Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If You Doubt The Organic Industry Leads The Anti-GMO Movement, This Settles It
Options
Replies
-
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
Organic certification is expensive. Many farmers use organic practices but their foods are not labeled organic due to the cost. Having GMO foods labeled puts the burden on the GMO food producers, where it belongs.
Also, there is food that is neither organic nor GMO. In this case the burden should also be on the GMO food producers.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
Organic certification is expensive. Many farmers use organic practices but their foods are not labeled organic due to the cost. Having GMO foods labeled puts the burden on the GMO food producers, where it belongs.
Also, there is food that is neither organic nor GMO. In this case the burden should also be on the GMO food producers.
Ah. Yep, that's where we disagree.0 -
kshama2001 wrote:Having GMO foods labeled puts the burden on the GMO food producers, where it belongs.
.
While we're at it, let's get all the food companies that produce food with radiation in it to label it as such. Oh wait, that's all of them, and it's not harmful to you.
Why should the burden be on them? GMOs are safe. If anti-GMO people want to ignore that fact in order to seek out non-GMO foods, shouldn't that burden be on them?
0 -
Nearly All Voters Continue To Want GMO Foods Labeled
...For years, American voters have been nearly unanimous in supporting mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. This poll of likely 2016 voters once again confirms that result, with 89% saying they favor mandatory labels on “foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that.” A mere 6% oppose such a requirement and another 6% don’t know.
Views continue to be remarkably intense, with a 77% supermajority not only favoring mandatory labeling but “strongly” favoring the proposal. These views are widespread across demographic lines, with nearly all Democrats (92% favor, 2% oppose), independents (89% favor, 7% oppose) and Republicans (84% favor, 7% oppose) supporting a required label.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Nearly All Voters Continue To Want GMO Foods Labeled
...For years, American voters have been nearly unanimous in supporting mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. This poll of likely 2016 voters once again confirms that result, with 89% saying they favor mandatory labels on “foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that.” A mere 6% oppose such a requirement and another 6% don’t know.
Views continue to be remarkably intense, with a 77% supermajority not only favoring mandatory labeling but “strongly” favoring the proposal. These views are widespread across demographic lines, with nearly all Democrats (92% favor, 2% oppose), independents (89% favor, 7% oppose) and Republicans (84% favor, 7% oppose) supporting a required label.
I'd bet if you made a poll about if warning labels should be put on artificial sweetened foods/beverages beyond it being listed in the ingredients, results would look similar.0 -
A poll of 800 people without listing the actual questions asked .... ok.0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Nearly All Voters Continue To Want GMO Foods Labeled
...For years, American voters have been nearly unanimous in supporting mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. This poll of likely 2016 voters once again confirms that result, with 89% saying they favor mandatory labels on “foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that.” A mere 6% oppose such a requirement and another 6% don’t know.
Views continue to be remarkably intense, with a 77% supermajority not only favoring mandatory labeling but “strongly” favoring the proposal. These views are widespread across demographic lines, with nearly all Democrats (92% favor, 2% oppose), independents (89% favor, 7% oppose) and Republicans (84% favor, 7% oppose) supporting a required label.
What's your point? If 89% of Americans decided jumping off a bridge was a good idea, I'd still think it was a stupid one. That's an "ad populum" arugment, and it's completely fallacious in nature.0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »kshama2001 wrote:Having GMO foods labeled puts the burden on the GMO food producers, where it belongs.
.
While we're at it, let's get all the food companies that produce food with radiation in it to label it as such. Oh wait, that's all of them, and it's not harmful to you.
Why should the burden be on them? GMOs are safe. If anti-GMO people want to ignore that fact in order to seek out non-GMO foods, shouldn't that burden be on them?
If by "produce food with radiation" you mean "exposing foodstuffs to ionizing radiation" then no, not all food has this done. If you're referring to sunshine, your argument is closer to being correct, but disingenuous.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »kshama2001 wrote:Having GMO foods labeled puts the burden on the GMO food producers, where it belongs.
.
While we're at it, let's get all the food companies that produce food with radiation in it to label it as such. Oh wait, that's all of them, and it's not harmful to you.
Why should the burden be on them? GMOs are safe. If anti-GMO people want to ignore that fact in order to seek out non-GMO foods, shouldn't that burden be on them?
If by "produce food with radiation" you mean "exposing foodstuffs to ionizing radiation" then no, not all food has this done. If you're referring to sunshine, your argument is closer to being correct, but disingenuous.
No actually what I meant was "there is radiation present in literally everything on the planet". And yes, it was intentionally disingenuous, as I was referencing how ridiculous of a position that would be. Similar to the ridiculous position of claiming that the burden should be on GMO producers to appease the ignorant anti-GMOers.0 -
-
I don't doubt that there's emotions on both sides, but the hysteria I was referring to wasn't aimed at anyone in particular but the entire anti-GMO movement as a whole.0 -
Who are the companies fighting for our right to know?
There are over 400 companies that actively support GMO labeling and increased transparency in the food system. They believe that consumers have a right to know about what’s in their food and are fighting for both state and national GMO labeling initiatives.
Full list of supporters:
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-supporters/0 -
justlabelit ... not a biased source at all.0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Who are the companies fighting for our right to know?
There are over 400 companies that actively support GMO labeling and increased transparency in the food system. They believe that consumers have a right to know about what’s in their food and are fighting for both state and national GMO labeling initiatives.
Full list of supporters:
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-supporters/
Another ad populum argument. If you don't have any real evidence, you should probably sit this one out. Fallacious arguments just make your position weaker.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Who are the companies fighting for our right to know?
There are over 400 companies that actively support GMO labeling and increased transparency in the food system. They believe that consumers have a right to know about what’s in their food and are fighting for both state and national GMO labeling initiatives.
Full list of supporters:
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-supporters/
A company coming out in favor of GMO labeling speaks more to that company's desire to gain the confidence of the consumers in favor of GMO labeling than anything else (along the lines of General Mills removing artificial colors/flavors to win the favor of the natural = better crowd). I'd also say that any popular vote of US citizens on this issue draws more attention to issues in our education system than whether it is right or good to require GMO labels.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Nearly All Voters Continue To Want GMO Foods Labeled
...For years, American voters have been nearly unanimous in supporting mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. This poll of likely 2016 voters once again confirms that result, with 89% saying they favor mandatory labels on “foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that.” A mere 6% oppose such a requirement and another 6% don’t know.
Views continue to be remarkably intense, with a 77% supermajority not only favoring mandatory labeling but “strongly” favoring the proposal. These views are widespread across demographic lines, with nearly all Democrats (92% favor, 2% oppose), independents (89% favor, 7% oppose) and Republicans (84% favor, 7% oppose) supporting a required label.
And 80% of Americans are in favor of labeling food if it contains DNA. Generally speaking, the American people aren't terribly scientifically literate.0 -
I was sorta on the anti GMO bandwagon, til I actually read the research... there is nothing that supports the claim GMO's are what the organic industry say they are. 0, none, zilch... the only research paper that started this whole Anti GMO mess has since been thoroughly debunked and retracted. So I have since done what I feel my educated self should do and I reversed my opinion, based on current data.
Now I can see the desire and some merit behind labeling, as I think people have a right to know what's in the food they eat. BUT what most people don't realize, even organic food has been GE'd at some point down the chain. Nothing you eat, is what it originally was, even just a mere 50 years ago. A requirement to label something as GMO, if we're being factual about it, we might as well label almost every known grown food as GMO.
Besides, isn't there already a ton of foods with the 'non GMO' labeling anyways? (which is sorta a misnomer, as everything has been GE'd at some point)
I will say tho, organically grown food does seem to taste better to me. But I'm not sure if this is just a placebo effect from years of Organic marketing buried into my subconscious.
The biggest negative I can see right now are the RoundUp ready crops starting to fail due to bugs now mutating and becoming resistant. Or the awful way Monsanto treats their farmers. This needs more attention than anything IMO.
Just my 2c...
Let the /flagging begin.0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »ronjsteele1 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I honestly don't understand why so many people are against labeling. If I don't want to eat GMOs, that's my decision. If you want to eat them, that's your decision. There's nothing wrong with either choice. But I should have enough information avaliable to me regarding the food I buy that I am able to make that choice.
To me, it's kind of like country-of-origin labeling for other consumer goods. If I want to buy a toy made in America, then that's fine. If I want to buy a toy made in China, that's also fine. But I should have enough information avaliable that I'm able to figure out where the toy that I'm considering buying came from.
This.^^^^^ I have every right to know what I put into mine and my family's bodies. And for those that don't believe GMO's are damaging, wait until you almost lose a child and discover that GMO's are damaging their gut. You'll change your mind. Anything GMO makes my son very ill. But that fight will rage on. Labeling is a no brainer and is no different or expensive then when a company changes their label for any product. It's one change and run the labels. My husband use to work in that industry, the cost they scream about is a crock. What they don't want is people choosing non-GMO foods over GMO foods because GMO foods are their cash cow.
Do some research into long term GMO farming. I live in a farming community and there are many farmers now 5-8 years into farming GMO's finding their land ruined and their use of pesticides INCREASED because of mutations. Some are now trying to go back and reclaim their land and fix it to be farmable again but it's very difficult after so much damage.
You should know, though, that virtually everything you're eating at this point has been genetically modified. Unless you're growing 100% of the food you eat in your own backyard (and have sourced the seeds from a third-world country) there was almost certainly genetic modification at some point. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, because genetically modifying an organism doesn't just somehow automatically make it "toxic" or "poisonous".
GMOs are not boogeymen - food that has been modified to be more robust and versatile saves literally millions of lives every year. If you deny this, you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
The more you know.
If you are confounding that the changes in genetic code via breeding or hybridisation versus genetic engineering are significantly different you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
I'm pro-GE but sheez some of the arrogant arguments presented to support it are nonsense.
No one denies the the purpose of GMs are to have more robust, efficient and versatile crops. Do they actually save millions of lives? Borlaugh (Nobel prize winner) actually DID save billions (that's a B ) with traditional crop methods.
The real issues are complex and it is unlikely that someone arguing from an appeal to accomplishments and such weak ad hominem would propose. Up your game. There are real arguments to support GE, these aren't it.
Modifying foods through selective breeding is a form of genetic manipulation. I never - at any point - said that the processes of selective breeding and laboratory genetic manipulation were the same. I just said that the end result is the same. That is fact. You can accomplish virtually all of the things that laboratory manipulation accomplish via selective breeding, albeit over a much larger time frame (see: the bananas you buy in stores today).
Please to explain how you can selectively breed plants that carry the plankton bioluminescent protein sequence.
No, clearly GE is a step change in technology and capacity. When that time frame becomes impossible long then the statistical probability that it can be done reduces to insignificant. The fact that statistics and quantum mechanics says I can pass through the wall if I jump against it enough times doesn't mean that in real life terms it is possible. Or in the terms of economic reality even feasible.
Super large red-herring. Please to point out who in this thread says this. Again, since you like to stick to facts lets not try to paint the position of the those against GMOs in this thread as "tinfoil hat wearers" or carrying arguments that they don't voice.No one denies that the purpose of GMs are to have more robust crops? You obviously aren't familiar with the tinfoil hat wearers of the anti-GMO movement, considering their main arguments are that GMOs are poisonous and pushed by an industry that exists to control people through food.When you have a moment, come down from that pedestal and refrain from telling me to "up my game", and maybe we can have a real conversation about this. I'm not striving to impress you, or anyone else. I'm merely trying to correct the rampant ignorance that exists in the anti-GMO movement. Unless you have a degree in this stuff, you are in no more of a position than I am to assert your position as fact, so you accusing me of doing the same fails to move me.
Fair statement - but alas talking about pedestals ... "rampant ignorance" certainly positions your as being on your own pedestal. A lot of anti-GMOs people are quite far from that. I've spent serious hours having to educate myself on specific plasmid technology to argue with some of them. And as to my degrees or education - I try to never justify my position based on my education - I expect people to be able to dig deep into information independent of degrees. (For background I have a minor in biology and did cell culture research for over 8 years including cell line vat work, but my core is biomedical engineering.)
If you want to correct "rampant ignorance" a less bellicose method might go further than calling posters nonsense.
The experience she writes about - the increased use of certain pesticides with GMOs (since those crops are resistant) seems relevant.0 -
Damn, what's wrong with trying to avoid GE foods?!
Didn't these Monsanto folks tell us DDT, Agent Orange, and PCB's were non-toxic?
If it really is safe, why does one corporation need to control the entire food supply? You want to put a patent on strawberries, bro?
Why take a farmer to court because your seeds were carried by the wind into his/her crop?
These are all questions I ask myself while biting into a juicy heirloom tomato. Think I'm gonna wait another decade to make sure people aren't growing nipples on their foreheads.
0 -
I'm just going to drop this here: http://www.insufferableintolerance.com/genetically-modified-foods-the-rise-of-the-planet-of-the-franken-banana
Worth a read if you are at all open to hearing why GMOs are safe. FWIW, I'm pro-GMO, but unlike the author I'm not pro-labeling. The hysteria surrounding GMOs is completely unfounded in science.
It's a good article but also a bit slanted into our pro GMO camp. For example, it skims over certain concerns by saying "research is being carried out" without truly addressing why these might be real concerns.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions