How much I care about GMO food labeling:
Displaying poll results.20258 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8478 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7277 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:2, Informative)
>You're rudely forgotten my demographic!
>You're rudely
>You are
wat?
Re:You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:5, Funny)
The demographic that they are forgotting be the Grammar Nazis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, I am not should be I have!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:5, Informative)
One of the primary reasons that Monsanto is making GMO crops is to make them resistant to their pesticides. That way instead of using a little bit of pesticide, farmers are able to completely coat the fields, killing everything except the GMO crops. GMO crops use significantly more toxic chemicals than the non GMO counterparts.
Re: You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:2, Informative)
...and the reason why (Score:5, Informative)
Other GMO plants (like potato resistant to bugs) require LESS pesticides than organic plants.
Correct - this is because these modified plants produce chemicals internally that perform the same function. We then eat those chemicals in quantities far higher than we have been exposed to before. Obviously the short term effects of this have been studied and shown to be safe but I doubt very much that the long term effects have been accurately studied. So I'd prefer to wait for a decade or two so the current round of guinea pigs can determine whether there are any long term issues on human health and then I'll be happy to eat GMOs.
Yes -- and suspected in bee colony collapse (Score:4, Informative)
There is also a suspicion now that sublethal effects of glyphosate (Roundup) are making bee colonies susceptible to infection by other pathogens, and that this "one-two punch" is what's causing colony collapse. I wouldn't want to risk something essential -- pollinators -- just to get marginal boosts to yield.
Re: (Score:3)
Roundup is a herbicide, not a pesticide, I have not heard of any link of herbicide use (especially roundup a very non toxic one, at least relative to other herbicides) to any bee colony issues. Concerns with pesticide use in farming, yes but not herbicides. I don't think any GMO crop is being considered as a negative, only as a positive to reducing pesticide use (I haven't even seen any study based concerns with bug resistant plants, but if they become bigger, that seams likely to become one.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:...and the reason why (Score:5, Informative)
Other GMO plants (like potato resistant to bugs) require LESS pesticides than organic plants.
Correct - this is because these modified plants produce chemicals internally that perform the same function. We then eat those chemicals in quantities far higher than we have been exposed to before. Obviously the short term effects of this have been studied and shown to be safe but I doubt very much that the long term effects have been accurately studied. So I'd prefer to wait for a decade or two so the current round of guinea pigs can determine whether there are any long term issues on human health and then I'll be happy to eat GMOs.
Actually one of the biggest problems about GMOs is that in the '90s the US government declared that GMO's are "generally recognized safe" foods. This means that Monsanto et. al. do not have to do any testing. We are the test.
Re: ...and the reason why (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Round-up isn't pesticide its herbicide.. not be pedantic but it kind of a big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
I would agree that "GMO" is too broad a label -- but if anything, this is an argument for more labeling, rather than less.
Let's look at established food technology. It would not be helpful to simply list "WARNING: Contains synthetic ingredients" on packaging. Nevertheless, this does not stop us from requiring producers to clearly label what is in the food, in the form of an ingredients list. We do this despite the possible "public confusion" that could be caused by the fact that most people do not know w
Re: (Score:3)
So many wrongs. First Pesticides kill bugs, not plants. No need for GMO for pesticide, all plants are resistant to pesticides. Second Roundup doesn't kill everything, only growing plants, and many were naturally immune even from day one. Third as others have pointed out this is the only case of GMO use to increase tolerance, but not to increase toxic chemical use. This increased roundups use replacing more toxic chemicals, Roundup is considered noncarcinogenic and relatively low in toxicity by the EPA
You mean the demographic of dyslexics? (Score:3)
I would sign a petition (in favor or against mandating it)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're for GMO use, then surely, you're pro GMO-labeling, right? How else will you know which food to buy?
Re:You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with GMO is, is that it's solving the wrong problem. We have plenty of food, so much food, that the government of all countries (Germany, France, USA, Canada, etc.) are subsidizing. See Agricultural subsidy [wikipedia.org]. Also, we are burning food so much food we have.
The problem is not that we can't grow enough food, the problem is that the countries where people starve to death can't afford the food (the food plus transportation costs). We would happily feed all starving people in the world and more, if they could afford to buy food from the USA or Germany.
And the biggest issue with GMO is, not whether or not the food have any impact on health. The big issue of all is that it monopolize food production. I really wish that the USA would embrace "free market" and remove all patents on genes.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is not that we can't grow enough food, the problem is that the countries where people starve to death can't afford the food (the food plus transportation costs). We would happily feed all starving people in the world and more, if they could afford to buy food from the USA or Germany.
Read P J O'Rourke. Can't remember which (maybe 'All the troubles of the world') but he agrees, and states that it's not that people are starving, it's that people are being starved.
Famines are political, these days.
Re:You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:4, Informative)
This is not a new thing. During the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, Ireland was a net food exporter, because it was much more profitable for wealthy merchants to sell food to Brits than starving Irish peasants (compared to export bans during prior famines in 1782, which helped lower food prices and soften the impact of shortages in Ireland). The British elite were at the time enamored by Malthus' work, which provided them with justification that the most humane thing they could do was let the Irish starve to death. The same ideology reigns in high circles today.
Re:You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, is this the new "angry" typeface, or do you always post like this?
Re: (Score:3)
When I'm REALLY angry I use Comic Sans MS
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, a true font warrior! Scary!! ;-)
Re:You're rudely forgotten my demographic! (Score:5, Funny)
Two wrongs don't make a right and two rights don't make a left. It takes three.
Ah, yes. But two Wrights make an airplane.
G-R-O-A-N
I'll groan for you.
Cheers,
Dave
Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem with GMO labeling, like many issues facing not only the American populace, but the rest of the world, isn't really whether GMOs are labeled or not. The real problem is mass ignorance about the subject matter entirely.
Indeed, there is a whole movement pushing for GMO food labeling consisting almost entirely of people ignorant that "GMO" doesn't tell anything about the health effects of a food item.
Perversely, there is no movement to label the chemicals applied to food even though many of the chemicals (like pesticides and herbicides) are toxins.
Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem with GMO labeling, like many issues facing not only the American populace, but the rest of the world, isn't really whether GMOs are labeled or not. The real problem is mass ignorance about the subject matter entirely.
Indeed, there is a whole movement pushing for GMO food labeling consisting almost entirely of people ignorant that "GMO" doesn't tell anything about the health effects of a food item.
Perversely, there is no movement to label the chemicals applied to food even though many of the chemicals (like pesticides and herbicides) are toxins.
Well said. From what I can see there's a strong correlation between people who are upset about GMO labeling and people who obsess about other (silly) food issues such as veganism, gluten-free-ism, etc.
Most of the people involved are not, shall we say, people I would go to for advice for anything more complicated than 2 + 2, and usually lacking in any formal science education.
(But this is ad-hominim, and therefore dubious.)
Re:Ignorance (Score:4, Informative)
most of thrr people who "obsess" with "gluten-free-ism" do that because they have a very real (Medical) problem , So I guess everybody should get a bit of education everywhere ;)
Re: (Score:2)
most of thrr people who "obsess" with "gluten-free-ism" do that because they have a very real (Medical) problem , So I guess everybody should get a bit of education everywhere ;)
And some are avoiding gluten because they are hypocondriacs. I've experienced this first hand, I suspect that there are lots of people out there who should be avoiding gluten and are not and a very small number, that I saw first hand, who are avoiding gluten because they need some other kind of therapy.
It's not a black and white world.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the one ignorantly assuming those making fun of gluten-free are ignorant of the medical issues. That's simply not true. And yet we still make fun of gluten free. Yes, that's unfair to the few that have it (between 0.5% and 50% of the population, depending on who you ask), but when the "experts" can't even get similar numbers between them for numbers
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, but you seem to have missed the fact that people who obsess about gluten free are not very rare.
And yet the medical issue requiring that care is..
Do you get it now?
Kind of obvious, dont you think? no? thought not.
Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK you can buy food that is labelled as not using artificial pesticides etc. due to consumer demand.
Also note that health issues are not the only consideration. I don't want GMO food because it screws the farmers, especially in poorer parts of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ignorance (Score:4, Informative)
They could have made plants that produce more protein or more of some vitamin
They have [wikipedia.org]. And the plan is to give it out without royalties to the people who will benefit most from it. There's been huge opposition to it from protestors, though. They'd rather see blind kids.
Re: (Score:3)
The GMO producers clearly see their role as friends of the farmer, not the consumer.
Yes, because farmers are the ones buying their products.
Re:Ignorance (Score:4, Informative)
While I am concerned about roundup resistant foods, it is for the idea that I might get more than my minimum daily requirement of Roundup. Not their genetic modifications.
But would you support the creation of a genetically modified version of wheat that has less loss of seed upon harvest, therefore increasing yield?
Too late, humans genetically mofied that thousands of years ago.
And there lies the problem. I look at GM as just another tool in making food, and many in the anti-GMO crowd are just as logical as the anti-vaxxer parents mailing chickenpox infested lolipops around the country.
Just about everything we eat has been and is continuing to be genetically modified.
So if we simply label a food "GMO", it will be exceptionally misleading. And for some odd reason some foods that are obviously genetically modified are not considered GMO.
If we take Triticale wheat for instance. It is a cross between Wheat of a variety, and rye. It can yield like wheat, and has the disease resistance of rye. Let's ignore for the moment that crossing two different species is about as much genetic modification as possible, but next, the seeds are treated with Colchicine, a toxic secondary metabolite which is sometimes used for treating gout, but not often due to it's toxicity.
Doesn't that conjure up visions of evil scientists in their laboratories working for Monsanto?
Nope, Triticale is sold as organic food. In spite of it being a genetic cross between two other plants, and despite it being treated with a very toxic substance in order ot get it to seed. It's all natural, and is every bit as natural as the Paris Green arsenic we used to dust our vegetables with.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, one thing I can say about homopathic medicines is that they do no physical harm - GMOs, on the other-hand have a *potential* for problems. I'm looki
Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't potentially harmful - and you show your scientific ignorance by ignoring studies which show that.
Common sense says, that if you forcibly introduce and maintain a large number of new genes to the ecosystem, it has potential to unbalance things. Natural evolution can only keep up at the rate of natural evolution, adaptations driven by natural mutations, in very small steps and under constant pressure of natural selection. Humans are not limited in the same way, with gene technolgoies we can introduce very large "mutations" to ecosystem as fast as we want, and we can manipulate natural selection (for example with protected environments, introducing genes which protect against human-applied poisons) to keep otherwise detrimental genes around.
Gene technologies are not just more of what has been happening for the past about 4 billion years without humans too. This is a new, never before seen phenomenon. We have only one Earth to see what happens. Common sense says, better be cautions.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the genes.
I simply don't trust a poison salesman to engineer seed.
That's the real problem here. You don't have farmers and agronomists doing the meddling. This is all about a herbicide company trying to sell more herbicide. Most people don't have any clue who Monsanto really is because they aren't a consumer facing company.
Then there's the patent nonsense.
Monsanto is a herbicide company, not a seed company.
Re: (Score:2)
"common sense says, that if you forcibly introduce and maintain a large number of new genes to the ecosystem, it has potential to unbalance things"
no, it doesn't. Also the genes in plants change all the time.
Common sense says ma will never step on the moon.
Common sense, isn't.
"Natural evolution can only keep up at the rate of natural evolution,"
than's been shown false.
"in very small steps and under constant pressure of natural selection."
not always. if a gap appear in the eco system, say all the dinosaurs w
Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
There's dumb people who don't want to hear anything about GMO because they don't understand what it is.
There's intelligent people who understand GMO and the potential benefits that they can bring.
There's intelligent and reasonable people who understand both the potential benefits and the disastrous consequences that GMO can bring.
Given the number of so-called "rigorous studies" that are later found to be paid by companies such as Monsanto, common sense is all we really have, I'd rather be cautious and rely on people who are both intelligent AND reasonable, those studies never include worst-case scenarios but real life does.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a lot of studies that have been done with good rigor, that's all that matters.
Sure, a company showing a study the get an advantage out of is a red flag, but if the rigor, methodology and sample size is good, then it's a good study.
Re: (Score:3)
Please learn the difference between selective breeding and GM.
In very simple language, even the most intensive breeding project takes many generations. Hybrids are something that uses existing organisms and is still a deliberate process.
Someone else gave a theoretical example of putting fish genes in a potato to increase the protein content. Sounds good until you start thinking up theoretical problems to go with it,
What new pests would attack the potato?
Allergies etc?
Are there any side effects to human
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take rigorous scientific study over "common sense" every time.
I think you've got this backwards. Let's say you came up with a new mass-use for some known but not commonly used chemical. Would you really have no qualms about spreading it to the environment in large quantities, and keep doing it until you have scientific proof that it does something harmful?
No, when you do something new, and common sense says this has potential to be bad, then you do scientific study to rule out as many bad things as you can, until you can plausibly say it's ok.
Can you link to a scienti
Re: (Score:2)
Iw as going to send you links, then I got to this:
"I bet Monsanto has done a few studies like this. I also bet they are in a safe somewhere, closely guarded and known to as few people as possible."
Ah, you are delusional paranoid and have an emotional belief tied to an unreasonable view point. No study will change a mind that can't think rationally, such as your mind.
Tell me, on the side do you also post youtube videos about bigfoot, fake space missions and false flag operations?
Don't refer to studies you don't understand. (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop. You are clearly ignorant of the field, of lab rats, and of science.
Rats designed to get cancer got cancer. Shocking.
Here is a break down of the study, and it's questionable ethics:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/ [theness.com]
Yeah yeah,. You got nothing so make ad hom attacks and scream shill instead of actually thinking. Hopefully some rational and thinking people will read this and the link to the study.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a rats ass about whether they're harmful or not...I'll cede the health argument entirely.
What I care about is that Monsanto is a despicable company that's attempting to fuck with our food supply for profit. The list of underhanded and downright unconscionable things that company has done is a mile long. I want labels on GMO products because I want to ensure that not one red cent I spend on food ends up supporting them. I want their leadership strung up by their entrails but, failing that, I wan
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse a general label for a process with Monsanto. If Monsanto uses it unethically then go after Monsato.
Genetically altering food has been going on for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling people a shill just shows you don't have any argument.
I don't care, but think they should be labeled (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm for food labeling too, as long as it's not takent to ridiculous extremes, such as having to write "WARNING: Contains Peanuts" on a bag of peanuts, or putting dietary information (calories, protein, etc.) on a bottle of pure water.
Re: (Score:3)
Country of origin and union status doesn't affect the nutritional value of the food.
Imagine you're a small bakery shop. You buy flour in bulk, but now you have to find out if the wheat used to make the flour is GMO. Because if it is, then you have to label your baked goods as GMO.
Right. You'd have to make a phone call to your supplier to ask him whether or not it's GMO. He'd have to call his sources (which he'd already be doing because you're not his only customer), and so on up the chain.
All of that extra work adds to the cost of your product.
That's the least convincing reason not to do something. The cheapest solution would be no labeling at all, so that "ground beef" could actually ground possum injected with moist hydrogenated oils. As a society, we'v
Re:I don't care, but think they should be labeled (Score:4, Interesting)
Country of origin is a relevant piece of information - it tells how far the food has travelled and thus how much fuel was used in delivering it, as well as how long it was likely sitting in storage or transport. If a fruit is picked before ripening and is stored in a warehouse for 9 months [foodrenegade.com], it's obviously less nutritious than something that was picked yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
To what extent? Should you have the right to know the country of origin for every ingredient, down to the food coloring?
The food produced in China is no different from that produced in the US.
Any more than the Diamonds from Somalia are any different from those from South Africa.
Sure, slave labor may have been used to produce them, but who cares, as long as they are cheaper, right?
Anti-Monsanto (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I don't really mind about genetically modified food. Unless it's introducing something which could cause an allergic reaction I can't see why I'd need to care. I would, however, pay more for Monsanto-free food. I think a lot of people are anti-GMO simply due to the correlation of Monsanto making so much money from them and Monsanto being pure evil.
Agree, but don't care so much personally (Score:3)
I'd gladly sign a petition, and agree it should be mandatory that it be labeled.
However, I personally don't care so much. My only major concern with GMO crops would be pushing terminator genes again and possibly spreading into standard crops.
Re: (Score:2)
My only major concern with GMO crops would be pushing terminator genes again and possibly spreading into standard crops.
Isn't this fear about as realistic as seedless watermelons spreading into standard watermelons?
Re: (Score:3)
Among the most confusing polls (Score:2)
Is there any way to get any useful data from this poll? (I mean, as much as can be gained fron any internet poll.) Is it really just asking how strongly I feel about a subject? Because that's about as dull as you can get. Here's the discussion it will create:
A: "I feel strongly!"
B: "I feel less strongly!"
A: "Oh."
GMO and food labeling are interesting subjects, but this poll doesn't let us discuss them at all. (Which is kind of the point of these things.)
So, in lieu of a poll that actually asks for an opini
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding, right? You think slashdot polls have (or should have) some value in the real world.
Moot point (Score:4, Interesting)
I view the point as moot: almost all food already is genetically modified, through selective breeding. Many things we eat bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors.
I'm more concerned about companies asserting intellectual property rights to food.
I'm also concerned about the "oppose everything" mentality. Some day something will come along that really is worth opposing and people will tune out because the tinfoil hat brigade have cried wolf too many times.
...laura
Re:Moot point (Score:5, Informative)
Selective breeding is not genetic modification, even if both take place at the genetic level. Selective breeding effectively makes humans an environmental factor that influences evolution. Genetic modification physically splices genes into cells -- genes that never could have made the leap across species, or even whole kingdoms. No amount of selective breeding is going to give a tomato a gene from a fish.
One is a semi-natural process, and the other is about as far from a natural process as could be imagined. One has been documented for as long as there have been documents, and the other is an experiment being conducted on all of us.
Re: (Score:3)
So, are GMO foods safe? Probably... they're generally regarded as safe at least... but then is NATURAL food safe? Probably... they're generally regarded as safe at least... In fact, GMO food has to actually have tests to ensure that the added proteins aren't dangerous... meanwhile no one has tested all the compounds in natural soybeans to see if any of them are dangerous. So... GMO soy is actually known to be safer than natural soy...
Oh, bullshit. Look, I'm not anti-GMO. I'm sure I eat GMO foods every day and it doesn't really bother me. That said, GMO is exceedingly unlikely to make anything less dangerous. Suppose a food product is made of 100 organic compounds in various proportions. First, the fact that it's a food product at all means that most or all of those compounds are safe for consumption. Your cute sassafras example aside, people who eat unhealthy foods have historically not lived as long as their neighbors. That tends to ge
Does not go too far enough! (Score:3, Insightful)
This GMO warning does not go far enough! I demand the following to also be labeled:
Slashdot: Your new home for scientific illiteracy!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
WARNING: This product warps space and time in its vicinity.
WARNING: This product attracts every other piece of matter in the universe, including the products of other manufacturers, with a force proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.
CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This product contains minute electrically charged particles moving at velociti
Banned (Score:2)
All Pro? (Score:2)
Missing option: 3rd-party certification (Score:2)
GMO food complications are not contagious. Therefore, it should fall to personal choice for me and my family. It should not be a part of government action one way or the other. (As I understand it, the main conc
anti-labelling is pro-deception (Score:2)
In general, I'm in favour of GMOs as long as patenting genes is prohibited.
technology isn't the problem. corporations are.
which is why i'm also completely in favour of mandatory labelling - the ONLY way to avoid a lemon market is if consumers are FULLY informed.
more importantly, if people don't want to eat GMO food, then that is their right - and the only way they can exercise that right is if they know what they are eating. anti-labelling lobbying is just lobbying for the right to deceive the public.
I'm in favor ... (Score:3)
In fact, its so entertaining, I'd even pay to get in to Whole Foods just to watch the show.
Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The harm is in the use (Score:2)
The harm is attaching labels that are only there in order for others to attack. If the labels can only be used for harm, why add them.
And FYI, organisms in nature are naturally modifying genetics ALL THE TIME without your permission.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could say that about anything. Why label fat content since it can only dissuade would-be purchasers. I mean, have you ever deliberately chosen one product over another because it was fattier? That'd be pretty unlikely. Same for calories; unless you're an athlete, you probably want fewer. Or ingredients, for that matter. Who wants to load up on HCFS?
No, I'd argue that we have the right to know what we're eating. If you don't care about attribute X, then you can skip over it on the label. If you do
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, have you ever deliberately chosen one product over another because it was fattier? That'd be pretty unlikely.
Just as an aside, that's not as unlikely as you think. There are quite a lot of people following Paleo/Atkins/LCHF diets who indeed will deliberately choose a product with more fat rather than less. Although it's rarely labelled, I always look for a fattier cut of meat rather than a leaner one, and always choose the 'regular' ground beef over anything labelled lean (lean ground beef makes for hamburgers that hold together poorly and stick to the grill).
I do agree, though, more information is better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The harm is in the use (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
pffft. I'll take burgers that taste like meat. and 96/4 makes pretty poor burgers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
so where is the line? If you want to get technical then ALL food should be labels GMOs.
Maybe the should list the bacteria in the soil it was grown? Maybe what gene that bacteria was swapping with the plant? What about plants pollinate from genetically modified bees?
Anyways, when the reason behind doing something is complete alarmist bullshit, I don't want it. It's lead to more fear mongers, and an aire of legitimacy to ignorant fear mongers.
Re: (Score:2)
Calories, fat, HCFS: those have a direct impact on your health. GMO vs. non-GMO probably does not.
You're probably right. I don't have any problem eating GMO food because I haven't heard any convincing evidence to the contrary. However, I've heard no absolute proof that GMO foods are completely indistinguishable from the non-GMO versions, and it's not an inherently absurd position to think that there might be differences. If it were identical, after all, there wouldn't be a reason for the GMO version to exist.
What exactly to the genes that make a piece of corn more pest-resistant do to the proteins insid
Re: (Score:2)
You have no proof the non-GMOs are safe either.
Re:The harm is in the use (Score:5, Interesting)
The harm is attaching labels that are only there in order for others to attack. If the labels can only be used for harm, why add them.
In order to allow people to make their own decisions.
The harm is in the patents and the hubris (Score:3, Insightful)
The harm is 1. GMO facilitates a patent-driven business model that's harmful to just about everybody, including the ones who think it's good because they currently control the patents. Ultimately they'll be getting trolled just like everybody else who uses a patent-based business model. Nevermind people getting sued for GMO'd seed that blew onto their land.
2. The harm is in the hubris of thinking that we can take a natural process, accelerate it orders of magnitude under our control, and not make a seri
Re: (Score:3)
This is nonsense.
1) Don't create something new and better because other people will want to use it?
2) We are not smart enough to make anything better ever.
3) What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
If it is truly safe, then labeling the product as containing genetically modified ingredients should be a selling point
This assumes that people are entirely rational, educated on the issue, and not persuaded by FUD. I find all three of those assumptions to be false most of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
I know....those damnable people who raised such a fuss about us killing all those dolphins when we harvested tuna. Blast them and their dolphin safe labels....
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wouldn't be becasue stupid alarmist getting into the media.
Right now, we have the technology to make milk shelf safe. You do not need to be wasting energy keeping it cool.
The process to do that has the 'irradiate' in it, so people freak out. As such they still drink milk then needs to be cooled and has a much shorter life span.
Greenpeace is destroying the world.
Re: (Score:2)
GMO can introduce proteins into foods that would not otherwise contain them, which could be life threatening to people with food allergies. This is a concrete reason to require labeling.
That's an interesting concern that I hadn't even thought of. I was mostly of the mind that any danger from, or lack of wholesomeness in food made from GMOs would be detected by conventional means and therefore not a worry -- my GMO concerns were more along the lines of effects of the organisms on the environment in which they are produced and beyond.
But yeah, testing for all possible allergens expressed in genetic modification would be almost impossible. Even testing for just the ones that are already known
Re: (Score:2)
With GMOs, they can test specifically for allergies before going on the market. The non GMO corn you eat may have had a protein change and you wouldn't even know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-GMO foods are already labeled you fallacious moron! Peanuts that are not GMO Peanuts contain.. Peanuts. Tomatoes that are not GMO contain.. Tomatoes. If they are cooked, they already have to list the salt content, calories, and any other additive that may cause someone health issues like Food coloring or Sugars.
Re: (Score:2)
Peanuts that are GMO Peanuts contain Peanuts.
Re: (Score:3)
I voted against it, but believe me - the mailing I received every week from Monsanto almost had me convinced to vote for it, simply because anything Monsanto wants bad enough to spend millions of dollars is probably the opposite of what I want. I felt a little dirty voting in agreement with what they wanted.
In the end, I voted against it for the same reason several other people I know did - just because food is GMO doesn't mean it's unhealthy or otherwise bad. It means that its deserving of more scrutiny, f
Re: (Score:3)
How about instead of bringing the law into it and making yet another in the mountain of crap we have here in CA, you go with a free-market approach? If you product contains no GMO then voluntarily label it as such. If no-GMO is such a big deal then products labeled as such will gain market share. If products are labeled incorrectly, you have a reason to involve the law but otherwise stop meddling in everything in an attempt to push your "perfect world vision."
As I understand it, the FDA has currently made it illegal to label foodstuffs as GMO Free in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
breeding for characteristics over generations is different than injecting foreign DNA strands that could never occur in a species
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, one is a slow clumsy process where you can't be sure of the outcome, and the other is GMO.