GMOs Scary or not?

Onderwoman

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Preferably with some primary peer reviewed sources to back your claims so that we can make an informed decision.

I thought you had a science background? If you do, you would understand the difference between crossing plants the old way and genetic modification. Seems pretty inconsistent to want peer reviewed information that something is obviously different, but you don't want any information on what you are putting into your mouth? I want to know what I'm eating, if I have a new cross of a peanut and a watermelon, if it were possible the old hybridization way, we'd get some info on this, but if its done by manipulating genes I get no data? What sense does that make except to conceal for profit? It doesn't matter if its harmful or not now, its information we should be entitled to. In fact, if corporations were a little smarter, they'd jump on this and use it to convince people these foods were not only good but better, and market "better, improved" foods...so this leads me to believe either its because they think this requirement will decrease profits, or, though unlikely, maybe there are some other motives here. So, the true motives are only: decreased profits because people have information and choice. That is bad for us how?

Its also a very unscientific and undemocratic view to hold. To not have the right to know modifications to food we are eating is absurd and though it may not be a problem now, it opens the gateway to all sorts of things in the future. Corporations are all about profit, regardless of the individual. Anyone with common sense knows when dealing with someone who's ultimate goal is to obtain higher profits, as long as acceptable dangers are maintained and they cannot be shown to have broken laws (decreased profits to defend), they will go ahead with it. So it is wise to know all information you can when dealing with such an entity. Is it bad? Well that's your judgement, but even if not bad, you have to recognize the nature of the animal. Do you go to a used car salesman and trust him explicitly without getting information? Trust the salesman because he's after higher profits makes sense how? But you don't want information on what you are putting in your body? That is illogical and a very unscientific viewpoint to not want information on this.

Yeah, this is exactly on target! No reason not to want to know if you have any sense at all.

EmpireBusiness

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

As a scientist, this GMO **** tastes damn good.

Onderwoman

I am also weary of the "world hunger" argument. There is no lack of food leading to hunger at the moment, there are poor distribution channels to particular parts of the world because the people there lack the income to support such channels. GMOs won't increase those people's incomes.

THIS I very much agree with. There is no shortage of food in the world, only a lack of ability or desire to get it to those who need it.

Wow. Just wow. This is why cluelessness kills.

Well, just making a snarky insult with no explanation or defense makes me respect your point of view immensely.

Whereas you did explain or defend your bald assertion?

If you look around, its been shown we do have enough food already, we just don't distribute it to those who need it because money! This isn't about that though, its about the right to know what you put in your mouth, that's all. I wanna know, you aren't very bright if you don't, sorry.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Frankly your wording here makes me skeptical that you've had much training in biochemistry or genetics. Don't know many molecular biologists who would view an exogenous plasmid as having more information transfer than a hybridization event mainly because it doesn't, in fact the exact opposite is true.

Right. Because the FDA has everyone's best interests at heart.

I personally am skeptical of food that is pumped with pesticides so that they resist certain diseases and pests (from my previous post: For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant. This means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant.

The resultant GMO plant, known as Bt Corn, is itself registered as a pesticide with the EPA, along with other GMO Bt crops. In other words, if you feed this corn to your cattle, your chickens, or yourself, you’ll be feeding them an actual pesticide — not just a smidgeon of pesticide residue.)

If the pesticide in the corn kills a bug how could that possibly be perfectly ok for me to ingest? How could I be sure that I won't get cancer or some new disease from eating this GM corn? Why should I believe that it's safe? Because I'm told it is?

Not to mention the fact that you can't harvest the seeds for future use.

The fact of the matter is we don't know what GM food is going to do to us in the long run. Sure "they" can say it's fine. Heck, look at the tobacco ads from the past. "More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette!" People believed this crap even though they knew smoking was bad for them. Why? Because a "doctor" said so. So what if the FDA or even the Government says that GM food is fine. I personally would much rather grow my own vegetables or buy them from a farm who I know doesn't use GM seeds.

We survived fine on heirloom and hybrid seeds for countless generations. If it ain't broke then why try to fix it?

So, we're going with the "I fear things because I don't fully understand them" argument then. Okie dokey.

What do I apparently not understand? The fact that GMO food is made in a laboratory and is made to become pest resistant? The fact that the genetically modified corn that is out there is registered as a pesticide with the EPA? Or perhaps the fact that no one knows if GM food is in fact "good" for you?

One of my professors for undergrad was one of the first people to highlight concerns about the effect of Bt corn on the monarch butterfly population. He had absolutely no concerns about it's effects for consumption in the human population. If you understand anything about science you should understand that science CAN NEVER prove a negative. Conspiracy theorists like to use this fact to manipulate the general public who doesn't understand how science works to throw out "what if" arguments, just like you are doing. The whole labeling issue is a red herring argument. We label things that have been proven harmful. There's not a single study out there showing harm, hence, no need to label.

