GMO Labeling?
Options
Replies
-
GMO isn't 'injected' with 'toxins'.
Genetic modification has been around for thousands of years. Selective breeding of plants and animals to reproduce desired genetic traits and remove undesirable genes from the genome. GMO just speeds up the process by singling out a single gene and inserting it into DNA.
Your dog is a GMO, your non-GMO corn is a GMO, your non-GMO carrots are a GMO. You could do this by hand if you wanted to, but it takes a lot longer.
EVERY living thing contains genes and DNA. The genes of the things you eat do not insert themselves into your DNA.
My dog is made of dog, just like his parents. His parents were selected because their traits were desirable. Maize that was juicy and tasty was selected, and its seeds were kept. Over generations, this led to the corn we eat today. This is called Artificial Selection, or Selective Breeding.
My strawberries have frog genes in them. This is Genetic Modification.
See the difference?
You are 95% fruit fly.
The number of 'dog genes' and 'human genes' that aren't shared are incredibly miniscule. Genes are genes. They code for proteins. That's it.
My point is, you don't know the meaning of "GMO" if you are confusing it with breeding. You gave the wrong definition of it in the post above by claiming GMO foods are the same as artificially selected foods. You were right about everything else though. But if you don't know what GMO is you kinda lose credibility.
It doesn't matter of we share most genes with other organisms, most of it is junk. The differences may be small percentage-wise, but the magnitude of these minor differences is huge. So it's meaningless to say "we are 95% fruit fly", it's the other 5% that matters.
Harmful or not, I'll chose to be informed about what my food is over ignorance, any day. Why should I be kept in the dark just so some big multinational can guarantee its profit margins?0 -
My dog is made of dog, just like his parents. His parents were selected because their traits were desirable. Maize that was juicy and tasty was selected, and its seeds were kept. Over generations, this led to the corn we eat today. This is called Artificial Selection, or Selective Breeding.
My strawberries have frog genes in them. This is Genetic Modification.
See the difference?
Actually, no. Do elaborate, please. Specifically, elaborate as to why it's a bad thing for your strawberries to have frog genes in them, in the sense of how this can possibly harm you. Also, elaborate as to how different frog genes are from your genes. And how different strawberry genes are from frog genes.
Hard to elaborate or something I didn't say... where's the part where I wrote it's bad for strawberries to have frog genes in them?
Selecting strawberries from existing strawberry genes, is different than adding frog genes to a strawberry. Frogs did not evolve to be strawberries. Clearly, there is a difference.0 -
No...you don't know the meaning of GMO if you think it's drastically different.
Do you eat fish? You ingest fish genes. Do you eat strawberries? You ingest strawberry genes. Is it somehow different if you ingest them simultaneously rather than in two different bites?
BTW, I know a LOT about GMOs and I work with transgenic organisms regularly. GMOs helped combat widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing countries whose main staple was white rice. GMOs are why you get to eat cheese and why I get to drink Lactaid milk. People fear GMOs because they don't understand them.0 -
No...you don't know the meaning of GMO if you think it's drastically different.
Do you eat fish? You ingest fish genes. Do you eat strawberries? You ingest strawberry genes. Is it somehow different if you ingest them simultaneously rather than in two different bites?
this feels like an IQ test:
fish genes come from fish.
strawberry genes come from strawberries.
fish genes come from strawberries.
Which if these statements is NOT like the others?0 -
I am truly curious as to what big business in the US has against labeling GMO products as such, if they truly believe there is nothing 'wrong' with them?
We have truth in labeling laws. What if big business suddenly decided they didn't want to list carbohydrates on their products? There would and should be an outcry! As consumers, knowing what we are eating has been upheld to require certain labeling.
Personally, I think it is too soon to know what long term affects, both the alteration of our foods and in the plants themselves will show. The soybeans that contain roundup, have to be sprayed more and more often, than untreated soybeans, to produce equal yields and prevent pest invasions. One article exploring poor yields:
http://newfarm.org/features/0904/soybeans/ There are of course numerous articles on both sides of the argument.
So bottom line, I don't believe GMO's should be removed from stores at this point, but, I do believe the products should be labeled so as to make an informed decision. If 60+ other countries find this important, shouldn't we?
Last point. The reason wheat is not a GMO plant, is due to wheat farmers diligence and determination. They have been fighting monsanto for a long time now. Our farmers are hard working, intelligent people, who see what has happenend to soybeans.0 -
I have never seen so many young girls developing breasts so early in their lives, as I have recently. ...Something's going on with our food system, and although I don't know what it is, at least let me decide what GMO's I will or will not eat.
Alas, the decreasing age of menarche/puberty onset in females has nothing to do with GMOs. It's been going on long before GMOs existed and is thought to be linked to increasing levels of nutrition available to human beings once they stumbled upon the idea of agriculture. Better fed girls = girls who are better equipped to make babies = nature says, "Let's get 'em making with the babies sooner." So, if you must blame something for this phenomenon, blame the increased availability of food and the increased quality of food in general. If you want to go back to bad/less food so we don't have 8-year-olds with boobies...Well, I'm not with you on that one, I'm afraid.
Edited to add: Also, the increase in childhood obesity/lack of exercise in children has much to do with decreased age of puberty onset. The fatter a girl is and the less active she is, the more estrogen her body produces, and the earlier she'll develop. So if you want to blame GMOs for childhood obesity, there you go, but that's a specious argument at best.
In short, if you want to be concerned about GMOs, that is your choice. But there is no current evidence that justifies turning them into a boogieman that needs a label.
Shhhh. Quiet you, with your rational and far more probable explanation. No one wants to hear that. It's boring. It's far sexier to blame it on over complicated conspiracies and mad scientists with their desire to have the world filled with large chested women.
On second thought, that's exactly what's going on here. How have I been so blind?
*laugh* I'm all about the rational and unsexy, I'm afraid. I don't believe in the Psychotic Secret One-World Government-Funded Evil Mad Scientist League of Doom. Even though I'm large-chested and have been since I was about 10. Even though, all those years ago back in the Dark Ages when I was 10, there weren't any GMOs. (Well, aside from those created by artificial selection, of course, which is basically...Um, every single commercially-grown crop and every single kind of domestic livestock. Plus chihuahuas, of course. And if there's one thing that's insidious in this world, it's a chihuahua.
Lab-created or not, it's all the same darn thing, only with a little more judicious splicing involved in the lab. And trust me, that day is probably coming in the doggie world, too.)
And hey, I owe my existence to GMOs. My dad is Type I diabetic, has been since he was 8 or so. The insulin he uses now is produced by E. coli (AKA bacteria that live in mammal guts and that are excreted by the bucketload in poo) that are injected with human DNA that codes for insulin so that they crank the stuff out without minding much at all. Well, OK, that sort didn't come about until the 80s, so I don't REALLY owe my existence to GMOs because I was born before the 80s. So, I owe my existence to pig/cow pancreases instead. (Pancreii? What IS the plural of "pancreas?") But anyone who has an insulin-dependent diabetic parent and who was born in the 80s or later certainly does owe their existence to a OMG!GMO. And yet, I don't hear much fussing from the anti-GMO crowd about this blasphemous bastardization of the E. coli genome that's been insidiously going on for 30-some years now. Even though people are injecting themselves with that stuff, not just eating it.
And I still don't see how putting fish DNA in a tomato is a bad thing. Ever eaten fish in some sort of tomato sauce? Like sardines packed in nasty oily tomato sauce like my dad always used to eat? (Which were disgusting, but that's beside the point.) Well, you just ate both tomato and fish DNA, and it all got mashed up in your mouth and belly such that it was TOGETHER! OMG!
OK, I'll stop now because I'm getting silly. But seriously, the hysteria is amusing...
I think we would agree on many things, good sir.
I'm just excited for the day where my food can talk to me before I eat it, thus informing me of the best parts to eat as seen in the pic below.
MWAHAH! Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You're my hero, you hoopy frood!
I think what this thread needs is some good Vogon poetry. Wait a sec while I find some. Maybe after listening to it the twisted genetics will make more sense... 0 -
No...you don't know the meaning of GMO if you think it's drastically different.
Do you eat fish? You ingest fish genes. Do you eat strawberries? You ingest strawberry genes. Is it somehow different if you ingest them simultaneously rather than in two different bites?
BTW, I know a LOT about GMOs and I work with transgenic organisms regularly. GMOs helped combat widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing countries whose main staple was white rice. GMOs are why you get to eat cheese and why I get to drink Lactaid milk. People fear GMOs because they don't understand them.
And GMO monocropping will someday lead to environmental and economic devastation in those same developing countries. :drinker:0 -
No...you don't know the meaning of GMO if you think it's drastically different.
Do you eat fish? You ingest fish genes. Do you eat strawberries? You ingest strawberry genes. Is it somehow different if you ingest them simultaneously rather than in two different bites?
this feels like an IQ test:
fish genes come from fish.
strawberry genes come from strawberries.
fish genes come from strawberries.
Which if these statements is NOT like the others?
Okay--do you know what a gene is? What it does? Maybe if you did, you would realize it's really silly to say things like 'fish' genes and 'strawberry' genes and why it does. not. matter.0 -
No...you don't know the meaning of GMO if you think it's drastically different.
Do you eat fish? You ingest fish genes. Do you eat strawberries? You ingest strawberry genes. Is it somehow different if you ingest them simultaneously rather than in two different bites?
BTW, I know a LOT about GMOs and I work with transgenic organisms regularly. GMOs helped combat widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing countries whose main staple was white rice. GMOs are why you get to eat cheese and why I get to drink Lactaid milk. People fear GMOs because they don't understand them.
I keep the food on my plate separate. I do not want my mashed potato genes to touch my corned beef genes. That's just not cool. In fact, I'm going to start eating different foods several hours apart in order to make sure they don't touch while in my stomach either.
Food separation is important.0 -
GMOs are awful, not only for human consumption but also for our ecosystem. Genetically modified organisms can cross bread with organic plants and cause contamination. In the end science will be what destroys humanity. The world has been functioning for a long time before we came along and started modifying plants. GMO plants are no better than regular ones, the yields are no better and the nutritional value of GMO plants are little to none. Not to mention the pesticides killing the very bees we need to pollinate our food. Our current agricultural system is not sustainable.
Just my thoughts on GMOs coming from a farmer's son.0 -
No...you don't know the meaning of GMO if you think it's drastically different.
Do you eat fish? You ingest fish genes. Do you eat strawberries? You ingest strawberry genes. Is it somehow different if you ingest them simultaneously rather than in two different bites?
BTW, I know a LOT about GMOs and I work with transgenic organisms regularly. GMOs helped combat widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing countries whose main staple was white rice. GMOs are why you get to eat cheese and why I get to drink Lactaid milk. People fear GMOs because they don't understand them.
And GMO monocropping will someday lead to environmental and economic devastation in those same developing countries. :drinker:
Just because Monsanto has bastardized the GMO name doesn't mean that's their only fate. The only reason so many people are fed so well is because of the rapid production of GMO crops. GMO's aren't just fish-corn; the technology can be used to create more nutrient-dense, insect-resistant, weather-hardy crops. You hear about corn because it is in extremely high demand; humans, animals, and vehicles consume it in various forms.0 -
No...you don't know the meaning of GMO if you think it's drastically different.
Do you eat fish? You ingest fish genes. Do you eat strawberries? You ingest strawberry genes. Is it somehow different if you ingest them simultaneously rather than in two different bites?
BTW, I know a LOT about GMOs and I work with transgenic organisms regularly. GMOs helped combat widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing countries whose main staple was white rice. GMOs are why you get to eat cheese and why I get to drink Lactaid milk. People fear GMOs because they don't understand them.
I keep the food on my plate separate. I do not want my mashed potato genes to touch my corned beef genes. That's just not cool. In fact, I'm going to start eating different foods several hours apart in order to make sure they don't touch while in my stomach either.
Food separation is important.
I time all my meals so I have at least 4 hours between each type of gene I ingest. Nutrient timing!0 -
Oh my goodness, this thread has me cracking up!
Ridiculous claims made
Dissention unwelcome
Basically a cult0 -
GMOs are awful, not only for human consumption but also for our ecosystem. Genetically modified organisms can cross bread with organic plants and cause contamination. In the end science will be what destroys humanity. The world has been functioning for a long time before we came along and started modifying plants. GMO plants are no better than regular ones, the yields are no better and the nutritional value of GMO plants are little to none. Not to mention the pesticides killing the very bees we need to pollinate our food. Our current agricultural system is not sustainable.
Just my thoughts on GMOs coming from a farmer's son.
If GMO plants do not have better yields or hardiness, then please explain why they are used when it costs so much in R&D?
I look forward to the answer provided0 -
Hard to elaborate or something I didn't say... where's the part where I wrote it's bad for strawberries to have frog genes in them?
Without being silly: If it's not bad and has no affect on you or your health, then why does it matter if the strawberries have a label on them or not? Generally, if something needs to be labeled "'cuz the guvmint sez so," it's because whatever it is is bad for you in some way that repeated and repeatable science has consistently shown. Like I said before, with cigarettes. Or with nutrition labels in response to what the government saw as an alarming, wide-scale increase in obesity. So, what's so bad about strawberries with frog genes in them that they should require a government-mandated label?
If you want to be "informed," that's one thing, but I get the sense from most people who say that that they "just want to be informed" precisely because they think on some level that GMOs are bad/scary/unhealthy. I ask you, in what way does a strawberry with frog DNA affect you or your health in any way, given that, in your digestive tract, it'll all be broken down into its component elements in the same way as it you be if you ate, say, frog's legs and strawberries at the same time.Selecting strawberries from existing strawberry genes, is different than adding frog genes to a strawberry. Frogs did not evolve to be strawberries. Clearly, there is a difference.
A difference, yes. Except that they would have to share tons of genes in common for a frog-infused strawberry to be at all viable in the first place. Again, I ask what harm this organism poses to you, at such a level that you believe government-mandated labeling (Which, really, is warning) is justified?0 -
No...you don't know the meaning of GMO if you think it's drastically different.
Do you eat fish? You ingest fish genes. Do you eat strawberries? You ingest strawberry genes. Is it somehow different if you ingest them simultaneously rather than in two different bites?
this feels like an IQ test:
fish genes come from fish.
strawberry genes come from strawberries.
fish genes come from strawberries.
Which if these statements is NOT like the others?
Okay--do you know what a gene is? What it does? Maybe if you did, you would realize it's really silly to say things like 'fish' genes and 'strawberry' genes and why it does. not. matter.
I know what genes are. I'm not so sure you know how to read well, or understand what "differences" and "similarities" are. You're seeing what you want to see. I did not make any claims to GMOs being healthy or unhealthy, or whether or not it mattered. But to say there is "no difference" between GMOs and breeding, is just FALSE. They are different processes.
Yes, there are differences--the origin of the selected gene, the time it takes to grow the transgenic organism, the fact that only a single gene is inserted rather than another plant sharing half. The rest is cell division and gene expression. It is still a strawberry.0 -
Hard to elaborate or something I didn't say... where's the part where I wrote it's bad for strawberries to have frog genes in them?
Without being silly: If it's not bad and has no affect on you or your health, then why does it matter if the strawberries have a label on them or not? Generally, if something needs to be labeled "'cuz the guvmint sez so," it's because whatever it is is bad for you in some way that repeated and repeatable science has consistently shown. Like I said before, with cigarettes. Or with nutrition labels in response to what the government saw as an alarming, wide-scale increase in obesity. So, what's so bad about strawberries with frog genes in them that they should require a government-mandated label?
If you want to be "informed," that's one thing, but I get the sense from most people who say that that they "just want to be informed" precisely because they think on some level that GMOs are bad/scary/unhealthy. I ask you, in what way does a strawberry with frog DNA affect you or your health in any way, given that, in your digestive tract, it'll all be broken down into its component elements in the same way as it you be if you ate, say, frog's legs and strawberries at the same time.Selecting strawberries from existing strawberry genes, is different than adding frog genes to a strawberry. Frogs did not evolve to be strawberries. Clearly, there is a difference.
A difference, yes. Except that they would have to share tons of genes in common for a frog-infused strawberry to be at all viable in the first place. Again, I ask what harm this organism poses to you, at such a level that you believe government-mandated labeling (Which, really, is warning) is justified?
Theeeere we go. You finally said it. You made the big ol' assumption that if I want to be informed, it MUST be because I'm "scared" of GMOs, that I believe they are unhealthy. I have made no such claims, because tha is NOT why I want to be informed.
Tons of things are labeled that are not bad for you. I want to know what I'm buying, plain and simple. Whether or not I chose to by GMO, local, international, organic, etc, is MY choice. There is no reason to deny anyone that information.
To fear putting GMO labels on GMO foods because then consumers may fear the product and not buy it, doesn't make sense. Your arguing one exaggerated fear with another. Not all labels are warnings.
And why should we care if people stop buying GMOs anyway? What happend to free market and all that stuff? If people don't want GMOs, so be it. They'll stop buying them. If non-GMO crops can't compete, people will come back to GMOs. So what's the problem?
There is no reason to keep the public uninformed to protect a companies profits. What other reason is there to keep people in the dark? <-- legit question by the way, not rhetorical0 -
Why is that some people can't hold a discussion without insulting someone else when they point out great facts/points?
Other than that, the discussion has been very interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing the labels, but I'm not so concerned that I'd push to vote for it.
I just think it's silly that people think just because they will be able to more easily choose non-GMO, that this is going to be the answer to stopping obesity.0 -
I want GMO labelling, and honestly I'd like the products pulled from market.
My problem is purely science. Recombinant DNA technology was originally thought up in the 70's, started being tested in the 80's, and only started to become practical in the 90's. That means it has existed at a useful scale for 20 years. A longitudinal study to see the health impacts of a new medication? That takes at least 30 years.
So we have introduced something which can proliferate through our entire food supply, cross breed, etc, potentially contaminating our entire food supply, without fully testing it. And now, nearly every thing you see in the store has Monsanto's fingerprints on it.
That scares me.0 -
Hard to elaborate or something I didn't say... where's the part where I wrote it's bad for strawberries to have frog genes in them?
Without being silly: If it's not bad and has no affect on you or your health, then why does it matter if the strawberries have a label on them or not? Generally, if something needs to be labeled "'cuz the guvmint sez so," it's because whatever it is is bad for you in some way that repeated and repeatable science has consistently shown. Like I said before, with cigarettes. Or with nutrition labels in response to what the government saw as an alarming, wide-scale increase in obesity. So, what's so bad about strawberries with frog genes in them that they should require a government-mandated label?
If you want to be "informed," that's one thing, but I get the sense from most people who say that that they "just want to be informed" precisely because they think on some level that GMOs are bad/scary/unhealthy. I ask you, in what way does a strawberry with frog DNA affect you or your health in any way, given that, in your digestive tract, it'll all be broken down into its component elements in the same way as it you be if you ate, say, frog's legs and strawberries at the same time.Selecting strawberries from existing strawberry genes, is different than adding frog genes to a strawberry. Frogs did not evolve to be strawberries. Clearly, there is a difference.
A difference, yes. Except that they would have to share tons of genes in common for a frog-infused strawberry to be at all viable in the first place. Again, I ask what harm this organism poses to you, at such a level that you believe government-mandated labeling (Which, really, is warning) is justified?
I like your argument asking why the GMO products 'should' be labeled, which was what I asked above. If they do no harm, why shouldn't they be labeled. If there is no problem, there will be no problem in the product continuing to sell.
A label that states 'contains GMO/is a GMO product', does not equate with cigarettes, it is a statement of fact. It raises awareness for those that want to know. In no way should that be deemed 'bad'. as it is informational.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 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
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions