Should GMO ingredients be labeled as such on food products?
Options
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »Yes, even though it's a logistical nightmare, full disclosure is not a bad thing.
Logistical nightmare is a reason not to compel something.0 -
And a good reason for foods without GMO to be labeled so, and if it doesn't have a NO GMO label, then they are GM....simple. The other way around is the nightmare. But that's too easy, it appears. The problem is most food in the US is GM, so why play with your own poo if you don't have to.sheldonklein wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Yes, even though it's a logistical nightmare, full disclosure is not a bad thing.
Logistical nightmare is a reason not to compel something.
0 -
Information is always good. If you don't care that its genetically modified (I don't) then ignore it. But people should be allowed to make the decision for themselves.0
-
IMO anti-GMO people are much like anti-vaxxers. I find many believe BS websites that are nothing more than fear-mongering with very little (if any) scientific facts presented. Most anti-GMO people do not even have the very basic education of what GMO is, how it is used in agriculture today, and how the benefits of GMO are being developed for use in medicine and efforts to feed the hungry world-wide.
For a basic education and discussion on the benefits and concerns of GMO, I recommend this youtube video. It is lengthy but it hits almost all the important, factual information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7SBWB1JJfU
This!!! Please let them not vaccinate and not eat GMO foods (which at this point is all foods). Save the race - don't let morons perpetuate the stupid gene.0 -
Totally unconcerned about GMO labelling. It's just another means of controlling the food. And you know what they say: "he who controls the food . . ."
Didn't you know? Conventional agriculture is cheating, making a profit is okay for any industry except in agriculture, that's a cardinal sin, and neither the government nor producers care about the people or the safety of the food they eatClubSilencio wrote: »
That will cost these billionaire companies too much money to print out new labels plus it will create unnecessary panic. Do you really want to pay .17 cents more for creamed corn for awareness sake? Don't worry about it. Monsanto is feeding the world. There are farmers all across the globe who will gladly pay the fees to use Monsanto seeds every single year - the humanity brings a single tear to my eye!kiittenforever wrote: »I'd like to see GMO labeled.
Just buy organic food if you're that worried. There will be plenty of that stuff on the shelves so long as Roundup Ready crops don't contaminate the nearby crops forcing the hard working farmer to lose organic certification. Neil Degrasse-Tyson says chill out, yo!
so non-organic farmers are not hard workers now?
Yes, they are supposed to feed a 21st century population using 18th century methods and feed their families and their livestock (if they have any) and pay their bills on thin air. I can't think of any other industry that is discouraged from making any technological or scientific progress, even though everyone can benefit from better industry practices.
0 -
-
neanderthin wrote: »
And a good reason for foods without GMO to be labeled so, and if it doesn't have a NO GMO label, then they are GM....simple. The other way around is the nightmare. But that's too easy, it appears. The problem is most food in the US is GM, so why play with your own poo if you don't have to.sheldonklein wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Yes, even though it's a logistical nightmare, full disclosure is not a bad thing.
Logistical nightmare is a reason not to compel something.
Exactly my feels on this issue
0 -
I'm for the non-gmo labeling, although I don't care if it is or not and don't make my food decisions based on it. My biggest fear about it is that I think it'll be like the whole organic thing, where companies have to pay to be "certified" to have non-gmo on their label, costing the everyday user in the end.0
-
MommyL2015 wrote: »I'm for the non-gmo labeling, although I don't care if it is or not and don't make my food decisions based on it. My biggest fear about it is that I think it'll be like the whole organic thing, where companies have to pay to be "certified" to have non-gmo on their label, costing the everyday user in the end.
I'm all for people having to pay for their irrational fears.
0 -
No.
Do you think foods that contain DNA should be labeled as such?0 -
Fix the root cause and label people who believe that GMO makes a difference - Scarlet Gs.0
-
-
ceoverturf wrote: »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.
Yep, pretty much how I look at it too
0 -
The assumption should be it's GMO. If labeling were to happen, the burden should be on the sellers of product who have non GMO product. We have gluten free, sugar free, diary free, lactose free, etc. Same with food products that say free range, hormone free, etc. and people who opt for those will.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
This! I want this!0 -
The assumption should be it's GMO. If labeling were to happen, the burden should be on the sellers of product who have non GMO product. We have gluten free, sugar free, diary free, lactose free, etc. Same with food products that say free range, hormone free, etc. and people who opt for those will.
Works for me!
:drinker:
0 -
"Hormone free" is probably my favorite food label ever. Everything we eat that was once a living thing (animal or plant) had an endocrine system, so every food we eat has "hormones" in it. Luckily for us you'd never eat enough of any food for it to affect your body. Those pesky digestive enzymes we have
A serving of red meat has ~1ng of estrogen, an egg has about ~900ng, 1 oz serving of wheat germ about 500ng...one birth control pill has 30,000 ng, and women have to take it at the same time, every day, for it to work. So next time you worry about "hormones in food" - don't. And don't spend extra money just because something claims it's "hormone free" because you know now that it doesn't make sense or make it different from anything else on the shelf.
Or, find me a chicken or corn plant or strawberry that somehow lived on this earth without hormones. Either one.0 -
Yes, I always chuckle to myself when I see that one."Hormone free" is probably my favorite food label ever. Everything we eat that was once a living thing (animal or plant) had an endocrine system, so every food we eat has "hormones" in it. Luckily for us you'd never eat enough of any food for it to affect your body. Those pesky digestive enzymes we have
A serving of red meat has ~1ng of estrogen, an egg has about ~900ng, 1 oz serving of wheat germ about 500ng...one birth control pill has 30,000 ng, and women have to take it at the same time, every day, for it to work. So next time you worry about "hormones in food" - don't. And don't spend extra money just because something claims it's "hormone free" because you know now that it doesn't make sense or make it different from anything else on the shelf.
Or, find me a chicken or corn plant or strawberry that somehow lived on this earth without hormones. Either one.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 972 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions