Forgot your password?

How much I care about GMO food labeling:

Displaying poll results.
I'm aware of the topic, but am basically indifferent.
  5328 votes / 26%
It's of mild concern to me, but not a topic of action.
  3056 votes / 15%
I would sign a petition (in favor or against mandating it).
  5514 votes / 27%
I would hold the clipboard with a petition
  1804 votes / 8%
I live in a jurisdiction where it's already mandated.
  861 votes / 4%
What's GMO food labeling?
  2589 votes / 12%
You've rudely forgotten my demographic!
  1105 votes / 5%
20257 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How much I care about GMO food labeling:

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    >You're rudely forgotten my demographic!
    >You're rudely
    >You are
    wat?

    • by slinches (1540051) on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:08PM (#43434223)

      The demographic that they are forgotting be the Grammar Nazis

    • Obviously a typo. You're should be You've...
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No, I am not should be I have!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      They've rudely forgotten my demographic. I'm for GMO use. If we can reduce the spraying of pesticides I don't see what the issue is. There are certain practices (like making seeds of grown food sterile) that I find disturbing but genetically modified foods which are stronger and better? I'm all for it.
      • by wgoodman (1109297) on Friday April 12, 2013 @10:15PM (#43437989)

        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.

        • Bullshit. Aside from RoundUp-Ready there are no other pesticide-resistant GMO strains out there. And RoundUp is more benign than tons of other commonly used pesticides. Other GMO plants (like potato resistant to bugs) require LESS pesticides than organic plants.
          • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @11:59AM (#43440661) Journal

            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.

            • by TerranFury (726743) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @01:26PM (#43441151)

              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.

              • by Dare nMc (468959)

                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.)

              • Since we still don't know what's causing it (after years of widespread research), blaming "colony collapse" on anything is at best idle speculation, and often (as in this case) drum-beating for a pet cause.
            • by ukemike (956477) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @10:10PM (#43448923) Homepage

              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.

          • by z4ce (67861)

            Round-up isn't pesticide its herbicide.. not be pedantic but it kind of a big difference.

        • by Dare nMc (468959)

          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

      • I would sign a petition (in favor or against mandating it)

      • by imuffin (196159) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @01:47PM (#43441273)

        If you're for GMO use, then surely, you're pro GMO-labeling, right? How else will you know which food to buy?

      • by devent (1627873) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @03:50PM (#43441969) Homepage

        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.

        • by Kittenman (971447)

          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.

          • by femtobyte (710429) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @11:15PM (#43449233)

            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.

  • Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dontbemad (2683011) on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:04PM (#43434149)
    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. Many/most americans not only don't care about GMOs, Monsanto, or the effects on the environment/populace, the flat out don't know about them entirely. Before we try to educate people about why GMOs can be potentially harmful, we need to educate them about their very existence first.
    • Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)

      by erice (13380) on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:14PM (#43434283) Homepage

      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)

        by H0p313ss (811249) on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:58PM (#43435125)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12, 2013 @05:24PM (#43435991)

          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 ;)

          • by H0p313ss (811249)

            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.

          • by AK Marc (707885)
            I've met at least 100 people who live "gluten free". Of which, only one has a medically confirmed issue. The rest just chose it like vegetarianism.

            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
          • 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)

        by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo @ w orld3.net> on Friday April 12, 2013 @05:57PM (#43436259) Homepage

        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.

    • That's an interesting opinion, because my very-educated daughter who has gone to college for several years and studied bio-engineering says it's mostly ignorant and uneducated people who believe GMO foods are harmful. She says they listen to people who claim to be educated spout half-truths about the GMO process, and then don't have any basis to determine where or not to be concerned. Since the people making the claims are so scared, those that are ignorant and uneducated tend to believe them rather than t
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Todd Palin (1402501)
        Here is the problem. Almost all GMO plants are engineered to produce toxins that kill bugs, or to be resistant to herbicides which can then be liberally applied to fields without killing the food plants. They could have made plants that produce more protein or more of some vitamin, which could have conceivably benefited the consumer. But, no, they modified the plant to ultimately make the foods more toxic due to the increased toxins they can now spray on the crops, or to add novel toxins that the plants
        • Re:Ignorance (Score:4, Informative)

          by phantomfive (622387) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @12:26AM (#43438575) Journal

          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:Ignorance (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Friday April 12, 2013 @06:11PM (#43436379)
      Define genetically modified.

      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.

    • Is GMO inherently dangerous and wrong? No. But I see many people opposed to GMO on principle. Now I feel strongly that we, as consumers, should be aware of as much as possible and so I am in favor of labeling. But I see the concern - too many people are unjustifiably and irrationally horrified by GMO. (And yet many are devotees of homopathic medicines.)

      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
  • I'm 100% in favor of food labeling. I don't mind GMO food (or gluten or peanuts or...), but appreciate that some people do. I think we have the right to know what's in the food we're eating so that we can make informed decisions about whether we want to ingest it.
    • by Quila (201335)

      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.

  • Anti-Monsanto (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SleazyRidr (1563649) on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:24PM (#43434835)

    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.

  • by Vrallis (33290) on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:40PM (#43434943) Homepage

    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.

    • 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?

      • by deimtee (762122)
        I wouldn't have a problem with sterile plants, or one generation terminators. But if they push it to four or five, and tie it to a competitive advantage for the plant, it has the potential to cause massively destructive die-offs if it gets into anything else.
  • 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

    • by gooman (709147)

      You're kidding, right? You think slashdot polls have (or should have) some value in the real world.

  • Moot point (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spaceyhackerlady (462530) on Friday April 12, 2013 @04:13PM (#43435273)

    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)

      by greenguy (162630) <estebandido@NosPAm.gmail.com> on Friday April 12, 2013 @04:44PM (#43435615) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12, 2013 @05:49PM (#43436187)

    This GMO warning does not go far enough! I demand the following to also be labeled:

    1. CAUTION: This food contains CHEMICALS with atoms that were formed in NUCLEAR reactions.
    2. WARNING: This food was derived from plants whose genomes were MUTATED from the single-cell ancestor of all living things
    3. DANGER: This food emits RADIATION; heating this food will cause it to emit EVEN MORE RADIATION.
    4. ZOMG LOOKOUT: This food contains at least one RADIOACTIVE nucleus that will emit IONIZING RADIATION that can cause CANCER when it decays
    5. HAZARD: This food contains DHMO, a HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL responsible for THOUSANDS OF DEATHS worldwide every year.

    Slashdot: Your new home for scientific illiteracy!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • The most obvious forgotten demographic is places where GM food is illegal anyway. I don't have a problem with genetic manipulation per se (humans have been doing it for millenia), but the manipulation of the market and the farmer by the companies is unwise, as is the assumption that the current testing regime is adequate to protect the population: it's not — with anything that enters the foodchain, you need decades, if not centuries, but certainly many generations, to demonstrate that it's not going t
  • Why are there no options that are against GMO food labeling. Personally, I think that labeling will artificially lead to people with "Chinese restaurant syndrome" talking about how GMO crops give them headaches or some such psycosomatic crap. People will find reason to push GMO crops out of business for the sake of needing a cause. Look at the anit-vaccine lobby where people like Jenny Mccarthy seem to claim they can cure autism with a vegan diet and love. Damn Hippies...
  • Two options: ignorance or mandated information? Really? 3rd-party certification has been working great on gluten-free products. There's a huge market for non-GMO certifiers -- if they can get past the big corporations in bed with the legislators and the general apathy rampant throughout the world.

    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
  • 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.

  • by PPH (736903) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @01:46AM (#43444589)

    ... of GMO labeling. Not because I give a damn personally. But if it frightens a bunch of nervous nellies into NOT sharing my food supply, it will be cheaper for me. And their natural, organic, pesticide-free (bug infested) food will be more expensive for them.

    In fact, its so entertaining, I'd even pay to get in to Whole Foods just to watch the show.

  • Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Githaron (2462596) on Monday April 15, 2013 @12:50PM (#43453211)
    More transparency about the products we purchases is always a good thing.

"I have just one word for you, my boy...plastics." - from "The Graduate"

 



Forgot your password?
Working...