on this topic, because some are trying to use science to fit a narrative doesn't negate that.

OK, tell me then. How do you convince people that are afraid of GMO's that there is nothing wrong with them when thousands of studies have proven them to be as safe if not safer, and an overwhelming majority of scientists say they are safe as safer (More scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree in man made global warming and that vaccines are safe.)? The anti-GMO crowd is in the same category as anti-vaccinaters and climate change deniers. What is the answer? Should we let the anti-vaccinaters control our vaccine policy despite what science says? Should we let the climate change deniers control our environmental policies despite the scientific evidence?

 

[The Commish]

For those demanding labeling, do you have any reasons besides "because."?

What type of labeling are you wanting? just having it listed in the ingredients (i.e. Liberty Link Corn) on the side of the box written in the tiny font to fit in that tiny nutrition box? Or a big sticker on the front reading "WARNING! Contains GMOs!"?

Some of those reasons have been presented many times in the past and in this thread. As for labeling, I'm fine with it being in the ingredient list...said that many times around here. This notion that it's "too expensive" is pretty silly. Companies alter recipes all the time and as a result have to change their ingredient lists all the time. It's SOP in the industry.

Hey, I've had to repeat reasonings against labelling many times in this thread. Now it's your turn. What reason besides "because" should there be labeling.

And as far as just having it in the ingredients list, do people even know the names GM crops. Instead of seeing "corn" listed as an ingredient "they see "Silver Queen Corn" (my personal favorite corn on the cob back when I lived in MD.) Is that a GM corn? What about Aspen Corn? Triple Play corn? Could people without using google be able to identify a single GMO by name only?

"GMO corn" is pretty clear so is "contains GMOs"....not really that complicated.

Look, I come from a position that the more we know about our food and it's origins/sources the better, to the point where I'd be ok with a whole section of the label dedicated to the pesticides used to grow the food. I think that's far more important but we KNOW that's never going to happen. So letting us know that there are GMOs in the foods is a compromise I'm ok with making. In general, I stay away from boxes anymore with all the garbage in processed food, so I don't have to read a ton of labels, but I also don't believe in willful ignorance of the masses either. It should be made known to all and let the people decide for themselves.

 

[jhib]

It creates confusion as to the safety of GMOs (How often does the federal government require labeling for something that is not harmful in some way?)


It's not necessary as the prevalence of GM corn and soy has pretty much made it that unlesss the item is "organic" it has GMO's in it.

GM food has become virtually impossible to find in Europe due to labeling the stigma wrongly attached to it. This would have a devastating effect on farmers who would see a drastic decrease in crops (and thus incomes) if they went back to non-GM crops. Plus they'd be far more vulnerable to droughts and water restrictions like currently in California.

And most importantly, It's allowing unfounded fear to dictate science.

It doesn't create confusion to safety. It informs people that the food is genetically modified. If the individual cares, they can do research like you and me. Lays is required to label their potato chip ingredients which are oil, salt, potato so the federal gov't requires labeling for tons of things that aren't harmful.

One can play the semantics game that it's not the actual food that people take issue with all they want. The reality is, a very large portion of GMO foods are modified to withstand systemic chemicals made by companies like Monsanto. Someone here said something to the effect of "just wash your food" or some nonsense before and that just illustrates the lack of knowledge when it comes to the byproducts of using GMO products and why it's disingenuous at best to look at the food, isolated in a vacuum. "It's not the food that is bad for you, it's the chemicals in them that you should take issue with" is pretty silly in this particular context.

Meanwhile, non-GMO varieties are being developed by "natural" methods (including mutagenesis, and I'm not sure why that gets a pass) to withstand chemicals made by companies like BASF (the largest chemical producer in the world). So what's the issue - the pesticide use or whether or not they were developed "naturally?"

That also leads me to another issue with the GMO labeling and why it creates confusion: it is such a broad label. Things like those Arctic apples that were recently approved that have some genes silenced to result in less production of pollyphenol oxidase to reduce browning are lumped in with others created by much different processes. That's the kind of thing that adds to confusion.

Do they get a pass? Many don't like the use of pesticides period. What passes for "organic" by our gov't standards is a joke. It's not as cut and dry as people in this thread presented, not even close. People really need to educate themselves on our gov't agencies when it comes to our food. For instance, many people believe that "organic" means there are no pesticides used in the growing of the foods. There are plenty of loopholes in the rules to get around that.

Again...a genetically modified product is a genetically modified product. It's not confusing. One can argue that there are "good" reasons for the GMOs or "bad" reasons for the GMOs I suppose, but in the end, they are GMOs. If one wants to argue there is a negative stigma associated with GMOs I'd agree. Those companies insisting on using/creating them should do more to educate the public to remove that stigma. They choose to produce them, it's on them to educate IMO.

Interesting. Basically the same point many pro-GMO people make: genetic modification is genetic modification (no matter the specific process), and therefore, just about everything we eat today is a GMO.

 

[The Commish]

OK, tell me then. How do you convince people that are afraid of GMO's that there is nothing wrong with them when thousands of studies have proven them to be as safe if not safer, and an overwhelming majority of scientists say they are safe as safer (More scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree in man made global warming and that vaccines are safe.)? The anti-GMO crowd is in the same category as anti-vaccinaters and climate change deniers. What is the answer? Should we let the anti-vaccinaters control our vaccine policy despite what science says? Should we let the climate change deniers control our environmental policies despite the scientific evidence?

You don't...you can't. All you can do is produce the data. This GMO debate is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It's not a cut/dry topic for most. There's a lot of political junk mixed in with the science so I don't really subscribe to the idea that this topic is the same as the vaccine or climate change debate. There's a lot of obtusification going on and the reality is, fewer and fewer people are trusting our government. Their track record isn't the best when it comes to our food. And it doesn't help in the least when they go the "well, it's not the FOOD you should have a problem with, it's the chemicals"...well, no ####...they go hand in hand in a lot of cases. Wouldn't need to modify them to resist chemical X if you weren't using chemical X. It's an absurd excuse/argument.

I think a good majority of the perceived problems could be fixed with a national food plan but that won't happen because it would require holding big business to a standard that might dig into their bottom line.

 

[The Commish]

Interesting. Basically the same point many pro-GMO people make: genetic modification is genetic modification (no matter the specific process), and therefore, just about everything we eat today is a GMO.

And I find those discussions much more interesting. Is there an issue with us forcing a modification instead of letting nature do it? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion but we don't ever get to that point because many of the modifications are being done to resist systemic chemicals, not to improve/express food qualities.

 

[Rayderr]

Interesting. Basically the same point many pro-GMO people make: genetic modification is genetic modification (no matter the specific process), and therefore, just about everything we eat today is a GMO.

And I find those discussions much more interesting. Is there an issue with us forcing a modification instead of letting nature do it? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion but we don't ever get to that point because many of the modifications are being done to resist systemic chemicals, not to improve/express food qualities.

We haven't been "letting nature do it" for generations. Check out the work of Norm Borlaug. And your final statement is wrong. A lot of the modifications are to improve food qualities (and quantities. equally important.)

And there's Golden Rice. It's rice but it makes vitamin A. In developing countries that will make a huge impact of child death and blindness rates. It has nothing to do with being able to withstand a certain chemical.

In india, modifications have allowed crops to grow where they usually failed to in the past as they require less water and are resistant to local diseases that afflict crops in the area.

 

[The Commish]

Interesting. Basically the same point many pro-GMO people make: genetic modification is genetic modification (no matter the specific process), and therefore, just about everything we eat today is a GMO.

And I find those discussions much more interesting. Is there an issue with us forcing a modification instead of letting nature do it? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion but we don't ever get to that point because many of the modifications are being done to resist systemic chemicals, not to improve/express food qualities.

We haven't been "letting nature do it" for generations. Check out the work of Norm Borlaug. And your final statement is wrong. A lot of the modifications are to improve food qualities (and quantities. equally important.) And there's Golden Rice. It's rice but it makes vitamin A. In developing countries that will make a huge impact of child death and blindness rates. It has nothing to do with being able to withstand a certain chemical.

In india, modifications have allowed crops to grow where they usually failed to in the past as they require less water and are resistant to local diseases that afflict crops in the area.

How does any of this make my last statement wrong? This is why labeling is important IMO. There are good reasons to modify and bad. I've never said otherwise. They aren't all equal. With that said, I've never seen a petition against GMOs that didn't involve chemicals or toxins being added to the body. Is there a petition out there to do away with the modifications made in your examples above? If not, I'm not sure why you're even bringing them up

 

[Rayderr]

Interesting. Basically the same point many pro-GMO people make: genetic modification is genetic modification (no matter the specific process), and therefore, just about everything we eat today is a GMO.

And I find those discussions much more interesting. Is there an issue with us forcing a modification instead of letting nature do it? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion but we don't ever get to that point because many of the modifications are being done to resist systemic chemicals, not to improve/express food qualities.

We haven't been "letting nature do it" for generations. Check out the work of Norm Borlaug. And your final statement is wrong. A lot of the modifications are to improve food qualities (and quantities. equally important.) And there's Golden Rice. It's rice but it makes vitamin A. In developing countries that will make a huge impact of child death and blindness rates. It has nothing to do with being able to withstand a certain chemical.

In india, modifications have allowed crops to grow where they usually failed to in the past as they require less water and are resistant to local diseases that afflict crops in the area.

How does any of this make my last statement wrong? This is why labeling is important IMO. There are good reasons to modify and bad. I've never said otherwise. They aren't all equal. With that said, I've never seen a petition against GMOs that didn't involve chemicals or toxins being added to the body. Is there a petition out there to do away with the modifications made in your examples above? If not, I'm not sure why you're even bringing them up

Link to credible studies that show GMO's lead to poisoning of the body?

And I bring up Norm Borlaug and his work for one very basic reason. IT'S THE SAME ####ING THING WE'RE DOING NOW! All that's changed is the technology. We used to make phone calls on old hand crank phones, then rotary phones, and then touch tone phones, then mobile phones and now smart phones. We're still making calls. We're just using newer technology to do it. We've been modifying food forever (and without labels! OMG! How are we not dead?!) It's just that the technology has evolved.

 

[The Commish]

Interesting. Basically the same point many pro-GMO people make: genetic modification is genetic modification (no matter the specific process), and therefore, just about everything we eat today is a GMO.

And I find those discussions much more interesting. Is there an issue with us forcing a modification instead of letting nature do it? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion but we don't ever get to that point because many of the modifications are being done to resist systemic chemicals, not to improve/express food qualities.

We haven't been "letting nature do it" for generations. Check out the work of Norm Borlaug. And your final statement is wrong. A lot of the modifications are to improve food qualities (and quantities. equally important.) And there's Golden Rice. It's rice but it makes vitamin A. In developing countries that will make a huge impact of child death and blindness rates. It has nothing to do with being able to withstand a certain chemical.

In india, modifications have allowed crops to grow where they usually failed to in the past as they require less water and are resistant to local diseases that afflict crops in the area.

How does any of this make my last statement wrong? This is why labeling is important IMO. There are good reasons to modify and bad. I've never said otherwise. They aren't all equal. With that said, I've never seen a petition against GMOs that didn't involve chemicals or toxins being added to the body. Is there a petition out there to do away with the modifications made in your examples above? If not, I'm not sure why you're even bringing them up

Link to credible studies that show GMO's lead to poisoning of the body?

And I bring up Norm Borlaug and his work for one very basic reason. IT'S THE SAME ####ING THING WE'RE DOING NOW! All that's changed is the technology. We used to make phone calls on old hand crank phones, then rotary phones, and then touch tone phones, then mobile phones and now smart phones. We're still making calls. We're just using newer technology to do it. We've been modifying food forever (and without labels! OMG! How are we not dead?!) It's just that the technology has evolved.

You are part of the problem if you are willing to go down this path. I didn't say anything of the sort. I DID say an attempt to separate the GMO product from what it's being modified for is silly, but you seem ok continuing trying to do that, so have at it.

 

[Rayderr]

Interesting. Basically the same point many pro-GMO people make: genetic modification is genetic modification (no matter the specific process), and therefore, just about everything we eat today is a GMO.

And I find those discussions much more interesting. Is there an issue with us forcing a modification instead of letting nature do it? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion but we don't ever get to that point because many of the modifications are being done to resist systemic chemicals, not to improve/express food qualities.

We haven't been "letting nature do it" for generations. Check out the work of Norm Borlaug. And your final statement is wrong. A lot of the modifications are to improve food qualities (and quantities. equally important.) And there's Golden Rice. It's rice but it makes vitamin A. In developing countries that will make a huge impact of child death and blindness rates. It has nothing to do with being able to withstand a certain chemical.

In india, modifications have allowed crops to grow where they usually failed to in the past as they require less water and are resistant to local diseases that afflict crops in the area.

How does any of this make my last statement wrong? This is why labeling is important IMO. There are good reasons to modify and bad. I've never said otherwise. They aren't all equal. With that said, I've never seen a petition against GMOs that didn't involve chemicals or toxins being added to the body. Is there a petition out there to do away with the modifications made in your examples above? If not, I'm not sure why you're even bringing them up

Link to credible studies that show GMO's lead to poisoning of the body?

And I bring up Norm Borlaug and his work for one very basic reason. IT'S THE SAME ####ING THING WE'RE DOING NOW! All that's changed is the technology. We used to make phone calls on old hand crank phones, then rotary phones, and then touch tone phones, then mobile phones and now smart phones. We're still making calls. We're just using newer technology to do it. We've been modifying food forever (and without labels! OMG! How are we not dead?!) It's just that the technology has evolved.

You are part of the problem if you are willing to go down this path. I didn't say anything of the sort. I DID say an attempt to separate the GMO product from what it's being modified for is silly, but you seem ok continuing trying to do that, so have at it.

 

[biju]

For those demanding labeling, do you have any reasons besides "because."?

What type of labeling are you wanting? just having it listed in the ingredients (i.e. Liberty Link Corn) on the side of the box written in the tiny font to fit in that tiny nutrition box? Or a big sticker on the front reading "WARNING! Contains GMOs!"?

I'm not looking for the specific type of corn to be listed, I'd just prefer to know if it is GM, Organic, pesticides were used, etc. As for my reasoning, it's because I want the information and the choice--I don't want the decision being made for me.

 

[Rayderr]

For those demanding labeling, do you have any reasons besides "because."?

What type of labeling are you wanting? just having it listed in the ingredients (i.e. Liberty Link Corn) on the side of the box written in the tiny font to fit in that tiny nutrition box? Or a big sticker on the front reading "WARNING! Contains GMOs!"?

I'm not looking for the specific type of corn to be listed, I'd just prefer to know if it is GM, Organic, pesticides were used, etc. As for my reasoning, it's because I want the information and the choice--I don't want the decision being made for me.

You'r the second person who's said they also want to know what pesticides are being used. Where's the huge outcry for pesticide labeling on food? Why is that being largely ignored yet GMO's are getting unfairly scrutinized.

And why stop the distinction at GMO and Non-GMO?