Should GMO ingredients be labeled as such on food products?
Replies
-
selecting for traits is a (slow) form of genetic modification0
-
Too bad we can't GMO people. It would solve a lot of the worlds problems.0
-
chivalryder wrote: »Too bad we can't GMO people. It would solve a lot of the worlds problems.
whew thats a whole nother can of worms there...
0 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »selecting for traits is a (slow) form of genetic modification
Was this in response to me?0 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »selecting for traits is a (slow) form of genetic modification
Was this in response to me?
nope
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »selecting for traits is a (slow) form of genetic modification
Was this in response to me?
nope
Ah, ok0 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »Too bad we can't GMO people. It would solve a lot of the worlds problems.
Except we totally can and totally do.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »RealFoodisGood wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »I would like to know what you people think would be left unlabeled? we have only been "breeding" crops for hundreds of years now, thats the origional GMing process people.....
It's not the same thing. Not even close.
Yeah, hybridization vs genetic modification. Actually, I'd rather take my chances with GMO if I had to choose, but I'd rather not have either.
Humans wouldn't even be here without hybridization. We didn't spring fully formed from the mind of Zeus...
Speak for yourself, puny mortal.
:drinker:0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Too bad we can't GMO people. It would solve a lot of the worlds problems.
We're almost there...
http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »selecting for traits is a (slow) form of genetic modification
Speed matters.
And it only allows for a small subset of genetic modifications.
They're not the same thing.0 -
ClubSilencio wrote: »
Yeah, I'm sure a company that has sued small farmers 150 times and won every case just wants to feed the poor. No one wants to feed the poor, bro. Maybe your local church does but on a global scale it's not reality. And the problem extends far beyond just food crops.ClubSilencio wrote: »I'm against anything that Monsanto wants to do.
So you're against feeding the poor in underdeveloped countries?
Newsflash: GMO crops are for the rich (people who commute the kids to soccer practice and buy 24-pack frozen hamburger patties to tailgate at an SEC football game)
***Breaking News*** You probably eat more food that has been imported from an impoverished country that so desperately needs Monsanto to save them
The only concern Monsanto has is $$$, not health or the environment.
If you like them, fine. But please do better than that "feed the poor" nonsense. It's offensive.
The only thing offensive here is your ignorance.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Norman Borlaug. He genetically modified wheat to make is sustainable in poor climates. He won the Nobel Prize for his work and has saved millions of lives.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
Oh, and lots of insulin is made from GMO bacteria.
But yeah, GMOs are the devil.0 -
RealFoodisGood wrote: »RealFoodisGood wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »I would like to know what you people think would be left unlabeled? we have only been "breeding" crops for hundreds of years now, thats the origional GMing process people.....
It's not the same thing. Not even close.
Yeah, hybridization vs genetic modification. Actually, I'd rather take my chances with GMO if I had to choose, but I'd rather not have either.
How do you feel about plant grafting?
I wasn't talking about hybridization in general, more in specific cases in the mid 20th century where certain crops were hybridized to obtain higher yield per acre. With hybridization (unlike GMO), you can't control what occurs as a side mutation in addition to the mutation that you intend.
Ah ok, cool. Plant grafting is pretty awesome. When I was a kid my grandfather worked for the Department of Agriculture and used to do all sorts of things with the trees in our backyard. He successfully grafted a mandarin limb, a tangerine limb and a valencia orange limb onto a navel tree. Plus he grafted a lemon and a lime tree. It was pretty cool to grow up learning about that, and the fruit was delicious
0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
It's been said, but once we start the "GMO Free" wars it's going to turn into another round of "Gluten free!" "Vegan!" etc labeling on foods that seem to be no brainers. When I see vegetables on the shelf with "Gluten free" labels on them, hilarious. People who have serious gluten allergies were reading ingredient lists long before "gluten free" started popping up on food labels. Once you start labeling something as "-free" you imply to consumers yours is somehow better than the unlabeled one next to it...even if the unlabeled one is the exact same thing. It's crafty marketing, and it works. Hence why people will pay extra for "hormone free" chicken when growth hormones are illegal in the poultry industry.
Anyway something to keep in mind is the only GM crops in the American market are: Corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, some apples, and squash. That's it. How much do you want to bet we'll start seeing things like "GMO Free Strawberries!" on the shelf next to unlabeled strawberries? And how much do you want to bet people will assume that means strawberries are a GMO crop and any unlabeled ones are somehow "dangerous" or worse?
Ignoring the fact that we have enough science behind GMOs (which is another topic entirely and has already been touched on by other people in this thread), I just think it's hilarious what people believe and assume when it comes to labels. Advertising is all about what they want the consumer to infer.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's been said, but once we start the "GMO Free" wars it's going to turn into another round of "Gluten free!" "Vegan!" etc labeling on foods that seem to be no brainers. When I see vegetables on the shelf with "Gluten free" labels on them, hilarious. People who have serious gluten allergies were reading ingredient lists long before "gluten free" started popping up on food labels. Once you start labeling something as "-free" you imply to consumers yours is somehow better than the unlabeled one next to it...even if the unlabeled one is the exact same thing. It's crafty marketing, and it works. Hence why people will pay extra for "hormone free" chicken when growth hormones are illegal in the poultry industry.
Anyway something to keep in mind is the only GM crops in the American market are: Corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, some apples, and squash. That's it. How much do you want to bet we'll start seeing things like "GMO Free Strawberries!" on the shelf next to unlabeled strawberries? And how much do you want to bet people will assume that means strawberries are a GMO crop and any unlabeled ones are somehow "dangerous" or worse?
Ignoring the fact that we have enough science behind GMOs (which is another topic entirely and has already been touched on by other people in this thread), I just think it's hilarious what people believe and assume when it comes to labels. Advertising is all about what they want the consumer to infer.
So, if corn is GMO in the US, then is every product made with corn syrup also GMO? Please say yes because if so then I'm about to enjoy Facebook more than I have in months.0 -
0
-
It depends on your definition of a GMO food. Borlaug's innovation was mostly through cross breeding, backcrossing, timing of planting, hybrids, etc. Some consider this GMO, others don't - considering most of the crops we eat today have been influenced heavy by backcrossing and selective breeding, it's a murky area - and another reason why labeling GMOs is a confusing topic for many people. All of the corn we eat has been selected heavily ("original" corn is tiny, the size of your thumb), same with bananas.GuitarJerry wrote: »
it kinda says he did.
No "genetically modified wheat" by the government's definition of GMO has been approved for us or is grown anywhere for food use.
0 -
ClubSilencio wrote: »
Yeah, I'm sure a company that has sued small farmers 150 times and won every case just wants to feed the poor. No one wants to feed the poor, bro. Maybe your local church does but on a global scale it's not reality. And the problem extends far beyond just food crops.ClubSilencio wrote: »I'm against anything that Monsanto wants to do.
So you're against feeding the poor in underdeveloped countries?
Newsflash: GMO crops are for the rich (people who commute the kids to soccer practice and buy 24-pack frozen hamburger patties to tailgate at an SEC football game)
***Breaking News*** You probably eat more food that has been imported from an impoverished country that so desperately needs Monsanto to save them
The only concern Monsanto has is $$$, not health or the environment.
If you like them, fine. But please do better than that "feed the poor" nonsense. It's offensive.
that is an insult to SEC tailgaiters...nobody cooks with frozen preformed patties in the SEC...
0 -
It depends on your definition of a GMO food. Borlaug's innovation was mostly through cross breeding, backcrossing, timing of planting, hybrids, etc. Some consider this GMO, others don't - considering most of the crops we eat today have been influenced heavy by backcrossing and selective breeding, it's a murky area - and another reason why labeling GMOs is a confusing topic for many people. All of the corn we eat has been selected heavily ("original" corn is tiny, the size of your thumb), same with bananas.GuitarJerry wrote: »
it kinda says he did.
No "genetically modified wheat" by the government's definition of GMO has been approved for us or is grown anywhere for food use.
I would think if you put those definitions to GMO, you would be SOL on eating just about anything, no?
0 -
Depends on who you ask.0 -
It depends on your definition of a GMO food. Borlaug's innovation was mostly through cross breeding, backcrossing, timing of planting, hybrids, etc. Some consider this GMO, others don't - considering most of the crops we eat today have been influenced heavy by backcrossing and selective breeding, it's a murky area - and another reason why labeling GMOs is a confusing topic for many people. All of the corn we eat has been selected heavily ("original" corn is tiny, the size of your thumb), same with bananas.GuitarJerry wrote: »
it kinda says he did.
No "genetically modified wheat" by the government's definition of GMO has been approved for us or is grown anywhere for food use.
I would think if you put those definitions to GMO, you would be SOL on eating just about anything, no?
Haha yes, pretty much.0 -
I'm of the strong opinion that I'm going to die some day.
I'm not interested in wringing my hands about something that may or may not shave 12 hours off my lifespan.0 -
It's been said, but once we start the "GMO Free" wars it's going to turn into another round of "Gluten free!" "Vegan!" etc labeling on foods that seem to be no brainers. When I see vegetables on the shelf with "Gluten free" labels on them, hilarious. People who have serious gluten allergies were reading ingredient lists long before "gluten free" started popping up on food labels. Once you start labeling something as "-free" you imply to consumers yours is somehow better than the unlabeled one next to it...even if the unlabeled one is the exact same thing. It's crafty marketing, and it works. Hence why people will pay extra for "hormone free" chicken when growth hormones are illegal in the poultry industry.
Anyway something to keep in mind is the only GM crops in the American market are: Corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, some apples, and squash. That's it. How much do you want to bet we'll start seeing things like "GMO Free Strawberries!" on the shelf next to unlabeled strawberries? And how much do you want to bet people will assume that means strawberries are a GMO crop and any unlabeled ones are somehow "dangerous" or worse?
Ignoring the fact that we have enough science behind GMOs (which is another topic entirely and has already been touched on by other people in this thread), I just think it's hilarious what people believe and assume when it comes to labels. Advertising is all about what they want the consumer to infer.
So, if corn is GMO in the US, then is every product made with corn syrup also GMO? Please say yes because if so then I'm about to enjoy Facebook more than I have in months.
Yes. gmo corn=gmo corn syrup0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I didn't say that 100% of those crops in the US are GMO crops, I just meant they are the only crops that are approved for use in the US. It depends on the operation. Unless you were referencing my post further down that corn has been selected heavily from its original tiny form over many years.It's been said, but once we start the "GMO Free" wars it's going to turn into another round of "Gluten free!" "Vegan!" etc labeling on foods that seem to be no brainers. When I see vegetables on the shelf with "Gluten free" labels on them, hilarious. People who have serious gluten allergies were reading ingredient lists long before "gluten free" started popping up on food labels. Once you start labeling something as "-free" you imply to consumers yours is somehow better than the unlabeled one next to it...even if the unlabeled one is the exact same thing. It's crafty marketing, and it works. Hence why people will pay extra for "hormone free" chicken when growth hormones are illegal in the poultry industry.
Anyway something to keep in mind is the only GM crops in the American market are: Corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, some apples, and squash. That's it. How much do you want to bet we'll start seeing things like "GMO Free Strawberries!" on the shelf next to unlabeled strawberries? And how much do you want to bet people will assume that means strawberries are a GMO crop and any unlabeled ones are somehow "dangerous" or worse?
Ignoring the fact that we have enough science behind GMOs (which is another topic entirely and has already been touched on by other people in this thread), I just think it's hilarious what people believe and assume when it comes to labels. Advertising is all about what they want the consumer to infer.
So, if corn is GMO in the US, then is every product made with corn syrup also GMO? Please say yes because if so then I'm about to enjoy Facebook more than I have in months.
0 -
RealFoodisGood wrote: »ClubSilencio wrote: »
Yeah, I'm sure a company that has sued small farmers 150 times and won every case just wants to feed the poor. No one wants to feed the poor, bro. Maybe your local church does but on a global scale it's not reality. And the problem extends far beyond just food crops.ClubSilencio wrote: »I'm against anything that Monsanto wants to do.
So you're against feeding the poor in underdeveloped countries?
Newsflash: GMO crops are for the rich (people who commute the kids to soccer practice and buy 24-pack frozen hamburger patties to tailgate at an SEC football game)
***Breaking News*** You probably eat more food that has been imported from an impoverished country that so desperately needs Monsanto to save them
The only concern Monsanto has is $$$, not health or the environment.
If you like them, fine. But please do better than that "feed the poor" nonsense. It's offensive.
The only thing offensive here is your ignorance.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Norman Borlaug. He genetically modified wheat to make is sustainable in poor climates. He won the Nobel Prize for his work and has saved millions of lives.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
Oh, and lots of insulin is made from GMO bacteria.
But yeah, GMOs are the devil.
Well... Borlaug isn't my hero, although he's a hero to those that didn't starve. That genetically modified wheat (which I think was actually hybridized not GMO'd) is a main reason I stay away from the stuff.
Short term, yes it saves lives by providing something to eat. You're starving. You eat anything no matter what. Damn the long term consequences. And Borlaug made it possible to provide a lot of that "stuff".
But currently, that wheat (maybe even more hybridized now) is contained in virtually everything that isn't a whole single ingredient food. But why are we resorting to eating this stuff by the truckload in today's society? We're not starving. We don't have to resort to eating it. But it tastes good... so....
Saves millions in the short term. Does god knows what to millions in the long term.
If you stay away from all food that has been hybridized or modified in any way...what on earth do you eat?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions