GMO crops still making headlines.
Replies
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.
I'm not sure why a company would have compliance records or inspections to prove that they DID have GMO products?? That doesn't make much sense. If the company sourced a GMO free product so they didn't have to label then they would no longer fall under the argument. As far as scarring consumers off, it doesn't seem to scare off the artificial sweetener crowd with the whole cancer thing. All it boils down to is if your product contains GMOs then you would just have to add it to the little nutritional label already found on the box. A few extra words. No fees, no records and no inspection to label your product that you already produce with them now.
You don't get to magically dismiss costs because you don't understand them.
What you're proposing amounts to put contains GMO on all food, and no cost. Except companies will want to show when food is GMO free.
Basically, you don't want the label for information. You want it to scare people.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Like I said, "or economics."The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.
And not eating them is yours. If you want mandatory labeling, you're demanding other people subsidize your choice, particularly the poor. Labeling isn't free. For a family of 4, mid estimates are around $500 more per year in food costs.
Explain to me where these costs come from please?
Do you think labels, and the information on them, spring into existence without costs?
Yeah, adding "May contain GMOs" to the label would be so expensive. I can only imagine how much it must cost cereal company's to change the box every month or two with the new toy, sweepstakes, incentives etcetera.
You know what would be even less expensive?
Assuming everything "may contain GMOs" unless specifically labelled otherwise.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »
My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.
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
I get what you're saying, but they have to pay fees so they can label their products as gluten free, non-GMO etcetera. Why is it fair for companies to sell products with chemicals introduced into their products and not label them, but if they don't add chemicals they have to pay a fee to label it that way? I don't buy very many processed products, but on the occasion that I do I do look for non-GMO. The fruits and veggies I buy are mostly organic or produce that don't require much pesticide or herbicide if I can't find them organically.
I find it odd that you're fighting his proposed scheme of labeling when you obviously support and buy the exact same labeling scheme for organic.
Granted, organic foods don't mean pesticide free, but I'm sure you're already aware of that as well.
My point is it wouldn't cost them anything to add a few words to the nutritional label. I'm arguing the fact that some people think it would cost consumers for them to add 3 words. It wouldn't. Companies change their boxes and labels all the time. There would be no fees or inspection to prove you did or may have GMOs in your product.
And I don't support the exact same labeling scheme for organic. I think food with chemicals and/or modifications should be labeled. Not food that is produced naturally. It's backwards. I get the organic producers have to pay fees to be certified. They are stating they are free of that stuff and have to adhere to guidelines. The GMO stuff and chemical controlled stuff doesn't. There would be no cost.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »
My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.
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
I get what you're saying, but they have to pay fees so they can label their products as gluten free, non-GMO etcetera. Why is it fair for companies to sell products with chemicals introduced into their products and not label them, but if they don't add chemicals they have to pay a fee to label it that way? I don't buy very many processed products, but on the occasion that I do I do look for non-GMO. The fruits and veggies I buy are mostly organic or produce that don't require much pesticide or herbicide if I can't find them organically.
I find it odd that you're fighting his proposed scheme of labeling when you obviously support and buy the exact same labeling scheme for organic.
Granted, organic foods don't mean pesticide free, but I'm sure you're already aware of that as well.
My point is it wouldn't cost them anything to add a few words to the nutritional label. I'm arguing the fact that some people think it would cost consumers for them to add 3 words. It wouldn't. Companies change their boxes and labels all the time. There would be no fees or inspection to prove you did or may have GMOs in your product.
And I don't support the exact same labeling scheme for organic. I think food with chemicals and/or modifications should be labeled. Not food that is produced naturally. It's backwards. I get the organic producers have to pay fees to be certified. They are stating they are free of that stuff and have to adhere to guidelines. The GMO stuff and chemical controlled stuff doesn't. There would be no cost.
So, if a company chose to not change their label because they claim their foods are GMO free, you'd be fine accepting them at their word?0 -
Simply put. Organic= labeled, pay to be certified. Non-organic= label as such.. May contain GMOs, or yada yada yada. There would be no fees.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Not a lot of profit in dead customers.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.
Yeah, I know. That's why I don't eat wild berries when I don't know what they are.
Those man made things are made for profit.
I'm confused now? Are you saying GMOs kill people now?0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »
My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.
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
I get what you're saying, but they have to pay fees so they can label their products as gluten free, non-GMO etcetera. Why is it fair for companies to sell products with chemicals introduced into their products and not label them, but if they don't add chemicals they have to pay a fee to label it that way? I don't buy very many processed products, but on the occasion that I do I do look for non-GMO. The fruits and veggies I buy are mostly organic or produce that don't require much pesticide or herbicide if I can't find them organically.
I find it odd that you're fighting his proposed scheme of labeling when you obviously support and buy the exact same labeling scheme for organic.
Granted, organic foods don't mean pesticide free, but I'm sure you're already aware of that as well.
My point is it wouldn't cost them anything to add a few words to the nutritional label. I'm arguing the fact that some people think it would cost consumers for them to add 3 words. It wouldn't. Companies change their boxes and labels all the time. There would be no fees or inspection to prove you did or may have GMOs in your product.
And I don't support the exact same labeling scheme for organic. I think food with chemicals and/or modifications should be labeled. Not food that is produced naturally. It's backwards. I get the organic producers have to pay fees to be certified. They are stating they are free of that stuff and have to adhere to guidelines. The GMO stuff and chemical controlled stuff doesn't. There would be no cost.
Organic has chemicals. Everything has chemicals.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
Van Eenennaam and Young then approach the question of GMO feeding from a different angle. Since 1996 90-95% of animal feed in the US has been GMO. Prior to 1996 0% was GMO. This offers the opportunity for a large observational study to see if the rapid and thorough introduction of GMO feed in the US resulted in any adverse health effects for the animals.
This data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.
In this case the data is particularly useful for a couple of reasons. First, the number of animals for which there is data is massive – in the billions per year. Second, the industry actually carefully tracks certain outcomes, as it is necessary or critical to their business.
For example, cattle are examined both premortem and postmortem for any abnormalities, such as tumors or signs of infection or other illness. Any sign of illness and that cow is not approved for meat. The percentage of cattle that are found to have such abnormalities is called the condemnation rate, and annual condemnation rates are kept in public databases.
The authors pooled data from various such databases for various animal industries before and after the introduction of GMO into animal feed:
Livestock production statistics for the US before and after the introduction of GE feed crops in 1986 are summarized in Table 4. In all industries, there were no obvious perturbations in production parameters over time. The available health parameters, somatic cell count (SCC; an indicator of mastitis and inflammation in the udder) in the dairy data set (Figure 1), postmortem condemnation rates in cattle (Figure 1), and postmortem condemnation rates and mortality in the poultry industry (Figure 2), all decreased (i.e., improved) over time.
So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.
The reason for the background improvement in health parameters is likely due to improved genetics and handling. This slow improvement over time continued without change through the introduction of GMO.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/
0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Simply put. Organic= labeled, pay to be certified. Non-organic= label as such.. May contain GMOs, or yada yada yada. There would be no fees.
So then what if people just chose not to label; everything not certified may contain. Then there's no extra charge to anyone except people wanting certification. I still don't understand the issue...0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »
My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.
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
I get what you're saying, but they have to pay fees so they can label their products as gluten free, non-GMO etcetera. Why is it fair for companies to sell products with chemicals introduced into their products and not label them, but if they don't add chemicals they have to pay a fee to label it that way? I don't buy very many processed products, but on the occasion that I do I do look for non-GMO. The fruits and veggies I buy are mostly organic or produce that don't require much pesticide or herbicide if I can't find them organically.
I find it odd that you're fighting his proposed scheme of labeling when you obviously support and buy the exact same labeling scheme for organic.
Granted, organic foods don't mean pesticide free, but I'm sure you're already aware of that as well.
My point is it wouldn't cost them anything to add a few words to the nutritional label. I'm arguing the fact that some people think it would cost consumers for them to add 3 words. It wouldn't. Companies change their boxes and labels all the time. There would be no fees or inspection to prove you did or may have GMOs in your product.
And I don't support the exact same labeling scheme for organic. I think food with chemicals and/or modifications should be labeled. Not food that is produced naturally. It's backwards. I get the organic producers have to pay fees to be certified. They are stating they are free of that stuff and have to adhere to guidelines. The GMO stuff and chemical controlled stuff doesn't. There would be no cost.
So, if a company chose to not change their label because they claim their foods are GMO free, you'd be fine accepting them at their word?
Well obviously they would have to pay the fee to be certified like regulations require now.0 -
Now?The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Not a lot of profit in dead customers.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.
Yeah, I know. That's why I don't eat wild berries when I don't know what they are.
Those man made things are made for profit.
I'm confused now? Are you saying GMOs kill people now?
You wrote, "Those man made things are made for profit." I responded that there isn't a lot of profit in dead customers. I thought that would be clear but, extending it, the way to profit is to make things people want and that don't harm them.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now?The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Not a lot of profit in dead customers.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.
Yeah, I know. That's why I don't eat wild berries when I don't know what they are.
Those man made things are made for profit.
I'm confused now? Are you saying GMOs kill people now?
You wrote, "Those man made things are made for profit." I responded that there isn't a lot of profit in dead customers. I thought that would be clear but, extending it, the way to profit is to make things people want and that don't harm them.
Yep, it's a lot cheaper making something that isn't bad for your health than paying off everyone to pretend it isn't.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.
I'm not sure why a company would have compliance records or inspections to prove that they DID have GMO products?? That doesn't make much sense. If the company sourced a GMO free product so they didn't have to label then they would no longer fall under the argument. As far as scarring consumers off, it doesn't seem to scare off the artificial sweetener crowd with the whole cancer thing. All it boils down to is if your product contains GMOs then you would just have to add it to the little nutritional label already found on the box. A few extra words. No fees, no records and no inspection to label your product that you already produce with them now.
You don't get to magically dismiss costs because you don't understand them.
What you're proposing amounts to put contains GMO on all food, and no cost. Except companies will want to show when food is GMO free.
Basically, you don't want the label for information. You want it to scare people.
I'm still waiting for valid costs? I'm not magically dismissing anything. Stating that companies would have compliance fees to produce the same food they do now without compliance fees is ridiculous. Their product isn't changing at all! Why are you so scared of consumers being told what's in their food. I'm trying to figure out why some of of you are so afraid of people being informed. Did all the candy companies go out of business when they had to put calories on the box? Did the frozen dinner section companies go out of business when they had to list the sodium content??0 -
0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »
My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.
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
I get what you're saying, but they have to pay fees so they can label their products as gluten free, non-GMO etcetera. Why is it fair for companies to sell products with chemicals introduced into their products and not label them, but if they don't add chemicals they have to pay a fee to label it that way? I don't buy very many processed products, but on the occasion that I do I do look for non-GMO. The fruits and veggies I buy are mostly organic or produce that don't require much pesticide or herbicide if I can't find them organically.
I find it odd that you're fighting his proposed scheme of labeling when you obviously support and buy the exact same labeling scheme for organic.
Granted, organic foods don't mean pesticide free, but I'm sure you're already aware of that as well.
My point is it wouldn't cost them anything to add a few words to the nutritional label. I'm arguing the fact that some people think it would cost consumers for them to add 3 words. It wouldn't. Companies change their boxes and labels all the time. There would be no fees or inspection to prove you did or may have GMOs in your product.
And I don't support the exact same labeling scheme for organic. I think food with chemicals and/or modifications should be labeled. Not food that is produced naturally. It's backwards. I get the organic producers have to pay fees to be certified. They are stating they are free of that stuff and have to adhere to guidelines. The GMO stuff and chemical controlled stuff doesn't. There would be no cost.
So, if a company chose to not change their label because they claim their foods are GMO free, you'd be fine accepting them at their word?
Well obviously they would have to pay the fee to be certified like regulations require now.
So, what you're saying is that labeling will be required for everything, it's either certified or not certified. But not being certified isn't good enough; the box needs to state not certified. Because using logic is too difficult for the masses?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Not a lot of profit in dead customers.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.
Yeah, I know. That's why I don't eat wild berries when I don't know what they are.
Those man made things are made for profit.
This is always the part that gets me the most about the anti-government/anti-corporation/anti-whatever conspiracy theories. If the government wanted to kill you, who would pay taxes? I mean, seriously. They say nothing in life is certain except death and taxes for a reason. If a business was out to kill you, who would buy their products? It is just so completely without logic that I can't even.0 -
If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s, arguing as recently at 2008 that big corporations’ selfish greed would threaten the health of both people and the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of Lynas and people like him, governments around the world—especially in Western Europe, Asia, and Africa—have hobbled GM research, and NGOs like Greenpeace have spurned donations of genetically modified foods.
But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it. On Thursday at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas delivered a blunt address: He got GMOs wrong. According to the version of his remarks posted online (as yet, there’s no video or transcript of the actual delivery), he opened with a bang:
I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.
So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now?The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Not a lot of profit in dead customers.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.
Yeah, I know. That's why I don't eat wild berries when I don't know what they are.
Those man made things are made for profit.
I'm confused now? Are you saying GMOs kill people now?
You wrote, "Those man made things are made for profit." I responded that there isn't a lot of profit in dead customers. I thought that would be clear but, extending it, the way to profit is to make things people want and that don't harm them.
So why not label them and let consumers make their own informed decision since you say they want it? Have you ever eatin an heirloom tomato? It tastes loads better than any GMO(extended for shelf life"profit") tomato. I guess you might find this hard to believe, but an heirloom tomato won't kill you! I guess people don't want a tasty tomato though, they'd rather have a bland tomato that has been modified to have a long shelf life so there's more profit. My bad. I better stop eating the veggies out of my garden and the organic fruits in veggies from the store. I didn't realize they would kill me!!!0 -
Because, as has been pointed out to you at least twice and with which you've agreed, the non-GMO will already be labeled. Therefore, if it doesn't say "non-GMO," it might contain GMOs. There's no need for that label. my strawberries don't need a label that says gluten or peanut free, either.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now?The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Not a lot of profit in dead customers.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.
Yeah, I know. That's why I don't eat wild berries when I don't know what they are.
Those man made things are made for profit.
I'm confused now? Are you saying GMOs kill people now?
You wrote, "Those man made things are made for profit." I responded that there isn't a lot of profit in dead customers. I thought that would be clear but, extending it, the way to profit is to make things people want and that don't harm them.
So why not label them and let consumers make their own informed decision since you say they want it? Have you ever eatin an heirloom tomato? It tastes loads better than any GMO(extended for shelf life"profit") tomato. I guess you might find this hard to believe, but an heirloom tomato won't kill you! I guess people don't want a tasty tomato though, they'd rather have a bland tomato that has been modified to have a long shelf life so there's more profit. My bad. I better stop eating the veggies out of my garden and the organic fruits in veggies from the store. I didn't realize they would kill me!!!
And, yeah, I grow my own tomatoes because I like them more acidic than the bland ones in the stores, even apart from their being bred for shelf stability and transport, often at the expense of the taste I want tomatoes to have.
No one said organics or your own would kill you (though the organics seem to have some issues), even if you use multiple exclamation points.
0 -
So I should just assume you guys think that the nutritional label should just be removed then? No need to list any of the other ingredients then?0
-
Why would you assume that?The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »So I should just assume you guys think that the nutritional label should just be removed then? No need to list any of the other ingredients then?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why would you assume that?The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »So I should just assume you guys think that the nutritional label should just be removed then? No need to list any of the other ingredients then?
0 -
If Monsanto's/GMO seed producers products sucked, farmers wouldn't buy them.0
-
milocamolly wrote: »OP watch the documentary GMO OMG on Netflix. It's a really good one and it explains a LOT about Gmos.
It's a terrible documentary (like all food-related documentaries) full of misinformation.
GMOs are fine. Yes, Monsanto sucks. Yes, relying on a handful of multi-nationals for our entire food supply is beyond ridiculous. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with GMOs from a health perspective.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do stuff like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
GM of crops for herbicide resistance is almost always to reduce herbicide use - replacing multiple spraying with selective herbicides with fewer sprays of glyphosate that kills practically all weeds. Selectives are generally more exotic chemicals too.0 -
Always take a documentary with a grain of salt. When creating a documentary, what makes it on screen will be carefully edited and chosen for the content they want you to see. GMO OMG deliberately downplays the scientific statistics and data to serve a personal agenda of making all things GMO horrific. You can only trust statistics as much as you can trust the original research/researchers to find the statistics. If a study is saying that GMO is Satan...was the study done by an anti GMO organization? Huge red flag. GMO products do exactly what they were engineered to do. They resist disease and pests better than their non GMO counterparts. More crops for less money means less waste on water, resources and manpower...and chemicals! If the product is able to resist disease and pests on it's own without chemicals, THIS IS A GOOD THING. Less chemicals required for a profitable crop, more food. It's not evil. It's agricultural and scientific engineering at it's finest.0
-
xmichaelyx wrote: »milocamolly wrote: »OP watch the documentary GMO OMG on Netflix. It's a really good one and it explains a LOT about Gmos.
It's a terrible documentary (like all food-related documentaries) full of misinformation.
GMOs are fine. Yes, Monsanto sucks. Yes, relying on a handful of multi-nationals for our entire food supply is beyond ridiculous. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with GMOs from a health perspective.
As corporations go (I'm of the opinion that the ability to have a corporation sucks), they're far from the worst. They've actually won awards for environmental consideration / water management, and they've had multiple years receiving best place to work for their LGTBQ by the Human Rights Campaign. Also, when they do have an actual patent suit with a farmer who has violated their contract, they donate any money won to local scholarships.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.
I'm not sure why a company would have compliance records or inspections to prove that they DID have GMO products?? That doesn't make much sense. If the company sourced a GMO free product so they didn't have to label then they would no longer fall under the argument. As far as scarring consumers off, it doesn't seem to scare off the artificial sweetener crowd with the whole cancer thing. All it boils down to is if your product contains GMOs then you would just have to add it to the little nutritional label already found on the box. A few extra words. No fees, no records and no inspection to label your product that you already produce with them now.
You don't get to magically dismiss costs because you don't understand them.
What you're proposing amounts to put contains GMO on all food, and no cost. Except companies will want to show when food is GMO free.
Basically, you don't want the label for information. You want it to scare people.
I'm still waiting for valid costs? I'm not magically dismissing anything. Stating that companies would have compliance fees to produce the same food they do now without compliance fees is ridiculous. Their product isn't changing at all! Why are you so scared of consumers being told what's in their food. I'm trying to figure out why some of of you are so afraid of people being informed. Did all the candy companies go out of business when they had to put calories on the box? Did the frozen dinner section companies go out of business when they had to list the sodium content??
No, you dismissed costs because you made flawed assumptions about how labeling would work. Quite frankly, ridiculous claims of how it worked. Your thought is that everything now that isn't already sporting the Non-GMO verified or Organic label would just slap "may contains GMOs" on it. If that's what you want, just assume GMOs are in all those things, problem solved. Quit expecting me to pay for you to have a label to try to scare people and make a concern where there is none.
http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/cornell-study-mandatory-gmo-labeling-would-increase-food-prices-500-for-ny/
Unfortunately the links to the paper themselves seem to have gone dead on Cornell's site.
That same study also did do a cost based on the your assumptions about "slap a label on everything" and be done with it. That still had a cost of $46. Why do I have to pay $.01 because you want to know something that doesn't have any scientific basis for it being significant.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »So I should just assume you guys think that the nutritional label should just be removed then? No need to list any of the other ingredients then?
You can assume what you want, but I think you know what they say about when you assume.
Nutritional labels have actual useful information on them. You're on a forum that revolves around a website / app that does calorie counting. You'll most people here lose and gain weight here based on the information presented in those labels.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions