GMO crops still making headlines.

snikkins

beemerphile1 wrote: »

I believe that a free market benefits everyone. If companies want to use GMO ingredients that is fine with me.

I also believe consumers have the right to know what ingredients are in a product they buy. Mandatory labeling laws would give everyone what they want.

Manufacturers can use the ingredients and consumers can choose if they want to buy products with those ingredients.

Unfortunately the manufacturers don't want you to know the ingredients and pay millions of dollars to politician to prevent mandatory fair labeling laws.

Based on our history of how we label things in the United States, I don't think it's so much that they're against "fair labeling laws." Some maybe, but I think the bigger issue is that, historically, we only label things that are known to be harmful. Forcing manufacturers into labeling everything that has GMOs would be implying that GMOs are harmful based on our past behavior concerning this stuff. That is where I perceive the backlash to be coming from, not the people who choose to label their goods as "non-GMO."

It could be eyeopening to people who think that GMOs are specifically designed to murder everyone, considering the vast majority of things would be labeled as containing GMOs, since they would have to confront the fact that they're fine, but more than likely, they would shout, "See! We knew they were harmful! The label proves it!"

Also, labeling everything removes the effectiveness of a label, IMO.

SpecialKH

The biggest problem is all GMO foods aren't the same. Cross breeding different strains of corn to get high yield/disease resistant strains is genetically modifying corn. But isn't that just a form of survival of the fittest so the best genes from each strain and compiled into one plant to be the best?

My Dad worked in food packaging all of his life and tested all sorts of foods and packaging. He also was a master gardener. He thought that people were unreasonably afraid of GMO as well as irradiation. People hear "irradiation" an assume "radiation" and that it must cause radiation poisoning and cancer. When really it's such a low dose that it only kills bacteria and helps preserve food for a very very long time which can be helpful in getting perishables to far away places, helping ease the burden of starvation. But too many people are afraid.

PS I agree with invisible boy that making foods that won't germinate or that can resist chemical treatments like roundup are unproven. That's why they aren't all the same and labeling won't make a difference until we can be more specific and meaningful to consumers.

_John_

snikkins wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

I believe that a free market benefits everyone. If companies want to use GMO ingredients that is fine with me.

I also believe consumers have the right to know what ingredients are in a product they buy. Mandatory labeling laws would give everyone what they want.

Manufacturers can use the ingredients and consumers can choose if they want to buy products with those ingredients.

Unfortunately the manufacturers don't want you to know the ingredients and pay millions of dollars to politician to prevent mandatory fair labeling laws.

Based on our history of how we label things in the United States, I don't think it's so much that they're against "fair labeling laws." Some maybe, but I think the bigger issue is that, historically, we only label things that are known to be harmful. Forcing manufacturers into labeling everything that has GMOs would be implying that GMOs are harmful based on our past behavior concerning this stuff. That is where I perceive the backlash to be coming from, not the people who choose to label their goods as "non-GMO."

It could be eyeopening to people who think that GMOs are specifically designed to murder everyone, considering the vast majority of things would be labeled as containing GMOs, since they would have to confront the fact that they're fine, but more than likely, they would shout, "See! We knew they were harmful! The label proves it!"

Also, labeling everything removes the effectiveness of a label, IMO.

IMO it's just an unnecessary scare tactic from the "other" politicized side. If it were labeled, especially if animals fed GMO's had to be labeled as well, then the demand for American farmed goods would drop as well. So you'd have an increase in food costs, and a hit to American farmers.

It is just speculation, but putting the California lead warning on fishing lures caused an across the board increase in prices...

Need2Exerc1se

SpecialKH wrote: »

The biggest problem is all GMO foods aren't the same. Cross breeding different strains of corn to get high yield/disease resistant strains is genetically modifying corn. But isn't that just a form of survival of the fittest so the best genes from each strain and compiled into one plant to be the best?

My Dad worked in food packaging all of his life and tested all sorts of foods and packaging. He also was a master gardener. He thought that people were unreasonably afraid of GMO as well as irradiation. People hear "irradiation" an assume "radiation" and that it must cause radiation poisoning and cancer. When really it's such a low dose that it only kills bacteria and helps preserve food for a very very long time which can be helpful in getting perishables to far away places, helping ease the burden of starvation. But too many people are afraid.

PS I agree with invisible boy that making foods that won't germinate or that can resist chemical treatments like roundup are unproven. That's why they aren't all the same and labeling won't make a difference until we can be more specific and meaningful to consumers.

Hybridization and cross breading are not what is meant by GMO.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

GaleHawkins

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

SpecialKH wrote: »

The biggest problem is all GMO foods aren't the same. Cross breeding different strains of corn to get high yield/disease resistant strains is genetically modifying corn. But isn't that just a form of survival of the fittest so the best genes from each strain and compiled into one plant to be the best?

My Dad worked in food packaging all of his life and tested all sorts of foods and packaging. He also was a master gardener. He thought that people were unreasonably afraid of GMO as well as irradiation. People hear "irradiation" an assume "radiation" and that it must cause radiation poisoning and cancer. When really it's such a low dose that it only kills bacteria and helps preserve food for a very very long time which can be helpful in getting perishables to far away places, helping ease the burden of starvation. But too many people are afraid.

PS I agree with invisible boy that making foods that won't germinate or that can resist chemical treatments like roundup are unproven. That's why they aren't all the same and labeling won't make a difference until we can be more specific and meaningful to consumers.

Hybridization and cross breading are not what is meant by GMO.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

Thanks for making that point.

GaleHawkins

telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11925154/Deleting-genes-could-boost-lifespan-by-60-per-cent-say-scientists.html

May the answer is to just genetically modify people.

senecarr

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

SpecialKH wrote: »

The biggest problem is all GMO foods aren't the same. Cross breeding different strains of corn to get high yield/disease resistant strains is genetically modifying corn. But isn't that just a form of survival of the fittest so the best genes from each strain and compiled into one plant to be the best?

My Dad worked in food packaging all of his life and tested all sorts of foods and packaging. He also was a master gardener. He thought that people were unreasonably afraid of GMO as well as irradiation. People hear "irradiation" an assume "radiation" and that it must cause radiation poisoning and cancer. When really it's such a low dose that it only kills bacteria and helps preserve food for a very very long time which can be helpful in getting perishables to far away places, helping ease the burden of starvation. But too many people are afraid.

PS I agree with invisible boy that making foods that won't germinate or that can resist chemical treatments like roundup are unproven. That's why they aren't all the same and labeling won't make a difference until we can be more specific and meaningful to consumers.

Hybridization and cross breading are not what is meant by GMO.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

But why is important to label transgenic, cisgenic, and RNA silenced plants but using intentional mutagenic methods, or crossbreeding plants exposed to UV radiation aren't worth labeling?

senecarr

beemerphile1 wrote: »

I believe that a free market benefits everyone. If companies want to use GMO ingredients that is fine with me.

I also believe consumers have the right to know what ingredients are in a product they buy. Mandatory labeling laws would give everyone what they want.

Manufacturers can use the ingredients and consumers can choose if they want to buy products with those ingredients.

Unfortunately the manufacturers don't want you to know the ingredients and pay millions of dollars to politician to prevent mandatory fair labeling laws.

Free market solution is people that want food with no GMOs will pay for food with a GMO free guarantee under voluntary labeling. Otherwise labeling is expecting other people to pay for information labelers want to know.

senecarr

Welp, they're making headlines today too:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.