Here's my take, FWLIW. This'll be long and somewhat disorganized, since it's off the cuff.
I'm not wild about the idea of lab-created GMOs. I believe strongly in natural selection and human intervention in creating new food varietals, but do not love the idea of unnaturally modifying organisms.
I see above one of the interesting arguments presented frequently in the "new food" movement that talks about the evils of wheat/bread grains. It goes something like, "Bread is bad because the type of wheat humans developed is too high in gluten content and our digestive systems can't handle the new varietals." I use this example to illustrate the divide I think exists between GMO proponents and "natural" food movements that oppose it.
I think that they're both wrong.
Human-developed wheat is one of the oldest domesticates in the world. If our digestive systems can't handle it, then we can't handle damn near anything else. Some of the same folks that tell me wheat is bad will eat all kinds of tree fruit and vegetables that are insanely recent human developments. e.g. Apples, peaches, pecans, sweet peppers, tomatoes, melons...the list goes on and on. I believe one of the reasons we live as long and well as we do is due to a great variety of these human-developed domesticates. Most of these fruits and vegetables would absolutely NOT survive in the form that we know it without human intervention (most domesticated herd/flock animals would be the same way in most climates).
On the flipside, there is nothing natural about combining salmon genes with corn. Is it inherently bad? Not necessarily. But it could be. We don't know. The bigger problem with GMOs, as I see it, is the inherently bad effects that their business practitioners have on the rest of us. Someone above posted something about them being more environmentally friendly. I've love to see uninvested research to support that notion. Most human-developed crops are more vulnerable to pests because they aren't as hardy and hard to eat as they once were. Larger fruit makes them more susceptible to all kinds of insects, rodents, etc. But although there may be crops that are meant to be pest-resistant on their own, the original reason that Monsanto began developing GMO crops was to supplement income by making them Roundup resistant. Which is to say that the crops were to be sprayed with regularity with poison that would kill every other living plant nearby and NOT the GMO product. This multiplied their product by having the consumer buy TWO products instead of one. Pure genius in business, but in no way environmentally responsible. Quite the opposite.
On top of that, you've got patent-holding companies aggressively "enforcing" genetic "drift" (literally) by ruthlessly prosecuting neighboring farmers that aren't using their GMO product, but whose seeds have been cross pollinated by the GMO crop. In theory, the idea of patented crop life is fine by me. But enforcement is bass ackward. If you have a neighbor producing anything that taints your property and devalues it in any way, you can often successfully sue them. In this case the producer of the taint is suing those that are being tainted. It's ludicrous and criminal.
Finally, you've got HUGE corporate interests that are serving in regulatory positions in the government that will always see the best interests of the GMO creators first (this isn't really different than any of our government Stateside, but it's rampant in ag, too). This creates massive subsidies for fuel and food that aren't always in the best interest of the consumer. I can speak personally to the fact that corn production for fuel has made us get worse gas mileage, and destroyed the fuel systems of older vehicles (possibly newer ones as well). If vested interest are willing to work against the public's best interest in regard to fuel, then why would it be different for food.
I mean, GMO companies have worked tirelessly to prevent legislation to require labels to reflect that a product contains GMOs in it. Why would that be? It's not legitimate to claim costs. Even if GMOs are safe, consumers should be able to make informed personal decisions should they wish to avoid such products. Vested interests have fought tooth and nail to prevent this. There is some reason for it (and I'm not one for conspiracies).
In conclusion, my take is that as an ideal type, the idea of GMO food could be a very good one. But ideal types work in a vacuum. As the current system works, I don't support GMO products, nor will I until proper labeling and disclosure is brought to the consumer. Once that happens, I'm fine with folks decided for or against the products with their wallet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I agree with everything you just said. I'm glad we understand each other. I don't think anyone here could have summed up the issue about GMO's better than you did.
Also, I don't think enough people know that farmers have lost the right to make their own natural selection for their crops and are forced to buy GMO seeds from Monsanto.
Comment has been collapsed.
Opinions (which I mostly agree with):
http://www.cracked.com/funny-5412-organic-food/
http://www.cracked.com/article/158_5-irrational-fears-even-rational-people-have_p2/
Facts:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/product-faq/gmos
http://www.rd.com/slideshows/genetically-modified-food-things-every-shopper-needs-to-know/
Comment has been collapsed.
Those aren't facts.
Examine this study which is the cause of the GMO=cancerous scare. It is not a proper study. There are major issues with it and it should not be considered valid. Until someone can reproduce those results then there is no problem.
Especially because of who funded the 3 million Euro study.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, so there's a fraudulent study related to the topic, I don't see its relevance to what I posted though. You seem to be agreeing with me despite claiming that facts aren't facts.
Comment has been collapsed.
One of the facts was incorrect in a way. I wanted to address the issue more clearly.
"However, several studies have shown a potential connection between genetically modified foods and illnesses such as cancer, infertility, and severe allergies. But the health risks are not entirely clear: many of these studies were conducted on animals, and the results might be different for people."
As you can see, it says that the studies were conducted on animals, and the results may be different for people. However, this usually isn't the case. Instead, people should look at the actual study and see the major flaws. There were unequal groups of mice, the type of mice are well known to get cancer easily, and there were many uncontrolled variables.
Comment has been collapsed.
The point is that there's nothing inherently wrong/evil/harmful about GMOs, and that the only reason people are concerned with them is because of fear-mongering. It is possible for a GMO to be harmful, but that doesn't make all of them harmful, and the same applies to organic foods.
Comment has been collapsed.
GMO? Why not BMO? But I'll go serious now... It's a need to genetically modify plants, to increase production rate, which leads to cheaper food, so less people starv, etc.. and I don't think there's anything bad about eating them, since those who can genetically modify these plants' genes, know what the hell they're doing.. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I avoid GMO. GMOs have been shown to cause cancer in other animals. so i will let the stupid eat it and see how they do.
if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wut? Point to articles supporting your claims. Go ahead. Papers, essays. Something.
I can say that letucces cause infertility if I so wish too.
Comment has been collapsed.
i wouldn't waste my time. there has been studies. find it yourself. don't be so lazy.
why would a company like monsanto get law inserted secretly and passed in US congress to give it immunity from lawsuits if later it is completely confirmed that GMOs causes health problems. because they know. come on, use your head.
but go ahead and eat GMO. it's your decisions. you can smoke too, that doesn't cause anything, oh wait...
Comment has been collapsed.
Read something about the burden of proof. If you make a claim, you have to support it if you don't your claims mean nothing.
Also I like your use of fallacies and demagoguery.
Comment has been collapsed.
Companies like to profit... and genetically modified food sounds like something they would do to literally cut corners in growing food faster and making them look better but that affects their taste... and might affect the person eating them as well in rare cases, since stuff like these might be really hard to trace back and really easy to cover up.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what organisations such as the FDA or the EFSA are for, aren't them?REgulating those things. But yeah, that risk exists.
Comment has been collapsed.
In theory, yes. But when the folks that head up the FDA or Ag Dep't. are former Monsanto execs, then it's hard to take them seriously.
Comment has been collapsed.
I-m not going to say that the posibility of exploiting them does not exists. But I would really expect that some guys called Food and Drug association cared for food and drugs from the consumer viewpoint, if not, there is something being done wrong somewhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Your last statement is correct. Something is definitely wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering that FDA was created to protect the drug companies I wouldn't trust them at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
GMO food will probably overtake normal food in the future. It still has a lot of problems and controversy surrounding it right now, but I think that eventually scientists will work out the kinks and get closer to perfecting it. As of right now, I tend to avoid GMO foods and go for organic. You probably can't actually tell the difference between and GMO and organic foods if the GMO is grown well. If anything, you'll have to have a REALLY refined taste in order to notice the subtle differences. The reason why I go organic is because of the methods and materials used behind these GMO foods. GMO typically uses science to try and maximize their yields. I'm a firm believer in science, but I don't believe these practices are entirely correct. GMO is usually grown using materials and methods such as synthetic pesticides and genetic engineering. Organic foods tend to be grown through things like crop rotation and natural fertilizers, which I ultimately believe is better as of right now. Eventually, I think these two will converge into something that tries to take the best of both worlds.
Comment has been collapsed.
You geeeet the beeest of boooth worlds
Sorry for that. Now on a more serious scale and as I was saying before. Processed and industrialized food might be bad. As products are quimically enhanced to look better (for example fruits are given a wax layer and meat is treated with sulfites (IIRC) to make it redder (More red? you get what I mean) Most of those products could present a risk to health. Also processed food is bad as a rule of thumb (High content of salt, preservers, coloring thingies, glutamate)
But it's true, too. That you won't probably get ill (As long as we are talking about bacteria/fungi/virus driven illness) by eating that kind of food as you might when it's from home.
Anyways. Thanks for your opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the language barrier is rearing its head here, but do you mean that you're more likely to get sick from home-grown products?
If so, recent outbreaks of bacterial diseases from major food suppliers/networks would probably show otherwise, if by pure numbers. Admittedly it's hard to trace all food-borne illness sources, but there have been some doozies lately in major food supply chains here Stateside.
Comment has been collapsed.
Really?
I mean, industry often follows good risk control patterns (There is a word for those, risk point control or something of the sort( which is heavily enforced and prevent most of the risks. Also we should see those outbreaks in perspective with the total amount of food being around and all that. My logic would say that something grown with no control whatsoever might be more likely (at least percentage wise( to contain some harmful beings on them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your logic may or may not be accurate. Part of the problem with many of these outbreaks is that the source of the problem comes from unrestricted fecal matter produced by mass feedlots. Those kind of scaled operations don't exist in backyards.
Industry certainly controls risk. But they also calculate risk as a percentage of cost. For instance, if they calculate that total losses would be lesser in settling a lawsuit versus keeping controls on pathogens, then there is no logical reason to control those pathogens.
Path of least resistance, highest profits.
Sometimes, that's good for the people. Often times it is most certainly not.
Many control measures are also punitive primarily to small-scale operations and benefits large equipment and chemical manufacturers.
When regulators sometimes still currently sit on the boards of the corporations the are supposed to be regulating or literally just vacated those seats prior to taking office, then there's no way to expect objective regulation, IMO. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just common sense regarding human nature.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't normally join in arguments I wasn't part of from the beginning, but I really feel like I should mention the Ford Pinto lawsuits here where even though they knew of the design flaw that cuased explosions in low speed collisions, the went ahead with production because settling lawsuits would be cheaper than fixing it beforehand. It's a pretty perfect example of what you're trying to illustrate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Great example of cost mitigation that is consumer detrimental. Doesn't always go that way, but certainly the consumer (especially in QE-intensive companies) is just another variable in the equation oftentimes.
When that occurs, IMO, it's the perfect (and somewhat rare) example of when a government should unabashedly step in and drop the hammer. When citizens are being harmed intentionally or negligently for profit, then we need regulation. It's also why sitting board members and CEOs of companies subject to regulation by a regulatory body shouldn't be able to sit on said body or should be able to prove complete divestment from the profit cycle.
Comment has been collapsed.
I admit I didn't think of that. If I'm not mistaken, here if your food has above certain levels of the so called contamination indication bacteries you can't market it. And that's it. You simply can't. Or so I was taught.
Also the thing with Ford made me sick :-/
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just going to pop in and add my opinion, but the way I see it, with home grown food, you most likely have no risk control since you're probably growing things naturally with basic materials. This would make you prone to a large variety of diseases, but the chances that you'll get one are probably slim.
With large scale operations, you can guarantee that they'll have risk control. That being said, you won't have a small outbreak because any minor bacteria, virus, or invasive organism is probably accounted for. What you will get are large outbreaks for a variety of reasons. Once you get some sort of invasive organism that's immune to your risk control (pesticides, antibiotics, whatever you may be using), it will thrive. Since large scale operations have many, many crops or whatever they're growing, the resistive risk can spread rapidly. The reliance on risk control also means that you're actually fostering conditions for a resistive pathogen/risk because you're killing off everything else but that strain, giving it more space and nutrients. It's just a matter of time of when the existing strains mutate and gain immunity.
Comment has been collapsed.
The number one way to mitigate pathogen risk at home, whether the product is grown at home or by a large company, is to wash and cook your food.
And at home, if you're growing organically, you can also control for pesticide and herbicide use. At home, you don't use fertilizer from a feed lot. If you're eating grass-fed cows, the chances of them literally standing in their own fecal matter in a lot is slim to nil.
Anyone that has a basic knowledge of gardening is going to understand the concepts involved in keeping a clean operation. The only real risk that exists is pathogenic. It's not like you're more likely to get sick from a tomato grown outdoors at home vs. outdoors in a major operation.
I think you overestimate the lack of control home gardeners have on their produce. And please see my above for why large operations may/may not have the consumer's best interest at heart when it comes to risk control. Risk control is for their risk, not the end user's. And that distinction should always be remembered.
Comment has been collapsed.
I figured that home grown food was actually safer. I stated that it was probably really slim that home grown food would become a risk. You just gave me more solid reasoning for it.
Everyone always has their own risk, but a risk to the consumer also poses a risk for the producers (well in the cases I'm thinking of). An outbreak would lead to lack of sales and therefore hurt the producer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Very true.
The problem I've had lately (and possibly one of the reasons regulators shouldn't be previously associated with the businesses they regulate), is that when the press inquires about the source of an outbreak, the FDA claims "under investigation" and, if they do release the source, do so much later and without much ado.
That's partly journo's faults for not following up, but also shady on the part of the FDA. Consumers should be made aware of multiple-time offenders and egregious practices with full transparency.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not in the US at least. Since it's cheaper to have larger plants, any contamination at one plant would affect a large number of people.
Comment has been collapsed.
GMO already has overtaken organic food in the US, people just don't realize it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, you're actually right. Majority of places actually sell GMO over organic. I guess more of what I meant was that it will be accepted by the populace.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think there is a problem, as long as none is released in the wilderness, or the researchers/livestock farmers mixes GMO animals with non-GMOs. I've the same opinion regarding plants.
I could eat food from GMOs, but probably only because I know that the quality checks in Sweden is above average. However, I prefer non-GMO / certified organic products.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's not really a problem in mixing breeds. I guess, as long as none of those have a compromising gene.
Comment has been collapsed.
You act like there's an either/or here. There's not. There's absolutely no reason to think that a higher prevalence of genetically modified corn would influence American Antelope in any meaningful way. If anything, gene manipulation will increase specie health. The cheetah, for example, has a huge genetic bottleneck. So much so that it has an effective population size of half of its actual size. Using techniques learned by genetically manipulating corn, we could fix that if we wanted.
And if you say that there's no reason we need to practice on corn first, you clearly have never had to worry about a grant. Almost no one is willing to sink money into cheetah population genetic testing, but if you attach a profit to it, the research money pours in, making it much cheaper to apply concepts and techniques to other areas. Five or ten years from now, it's very possible that we could say Monstanto's monster corn saved cheetahs from extinction. (Note: This is an exaggeration and not to be taken as a scholarly argument)
Comment has been collapsed.
What if there is a company that is not going to spend money on quality research, just because they are not going to profit? Then the result will be rather worse than the original condition. It's not about taking sides, it's about being able to see both advantages and disadvantages.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing wrong with GMOs. People make them seem horrible but there is really nothing bad about them. I've researched BT corn and the only thing that's questionable is the fact that they won't allow people to grow second generation BT corn without purchasing it from the company itself. There might be a good reason to that though. That way there are no mutated strains.
Bacillus thuringiensis has been around for a long time. Most Organic food comes into contact with it as its found in natural fertilizers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Double edge sword. Good things, and bad things can come from it. Like with pretty much any sort of technological advancement.
Though that much should be obvious.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a cynical thing to do. As an intellectual I find it extremely interesting and I'm amazed we managed to get to this kind of control over the world; at the same time though I'm scared because I'm convinced we haven't reached the ethic level that is necessary to avoid going too far, being it for losing humanity in our actions, not being able to treat the products of those actions appropriately, or being it for not being able to predict and avoid harm to our society and world caused by such actions.
All in all, I think we should first learn to understand all the possible implications (both ethical and chemical, especially when it comes to modifying what we will eat) before using the product of our research extensively. As for genetic engineering (on animals or humans, even consensual, since changes would reflect on the offspring), ethics come first and foremost.
Oh, and as of now I don't eat any kind of GMO, mostly because I don't need to (I live in a region that can provide itself with all the possibly necessary resources when it comes to food).
And I don't even think there is any point in using them in general just yet; tomorrow, if we keep our behaviour the same as today, we'll face famine and overpopulation problems more easily, so it's at the very least a shrewd thing to keep researching in this field.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's impossible to understand all the possible implications as all systems are complex enough and have sufficient levels of interlocking interactions and mechanisms that there will always be gaps in the knowledge. The more you know the more you realize how much you don't know.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest, we don't have much control over it.
We still can't wipe out pests because of their high reproductive abilities, and we're basically fighting against them, making our main priority the yield.
Limiting factors: Soil Quality (Monoculture drains the soil fast), Pesticide use (where costs begin to exceed as more bugs gain resistance, and if one chooses to "brute-force" with pesticide), and our genetic modifications to fight back (Not really sure on this, but generally, stronger antibiotics/drugs/pesticides result in stronger,more caustic side effects)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think GMOs have the potential to be a great thing but there need to be more long term studies and the legal system Monsanto has built to protect itself needs to be destroyed. Like anything, any particular GMO could be good or bad for you. Just because one plant is safe doesn't mean the next incarnation will be.
As for eating GMos, yes I eat them. Mainly because it's too much effort to avoid them and I don't think it's a significant risk in the grand scheme of things.
Comment has been collapsed.
just that they should be better contained. gmo crops shouldn't be in the lot next to the seed grain where they can cross pollinate for example. maybe put up some sort of clear plastic tent or something. (the unaltered strains should probably be preserved and something marked gmo free shouldn't potentially contain gmo)
other than that its not much different than breeding strains of whatever is being modified(which we've been doing since before we started tracking history)...except much faster with more control
(Ex breeding for trait X but as a side effect maybe ending up with also trait Y(or losing trait Z) just because it was nearby in the dna or through random drift because you didn't particularly care about Y/Z won't happen anymore or concentrating it through inbreeding or whatever.
a small downside is not having all that time to hammer out potential side effects of trait X but with good planning and data that can be avoided by simply not rushing anything into consumption)
Comment has been collapsed.
The biggest difference I see between historical methods and current GMO product is the integration of species-incompatible (via natural methods) DNA being combined.
In the past, cross-pollination didn't involve genetic traits derived from biological entities that were unable to intermingle. That is no longer the case, and a huge departure from previous foodstuff genetics.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shouldn't we be able to choose whether we have gmo's in our food we make just like everything else we might avoid, or read on a label like high fructose corn syrup, msg, preservatives, artificial sweeteners, additives etc.? I think simply labeling them shoudn't be a big deal, but it's a huge deal to monsanto that they put millions of dollars into it in prop 37 and threatened to sure vermont(I think don't quote me) if laws were passed years ago. They don't want us to have a choice and I have a big problem with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
That would be a reasonable expectation, IMO. Sadly, our legislators aren't looking out for the right folks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems to me there was a bill to make it mandatory to label GMO foods. I think it didn't pass, and it may have been only California. The problem is that there isn't any strong proof that it is dangerous, and so they probably couldn't justify the cost to the California government, who has no money to pay for it anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
IIRC, these bills would force the company producing the product(s) to label them. Thus the cost would fall on the company, not the government.
I suppose enforcement would fall on the government, if that's what you're arguing.
The cost of printing new labels is so inconsequential that it isn't even worth arguing about.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anything that the government would need to enforce, would cost money to enforce it. This would likely be something that would fall under the FDA if it were national (who is severely under staffed), or the California government (who has not dealt with it's finances properly still). Either way, it didn't pass partially because there hasn't been any strong evidence of health issues directly connected to GMO crops. The cost of producing labels would be relatively low, but people would be avoiding GMOs based on fear generated by people that spend their time misinforming people, whether on purpose or out of ignorance, idk.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay. If people are making false claims about GMOs, then the place for that would be in court.
But there is a chasm of difference between giving consumers a choice of what they put in their bodies, and misinforming them.
Your argument is a good one to bolster GMO producers, but it isn't reasonable or right. Keep in mind I'm not attacking you, just the idea that labeling products properly for GMOs is in any way, shape or form "fear" based.
That's like saying the sugar industry has every right to have sugar removed from the ingredients list in foods because the public perception is that too much sugar is bad for you. That would be a horrible misrepresentation of product to the public. And the public deserves the protection of the government specifically in cases like this.
I'm not saying that we should spend money on everything under the sun. But letting the citizenry know what ingredients are in their food...to me, that's the most basic of rights/protections.
Consumer choice and education must be a large part of any society that wants to call itself both representative and capitalist. Failing to disclose is neither free market nor free government.
Comment has been collapsed.
The education needs to be there before we throw things at people that they don't understand.
How long were people mislead to believe that the only right way to diet and lose weight and be health was low fat and low cholesterol. This was pushed forward by the United States Government, in fear of heart issues. Obesity jumped, and diabetes jumped. Now people are looking back to what was done for centuries for dieting, which was cutting back on carbohydrates, and they find that people's cholesterol and fat levels were both much more healthy than when trying to avoid fats and cholesterol.
Without an informed public, giving them the option is only an illusion of free choice, because if you can control what they think about something, you control the choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. No it isn't. What you're advocating is lying by omission and withholding information that should be public. It's up to each individual to decide whether to believe the producer of the product, the producer of rival products, or third-party advocacy groups on either side. That's not an illusion of choice. That's real choice. If the consumer chooses to ignore all that information, then that too, is their choice.
It doesn't matter if 80% of the public is completely ignorant. It's their choice to become educated.
It's insane to advocate that massive vested interests shouldn't have to publish the ingredients of their product because the public isn't yet educated about them.
More pressingly, since we don't officially know the long-term effects of these ingredients, it's all the more important to give consumers choices in these matters.
And I think you'd be surprised by the number of mothers that are cognizant of the products they feed their children.
Just because we don't know something is harmful, doesn't mean folks shouldn't be able to make a decision on their own.
Based on your logic, there would be some arbitrary education level that everyone should have prior to companies having to disclose the ingredients of their products that we ingest?
Seriously, man.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, I spent a half hour writing something, posted it, shut down, went to bed, decided it was probably to much written through irritation that I took too many tangents that probably led nowhere good (including mentioning the Zimmerman trial and the aftermath), started my computer, and deleted it. Starting over now.
The illusion of free choice is that what information is fed people through their main source of information, such as the biased news and ignorant politicians, then the choice is controlled. If people cared if what they were eating had as big of potential issues as some people have talked, then there would be less of an issue with people eating and doing things that we know to be a FACT to be bad for our health in an obvious way.
Then there is cost, how do you pay for this disclosure? Let's look at this four ways, forced labeling only the GMOs, forced labeling both GMO's and non, forced labeling of nonGMOs, and elective labeling.
Forced labeling of only GMO products is stupid because it will convince people that it is dangerous. They will think, "Why would they have to label it as GMO if it weren't dangerous." This would be like a move directly against anyone using GMO crops, totally screwing up our already screwed up economy in food production.
Forced labeling of both means that everything in the food industry is monitored from beginning to end. From planting crops, down to packaging your Twinkies. This would be a major cost to whoever is put in charge of it. The FDA can't do it, because they can't see to do a good job with their responsibilities right now. A new bureaucracy would have the same issues the FDA has now, funding and staffing. You cannot leave the companies to do it, they will promise whatever gets you to buy the stuff.
Forced labeling of nonGMO is just stupid. I put it here because I mentioned forced labeling the other, and I didn't want it to feel singled out. Not all companies are gonna wanna do it, and there will be a cost that will be thrown at them, and it is a stupid idea anyway.
Elective will require third party certification, that the nonGMO company can use, which can be paid from their own pocket if they choose to do this, and if there were someone doing certification for this now, doesn't require the government to jump in. THIS BEING SAID, there will be the same problem that has been happening with "certified organic foods" not being so "organic".
The least globally or nationally impacting on the economy would be the last one, which has nothing to do with forcing companies to disclose if they have GMO ingredients. If people are going to be ignorant of their choice, fine, if it is going to have a major impact on the economy through taxes or incurring costs to producers being passed to me and elsewhere, then it is a problems.
I am not "advocating is lying by omission and withholding information that should be public".
What should be public is very subjective, lying by omission (in my opinion) is not saying anything allowing someone (or people) to assume one thing that they wouldn't with the omitted information (when almost all of our food has GMO ingredients I am sure, and if people don't want to look that up, it is their choice to be ignorant).
If you are gonna wait to see what these GMOs do long-term, you will wait an indefinite period of time, because it is like waiting to see what painkillers do long-term. There will be a new breed out soon enough, so the wait starts over.
Oh, and they do publish their ingredients, and imagine the cost of each one building up because you have to pay for the checking on each ingredient on each level. Someone has to pay for it, and the government has too many expenses and will tax it to you anyway, and the companies won't pay for it, they will let their consumers foot the bill (not only the ones buying the GMO or the nonGMO products)
People ignoring the information isn't a choice, they don't know about it, and anyone telling them bad things about GMOs themselves omit the information because it is convenient for their article.
I'll come back in 10-12 hours when I have had some sleep and hopefully will be able to address something I feel I am missing and not sure what.
Comment has been collapsed.
Labeling something as having a GMO ingredient is no more expensive than labeling whether it has maltodextrin in it. A simple question of sending an e-mail to suppliers. The cost is negligible, and is a terrible argument against improper labeling. They are labeled already in Europe (since 1997). Many of the same companies that provide GMO ingredients to European products do so in America.
It's a straight lobbied cop out to protect them from future lawsuits.
It's the same argument used against myriad other reforms including things like child labor. Would you use the same argument to protect companies that used children for employees? It's too expensive to replace them with adults? There's no proof that their lives are shortened by working in coal mines. It'll take years to determine if these actions are actually detrimental.
This will cost these companies such an infinitesimally small amount of money that it's a completely invalid argument. I won't come back to this. You know how I feel and I'm not wrong.
Government enforcement will take some human power, but that would be their job. That is, to protect and make the information available to the people. Especially when vested interests refuse to voluntarily do so.
People educating themselves is and will always be a choice, within certain constraints. If you don't care about what you put into your body, then that's your choice. If you choose to learn about what you're eating, then that too, is a choice.
Again, presenting as much information about what's in our food is not an "illusion of choice". It is the very opposite. It allows for free choice. Part of living free is also to choose to ignore those choices. We can't process every one of them every day. But we do choose what's important to us, and parents generally try and choose best for their children within their own limitations.
As I mentioned above, forcing companies to label GMOs may well lose them business. But that's how the market works. If the people don't want you product, then you'd better change it. To keep your product's unsavory parts a secret so "people won't know" is just dishonest and greedy.
It's pretty clear that GMO producers have the fear, and they realize that consumers may indeed make a choice away from their products when they can actually tell what's in them.
And the free market will certainly help with this. Whole Foods will require GMO labeling for anything it sells by 2018. There is a demand for this, regardless of what corporate lobbyists and apologists say.
You can come back and argue with me again here, but unless there is a legal precedent I'm unaware of in holding back labeling, and not just lobby money, then I'm really done listening. I'm sure you're a fine fellow, but your arguments are full of holes. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, so you are comparing GMO foods, which no research has been shown to conclusively say that there are long term effects, to child labor, in which children were ACTIVELY losing fingers and ACTIVELY dieing, which takes no research to uncover.
I am saying the illusion of free choice comes from the fact that people decide to misinform the public with outright lies, so it is not their choice to be ignorant, because it becomes harder and harder to combat it when people have busy lives.
There is a money cost and it will be pushed onto everything and everyone. The companies will not want to pay for it, and if they do it will be unreliable. The government will not be unreliable, because they rely on the companies honesty when they cannot afford to do the job properly. The companies will not want to lose the business, and the normal crops will cost them more money in the long run without it, and so they will pull the dishonesty that we all know they are known for.
This isn't a question of legality, it is a question of reliability. If you make it a requirement to label something as being one way or another, it is useless without it being reliable. There are a large number of examples that you can see where the government takes shortcuts and allows the companies to do as they will when it comes to something like this. Companies are willing to take the lawsuit, if it means more money in the long run.
It is not lobby money, you don't pull something that, if it is just going to be unreliable. The government will not deal with it effectively, and the companies is question cannot be trusted to regulate it themselves.
Tell me how to make it reliable, then maybe it is sensible to make it required. You shouldn't make something into law if it will not be enforced at all. The Whole Foods is their choice. You can trust them if you want, but making all the companies say one way or another is pointless if their word is not backed up or checked upon.
You do not make something required, and just assume that they will tell the truth, or let people decide if they trust their word; what is the point of making it the law or required, if you are just going to leave it up to the companies to decide if they tell the truth or not.
Show me how we can trust the government to handle and pay for this effectively, when the FDA is rubber stamping what they have now, and trusting the companies even after they have proven themselves untrustworthy.
What is the point of making something required, if it is based on the honor system. It is like making it law to have the kitchen in a restaurant capable to put out safe food that isn't a health risk, but not sending out inspectors to enforce it.
EDIT: I wonder how many arguments like these cause blacklist entries.....
Comment has been collapsed.
So what I hear you saying is, "This is hard. Companies won't like it. It's going to be hard. We should just give up in informing the people."
That about right?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, it will not be reliable, the companies will want to deceive to make money, even if it means lawsuit, as long as it means more money in the long run.
The government cannot be left to ensure the truth, because we have seen their track record on this type of thing, the leaving it to the companies will allow them to do as they will.
It isn't that it is hard, it is that it is not likely the information that you are giving the people will have anything at all to stand on.
What is the point of making it required to put something on the label to inform people, if it isn't properly backed up.
Companies make and import toys all the time that have lead poisoning, but they make their money and it happens again.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just don't like Monsanto suing small farms and cost-beating them to death.
Also, GMOs accelerate the evolution of bugs/pests/annoying stuff, so we have to use more drastic/greater quantities of pesticides and such.
We're going to eventually lose this battle because r-type species are terribly hard to wipe out. ALL IT TAKES IS ONE BUG TO HAVE A RESISTANT GENE GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I DUN LIKE SUPERBUGS
Comment has been collapsed.
My short version is that I just can't bring myself to put any trust into the company that brought the world DDT and Agent Orange, got the US government to pay off the settlements that could not be avoided, seeded the US and other governments with many blatant "ex"employees (so no telling how many covert) and controls such a high percentage of the global food supply chain it should be dismantled worldwide. Same people also control the majority of actual GMO foods (straight modified not manipulated).
Other than that and the probability that the GMO strains from said company have a part in many pollinator species struggling... the jury is still out as far as I am concerned.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's an incredibly naive way of thinking. Just look at this list. The only difference is that DDT affects us and Agent Orange was developed during an unpopular war with mass media. And even not on that list, Kodak used slave labor from concentration camps, Siemens built gas chambers, and Fanta was invented specifically for the Nazis after America stopped importing syrup.
My point is: Companies aren't nice. If you want a company that has never done anything bad, you'll spend more time researching than shopping, and I bet you'll have to throws out a solid half your stuff. Monsanto just has worse PR than Nike, who still uses child labor, and Apple, who had to install suicide nets at their Chinese factories to stop workers committing suicide. If you want to stop using Monsanto because you disagree with their business practices, that's fine, but don't hold double standards. Stop dealing with every company that practices things like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perfect shill response ignoring the primary points of my post while calling my way of thinking naive, then switching to good guy vs. bad guy mode.
The company you named has a perfect track record in the past of the products it has produced reacting negatively on a genetic level with multiple organisms (including humans of course). The same company is now in charge of a frightening percentage of the world's food chain and now directly manipulating the genes of food products (at least they are open about it now, to a point of course) while also having people in positions of power throughout governments across the world.
In the corporate world there are no "good guys" and how you can compare direct DNA mutagens to slave/child labor is beyond me and an attempt to narrow the view under the guise of pointing out something important and "relevant" as would be expected from someone linking not only to Wikipedia but to a page that can't seem to come up with the needed additional citations for verification. Oh, for the record... of the companies you named I only use anything by the one that is as unavoidable in the US as the evil "M" which you already know to be Siemens (every US airport is full of their products for an easy one).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if you weren't completely biased and ignorant, you'd know that ninety nine times out of a hundred wikipedia is perfectly fine, and if you're really that concerned, you could google search any one of those company hames plus the word holocaust and you'd get thousands and thousands of legitimate results. I just used the wikipedia one because I thought it was the most convenient.
And fine, if you only don't like companies that actively sue small companies for stupid reasons, I guess you should stop playing Skyrim who sued a company for calling a game 'Scrolls.' And as for the 'perfect track record' statement, you do realize that Monsanto didn't magically appear and the next day start creating nerve gasses and GMOs, right? For nearly seventy years, they were pretty much just a plastics company. The only difference from that and the company who made gas chambers is where you came in on the time line.
Edit: And as for 'good guy vs. bad guy mode,' that's actually what you're doing and what I'm trying to stop you from doing. You didn't bring up a single anti-GMO point, you brought up nothing but anti Monsanto points. A solid 90 percent of the people in this thread simply don't like GMOs because of Monsanto. That's not what we're arguing. We're arguing if GMOs, not the companies that make and use them, are inherently good or bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again with the shill response. Since you can't prove your point staying on topic you throw in unrelated things and blatant untruths thus proving either you actually are a shill or suffer from the very same ignorance and bias you accuse me of. "How so?" you might ask. According to your timeline for nearly seventy years after the founding of the evil "M" company they were "pretty much just a plastics company." Here are a few timeline points about them.
1901 - evil "M" is founded
1907 - USDA begins investigations into saccharin, the first product produced by evil "M"
1920's - Manufacture of PCBs begins (99% of those used in US made by evil "M")
1940's - Manufacture of DDT begins (also since you keep bringing up the holocaust don't forget their part in bringing the world nuclear weapons, same war)
1960's - Manufacture of Agent Orange begins
1970's - When you claim their stage as "pretty much just a plastics company" ends
As you refuse to use correct information, refuse to stay on topic and toss around words that clearly describe yourself (naive, biased, ignorant) unless you actually are a shill I will not be responding further.
Comment has been collapsed.
And again, you're not even arguing the same point I am. The point of this debate is whether GMOs are good or bad. So far you have not provided a single point on either side of that issue. You have only argued that Monsanto's use of GMOs is bad. If you're arguing that Monsanto is a bad corporation and you don't like how they're using GMOs, that's fine, and I might even agree with you, but that's not the debate we're having. Come back when you actually have stance on GMOs and don't just instantly think anything Monstanto does is bad by virtue of them having done it.
Edit: Oh, and if you really want to have a real debate, I'd stop with the ad hominem attacks. Calling me a 'shill' and referring to Monstanto exclusively by the name 'evil M' really does nothing but hurt your argument even more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Have you ever heard of Fritz Haber? Quite a genius. He pretty much solved world hunger. Now we produce enough food to feed the world(even if a lot of it gets wasted) thanks to synthesized ammonia fertilizer.
Oh, did I mention that his nickname is "the father of chemical warfare"?
He helped to develop Chlorine and other poisonous gases during World War 1. The poison used on the Jews in WW2 was developed by him. Quite ironic, isn't it? Still, we owe a lot to Fritz Haber. Without him, we wouldn't be able to feed billions of humans on this planet.
To be honest, that sounds a lot like Monsanto to me. A company that helped to develop Agent Orange is now helping create crops that are resistant to herbicidal agents. That way more crops can be grown with fewer hands.
Now, to the actual topic at hand that you have almost successfully side-tracked. GMOs are neither good or bad. You can not just treat them all the same. The successful ones can usually be considered good while the discarded ones are typically bad. BT corn and other mass-produced products are successful. They do not cause any side effects and they are resistant to herbicidal agents. Since bacillus thuringiensis is non-lethal to anything but insects, there shouldn't be this much of a public issue with BT corn.
Comment has been collapsed.
well if we didnt play god with plants thousands of years ago we would not have corn as it is today. that being said the only things im weary of, even as im in the meat business is the fact of the modification of pigs to replace their fat with omega-3. some things you just souldnt mess with.
Comment has been collapsed.
If we hadn't "played God" with plants and animals, most of us wouldn't even be here today.
We wouldn't have damn near every vegetable and fruit in the store, and likewise almost every kind of non-fish meat product.
I can't think of a single wild-gathered/hunted thing in the grocery store except for a fair amount of fish and some shellfish.
We also wouldn't have much in the way of clothing without cotton, (cow) leather, wool and silk.
Comment has been collapsed.
And carrots would be like brown... and other weird colors.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being friends with animals / plants so we can harvest them later is a lot different from playing god by artificially altering the genetic code of species that have millions of year of evolution behind them. We can still naturally alter genetics by breeding / grafting... that's natural and that's what nature has always done. Even then, natural cross-breeding has brought us killer bees, so maybe it's not much better.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would agree with you on this. For the most part, I think human-guided natural selection for food crops isn't a bad thing. Sometimes it weakens the plants and they become more susceptible to disease/pests. But my take is that's the risk you take when you want a pepper the size of your hand and sweet, instead of the size of a pencil eraser and flaming hot.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bananas wouldn't be as edible or even appealing. Considering that they used to look like this. Now, bananas look like they were created specifically for the human hand
Comment has been collapsed.
Its funny because I can say the same about the male well parts and how they fit so well into man hands, and well....pretty sure anti-gay super religious folks would be super mad lmao.
That vid was awesome btw haha.
Comment has been collapsed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYg3jKwPRhs <- sums up how I feel. I have Crohn's, IBS and acid reflux.
Comment has been collapsed.
The GMOs are made to produce pesticide and herbicides. These are produced in your gut as long as you eat GMOs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis BT toxin
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it needs better studies on it, I don't trust it, many people just don't trust it, its not surprising though, new tech(Or ways of going about it really) plus messed up corporations puts a strike of fear into many of us health conscious people.
I feel like we should at least have a label system, kinda like how it shows if a product contains nuts, or high fructose corn syrups. Thats all I am really asking for, well that and for them to stop trying to control all crops and maybe some protection for small farmers, gotta feel for the little guy ya know?
Comment has been collapsed.
Trust means nothing when it comes to science. And what do you mean better studies?
Comment has been collapsed.
This is such a hotly politicized issue that it's almost impossible to find or conduct an unbiased study. There's no way you'll get two studies to agree on gun crime, either. That coupled with the fact that most people don't really care and that pro-GMO organizations have much more lobbying power than anti-GMO organizations means that labelling has been shot down in court a few dozen times already, even in California where this kind of thing normally passes through without debate.
And as for small farmers, that's a much, MUCH bigger issue than GMOs. The problem with farming is that a standard business model is applied, but it's not a standard business. Supply and demand does not work with farming. For example, corn prices rise throughout the year, but then they suddenly drop for no reason near harvest season. Farmers have to accept the low prices because if they don't, their crop will rot and they won't see a penny. That's why farmers simply have to produce as much as possible as cheaply as possible and that bushels per acre is the only way to get money, not being a smart businessman. The whole farming system needs an overhaul, and that won't happen simply by banning GMOs. If anything, that will probably hurt more farmers than it helps.
Comment has been collapsed.
A quick research shows that your article site the toxin as being delta endotoxin, which further research brought up articles of this being relatively safe. Now I am sure that having the pesticides sprayed directly onto the food, and doing whatever to make it safe to eat is about as dangerous as having relatively minuet amounts of a relatively safe endotoxin in the food. Also, once you pick a piece of fruit or vegetable, or whatever plant-based food, that part dies shortly afterward with the exception of the seed. This means that the cell process (the production of proteins) stops. Sure, there are SOME exceptions to this, like broccoli sprouting flowers in your fridge, but mostly any protein production is very limited due to the lack of resources that would be gained from the root system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering my entire PhD hinged on generating GMOs, I have a rather biased opinion where I favour their use for certain things (mine was apoptosis research/drug development in acadaemia [i.e. not for a giant money-making corporation]).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I'll forward you my credit card details too! I trust you wont use them for devious purposes ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
Your opinion seems to be what imperates in the thread. They are useful in many fields but, as with every other thing, corporations can and might exploit its potential in an "evil" way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Might? No no no, they will. It is inevitable.
It's our job, as citizens of whichever nation you are from, to fight those corporations that abuse their financial might to exploit laws, land, and people.
Comment has been collapsed.
I admittedly don't know enough about biotech foods to form a solid opinion one way or another, though I will admit that if it comes down to my food being genetically modified, or irradiated, I'll choose the former any day.
A few months back I spent a couple of weeks working at a locally-owned "natural" food store, which was... an experience, to say the least. The majority of the employees were hippies who were unproductive, uneducated (and were against any sort of public education), had poor hygiene, and smoked pot on their breaks. There were daily rants about how "evil" GMO's are, and when I'd inquire as to what exactly was so bad about them, I'd basically get "because it's just... wrong!" as an answers. It seemed to me like a bunch of idiots who were simply afraid of something they didn't understand. This place also refused to give time off to employees during a recent local election if you weren't voting for the party they supported.
Hilariously enough I was fired via email after about three weeks because I didn't "fit in."
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate to ask this, but where are you from? Are you from a big city where all the 'farmer's markets' are actually run by college aged hippies? I'm from the rural New England area and most of the people that deal with the natural stuff out here are actually very right wing, and pretty much what you'd expect from a farmer out in middle america, aside from a different accent and more bears. If you hate organic foods and such because of the people that like them, I'd encourage you to try a more rural are where the people who actually grow the food are the ones selling it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think we can extrapolate your particular example to everyone. But it's true that there's a lot of blind belief involved about this as you can see in the topic with people telling me they won't waste their time and that there's a lot of information look it up and other things of the sort.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate when people say things like "look it up" or "how could you not know what I'm talking about?" rather than having an intellectual conversation using proper sources. That's why people should always have sources in their parent comment if they're going to start a new comment thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
I gave a generic explanation of what GMO are, hand made and my personal opinion. I don't need any sources to back that, do I?
I wanted to hear other people's opinions and I'm not demanding sources to anyone who states theirs. I do, however demand a source to those who state things. There's a difference between saying that I think their are bad and "there are studies that have proven they are bad, look it up."
Comment has been collapsed.
I was actually referring to other comments here. You created the OP post in the web but other people create the threads.
EX: Forum > Web > Thread > Comment
Sorry for not clarifying that.
I was referring to the people who were saying "they're evil" and when asked "why?" they said to "look it up".
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh sorry. I completely misunderstood it. Yeah, I agree with you.
Comment has been collapsed.
They need to be highly regulated and never introduced into normal ecological systems without much, much deliberation on how they'll affect the environment.
Comment has been collapsed.
43 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by RCSWE
105 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by LosingMyEdge
22 Comments - Last post 43 minutes ago by Qnemes
39 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by OneManArmyStar
760 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by m0r1arty
21 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by OneManArmyStar
32 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by m0r1arty
6 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Shanti
11 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by szabe
510 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by Ad4m
28,488 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by mrgba
21 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by C4pM
306 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by Artetika
16,891 Comments - Last post 44 minutes ago by MjrPITA
So I was kinda of losing the habit of creating discussion topics and here we go again.
So, yeah. What's your opinion on GMOs? For those that didn't know, GMOs (Or genetically modified organisms) are, as their name suggests, organism whose genetic material has been altered by the use of genetic engineering techniques.
Those modifications vary but some examples could be obtaining knock-out organisms, that is, organisms which don't express a certain gene, mostly for their use in investigation; obtaining species able to produce a certain substance they weren't able to such as getting insuline from bacteria and it's also important its use in the food industry and I think that's the one use people care more about when it comes to GMOs.
In the food industry crops are modified genetically so that they can resists frosts, are not prone to be infected by certain insects or diseases and, to sum up, give a better production overall as oposed to traditional agriculture.
So my question is. Do you consume genetically modified food? What's your view on them? And, do you think that every single way of genetic modification is the same? If not, which one presents the most advantages/drawbacks to you?
Do you think that they present risks for their consumers? To be honest I think that eating a genetically modified crop is the very same as eating any other kind of food. There's nothing inherently evil with genetic modification, what is more if bacteria produced tomatoes those tomatoes would be the same kind as regular tomatoes, wouldn't they?
Opinate on.
Comment has been collapsed.