And again ALL OF THIS has already been addressed in this thread. I'm sure Aaron grows tired of repeating himself, I know I certainly am.

EngineerPrincess

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Frankly your wording here makes me skeptical that you've had much training in biochemistry or genetics. Don't know many molecular biologists who would view an exogenous plasmid as having more information transfer than a hybridization event mainly because it doesn't, in fact the exact opposite is true.

I am actually in a bioengineering PHD program at a prestigious university. While you might note I never said I think GMOs will for sure have bad effects, I am not pleased by the testing (or really lack thereof) that has been done considering most of the experiments were conducted by Monsanto themselves and the length of the study didn't cover a long enough period (humans live ~90 years and eat this stuff daily. We're not lab mice or butterflies they've used for testing.) It has definitely not been enough time to test the long term immune effects of the plant. I personally don't mind eating GMOs, but I definitely think it should be a choice a person can make (ie labeling), especially for individuals with complex immune problems. And yeah it's only a few genes being spliced but it's a shortcut through the natural process so it is NOT a natural mutation, they don't take only the specific nucleotides coding that specific trait, there's a few antigens and other such things that get transfered as well. In fact little has been done to study the immune affects of gene splicing until recently, and there have been both positive and negative conclusions on the subject suggesting yes GMOs can cause positive reactions in specific cases (1) but also there's been an attempt to use these findings in a constructive manner against alleries(2):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/386/1317.full.pdf+html

Tl/dr: I want our food to be labeled, and I'm interested in further immunology research of GMOs.

Aaron_K123

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Preferably with some primary peer reviewed sources to back your claims so that we can make an informed decision.

I thought you had a science background? If you do, you would understand the difference between crossing plants the old way and genetic modification. Seems pretty inconsistent to want peer reviewed information that something is obviously different, but you don't want any information on what you are putting into your mouth? I want to know what I'm eating, if I have a new cross of a peanut and a watermelon, if it were possible the old hybridization way, we'd get some info on this, but if its done by manipulating genes I get no data? What sense does that make except to conceal for profit? It doesn't matter if its harmful or not now, its information we should be entitled to. In fact, if corporations were a little smarter, they'd jump on this and use it to convince people these foods were not only good but better, and market "better, improved" foods...so this leads me to believe either its because they think this requirement will decrease profits, or, though unlikely, maybe there are some other motives here. So, the true motives are only: decreased profits because people have information and choice. That is bad for us how?

Its also a very unscientific and undemocratic view to hold. To not have the right to know modifications to food we are eating is absurd and though it may not be a problem now, it opens the gateway to all sorts of things in the future. Corporations are all about profit, regardless of the individual. Anyone with common sense knows when dealing with someone who's ultimate goal is to obtain higher profits, as long as acceptable dangers are maintained and they cannot be shown to have broken laws (decreased profits to defend), they will go ahead with it. So it is wise to know all information you can when dealing with such an entity. Is it bad? Well that's your judgement, but even if not bad, you have to recognize the nature of the animal. Do you go to a used car salesman and trust him explicitly without getting information? Trust the salesman because he's after higher profits makes sense how? But you don't want information on what you are putting in your body? That is illogical and a very unscientific viewpoint to not want information on this.

Yeah, this is exactly on target! No reason not to want to know if you have any sense at all.

No reason except for all of the reasons already given in this thread that shouldn't have to be repeated over and over.

Onderwoman

I am actually in a bioengineering PHD program at a prestigious university. While you might note I never said I think GMOs will for sure have bad effects, I am not pleased by the testing (or really lack thereof) that has been done considering most of the experiments were conducted by Monsanto themselves and the length of the study didn't cover a long enough period (humans live ~90 years and eat this stuff daily. We're not lab mice or butterflies they've used for testing.) It has definitely not been enough time to test the long term immune effects of the plant. I personally don't mind eating GMOs, but I definitely think it should be a choice a person can make (ie labeling), especially for individuals with complex immune problems. And yeah it's only a few genes being spliced but it's a shortcut through the natural process so it is NOT a natural mutation, they don't take only the specific nucleotides coding that specific trait, there's a few antigens and other such things that get transfered as well. In fact little has been done to study the immune affects of gene splicing until recently, and there have been both positive and negative conclusions on the subject suggesting yes GMOs can cause positive reactions in specific cases (1) but also there's been an attempt to use these findings in a constructive manner against alleries(2):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/386/1317.full.pdf+html

Tl/dr: I want our food to be labeled, and I'm interested in further immunology research of GMOs.

That's what I'm saying too. Its not that hard to make it known what you did or put in food. I don't understand why someone would not want to know unless they think the company they work for will have less money to pay them. What is a good reason not to know? Just put anything in your mouth then, why even track food on this site? *smacks forehead*

QueenBishOTUniverse

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Frankly your wording here makes me skeptical that you've had much training in biochemistry or genetics. Don't know many molecular biologists who would view an exogenous plasmid as having more information transfer than a hybridization event mainly because it doesn't, in fact the exact opposite is true.

Right. Because the FDA has everyone's best interests at heart.

I personally am skeptical of food that is pumped with pesticides so that they resist certain diseases and pests (from my previous post: For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant. This means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant.

The resultant GMO plant, known as Bt Corn, is itself registered as a pesticide with the EPA, along with other GMO Bt crops. In other words, if you feed this corn to your cattle, your chickens, or yourself, you’ll be feeding them an actual pesticide — not just a smidgeon of pesticide residue.)

If the pesticide in the corn kills a bug how could that possibly be perfectly ok for me to ingest? How could I be sure that I won't get cancer or some new disease from eating this GM corn? Why should I believe that it's safe? Because I'm told it is?

Not to mention the fact that you can't harvest the seeds for future use.

The fact of the matter is we don't know what GM food is going to do to us in the long run. Sure "they" can say it's fine. Heck, look at the tobacco ads from the past. "More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette!" People believed this crap even though they knew smoking was bad for them. Why? Because a "doctor" said so. So what if the FDA or even the Government says that GM food is fine. I personally would much rather grow my own vegetables or buy them from a farm who I know doesn't use GM seeds.

We survived fine on heirloom and hybrid seeds for countless generations. If it ain't broke then why try to fix it?

So, we're going with the "I fear things because I don't fully understand them" argument then. Okie dokey.

Wow, they are right, and you were a science teacher right?!?!? Gif is re-directed at your poor thought process and poor kids: "everything's OK because the corporation said so"

I encourage my students to read everything before responding. Sorry, I don't have much patience for people who clearly haven't.

Noogynoogs

Animals won't eat the GMO crops, says a lot to me.

EmpireBusiness

Animals won't eat the GMO crops, says a lot to me.

Lies.

Aaron_K123

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Frankly your wording here makes me skeptical that you've had much training in biochemistry or genetics. Don't know many molecular biologists who would view an exogenous plasmid as having more information transfer than a hybridization event mainly because it doesn't, in fact the exact opposite is true.

I am actually in a bioengineering PHD program at a prestigious university. While you might note I never said I think GMOs will for sure have bad effects, I am not pleased by the testing (or really lack thereof) that has been done considering most of the experiments were conducted by Monsanto themselves and the length of the study didn't cover a long enough period (humans live ~90 years and eat this stuff daily. We're not lab mice or butterflies they've used for testing.) It has definitely not been enough time to test the long term immune effects of the plant. I personally don't mind eating GMOs, but I definitely think it should be a choice a person can make (ie labeling), especially for individuals with complex immune problems. And yeah it's only a few genes being spliced but it's a shortcut through the natural process so it is NOT a natural mutation, they don't take only the specific nucleotides coding that specific trait, there's a few antigens and other such things that get transfered as well. In fact little has been done to study the immune affects of gene splicing until recently, and there have been both positive and negative conclusions on the subject suggesting yes GMOs can cause positive reactions in specific cases (1) but also there's been an attempt to use these findings in a constructive manner against alleries(2):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/386/1317.full.pdf+html

Tl/dr: I want our food to be labeled, and I'm interested in further immunology research of GMOs.

What do you suppose has more effect on the antigenic profile of a food. Adding a single gene in an exogenous plasmid or hybridizing two entire species (think pluot).

Where the regulatory requirements less for GMOs than for a pluot or the same?

How do you define what nature is capable of. Is GM a shortcut to a desired product? Yes. Is it doing something nature would be incapable of? No.

If we are giving credentials I got my Ph.D in cellular molecular biology from a top 10 graduate program 8 years ago where my focus was protein engineering. Did a 4 year postdoc in microbiology and infectious disease and have to date worked as a scientist in a nonprofit drug development Institute with a focus in developing therapies for diseases that effect the developing world. The vaccines we develop are GM as are the vast majority of vaccines especially those for tech transfer for point of care treatment in underdeveloped endemic regions. The quality control and safety requirements for GMP vaccine production are more rigorous than for any product out there. 90% of each batch is sacrificed to quality control testing alone.

I think people are way WAY to quick to take what buisness practices they don't like from for profit companies like Monsanto and apply it whole-cloth to GMs which concerns me greatly given what happened to stem cell research.

If there is an actual danger presented from GMs not just theoretical dangers and trust issues I haven't encountered it. Frankly I see little difference in tactics and approach between the anti-GMO groups and anti-vaxxer groups, both claim that more testing is needed and that we don't know the risks. Boyh talk in yheoretical possible threats rather than actually occuring threats, both rely on fear of the unknown as reasons to avoid something.

ironanimal

Animals won't eat the GMO crops, says a lot to me.

lol

Aaron_K123

Animals won't eat the GMO crops, says a lot to me.

Says you like pulling things out of your *kitten*

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Preferably with some primary peer reviewed sources to back your claims so that we can make an informed decision.

I thought you had a science background? If you do, you would understand the difference between crossing plants the old way and genetic modification. Seems pretty inconsistent to want peer reviewed information that something is obviously different, but you don't want any information on what you are putting into your mouth? I want to know what I'm eating, if I have a new cross of a peanut and a watermelon, if it were possible the old hybridization way, we'd get some info on this, but if its done by manipulating genes I get no data? What sense does that make except to conceal for profit? It doesn't matter if its harmful or not now, its information we should be entitled to. In fact, if corporations were a little smarter, they'd jump on this and use it to convince people these foods were not only good but better, and market "better, improved" foods...so this leads me to believe either its because they think this requirement will decrease profits, or, though unlikely, maybe there are some other motives here. So, the true motives are only: decreased profits because people have information and choice. That is bad for us how?

Its also a very unscientific and undemocratic view to hold. To not have the right to know modifications to food we are eating is absurd and though it may not be a problem now, it opens the gateway to all sorts of things in the future. Corporations are all about profit, regardless of the individual. Anyone with common sense knows when dealing with someone who's ultimate goal is to obtain higher profits, as long as acceptable dangers are maintained and they cannot be shown to have broken laws (decreased profits to defend), they will go ahead with it. So it is wise to know all information you can when dealing with such an entity. Is it bad? Well that's your judgement, but even if not bad, you have to recognize the nature of the animal. Do you go to a used car salesman and trust him explicitly without getting information? Trust the salesman because he's after higher profits makes sense how? But you don't want information on what you are putting in your body? That is illogical and a very unscientific viewpoint to not want information on this.

Yeah, this is exactly on target! No reason not to want to know if you have any sense at all.

No reason except for all of the reasons already given in this thread that shouldn't have to be repeated over and over.

It could be that many people don't think a reason you put up (that you think is a good reason), is a good reason for allaying concerns, as is the case here. There is a difference between putting any statement up you think supports your idea personally, and actually putting a valid reason that could be shown to allay concerns up. And then there is proving it. What in any statement anywhere proves or shows that having more information listed on GMOs is a bad thing?

Nothing you have said addresses MY assertion, or even shows a vague it is "good to have this stuff labeled for all to see", if not for now, for the future, so we have information out there is bad? This opens a wide gateway for entities which are concerned only for profit. I'm actually very disheartened people who want to say they are thoughtful and scientific cannot see this. Information is key. Yes the vast majority wont understand it, won't care, and eventually will get over it. But it should be out there freely and easily available, trackable and traceable in case there is a problem with this or that variant, a sensitivity, an allergy, a plasmid that crosses over, concerns we dont even know about at this point but may in the future. Its information that all should have easy access to to make a choice.

I've not said GMO stuff is inherently evil, or even bad, or even scary, they are highly valuable. We have so little controls already, the testing process is broken and short, and people should at least know what they are putting in their mouths. How else could you track any allergies or sensitivities? There may be future concerns, and information is not to be concealed for profit. This is content information we should be able to easily see before putting something in our mouth.

workshardplaysharder

any one want a grapple???

Those aren't genetically altered. They just sit in a grape-juice bath.

Aaron_K123

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Preferably with some primary peer reviewed sources to back your claims so that we can make an informed decision.

I thought you had a science background? If you do, you would understand the difference between crossing plants the old way and genetic modification. Seems pretty inconsistent to want peer reviewed information that something is obviously different, but you don't want any information on what you are putting into your mouth? I want to know what I'm eating, if I have a new cross of a peanut and a watermelon, if it were possible the old hybridization way, we'd get some info on this, but if its done by manipulating genes I get no data? What sense does that make except to conceal for profit? It doesn't matter if its harmful or not now, its information we should be entitled to. In fact, if corporations were a little smarter, they'd jump on this and use it to convince people these foods were not only good but better, and market "better, improved" foods...so this leads me to believe either its because they think this requirement will decrease profits, or, though unlikely, maybe there are some other motives here. So, the true motives are only: decreased profits because people have information and choice. That is bad for us how?

Its also a very unscientific and undemocratic view to hold. To not have the right to know modifications to food we are eating is absurd and though it may not be a problem now, it opens the gateway to all sorts of things in the future. Corporations are all about profit, regardless of the individual. Anyone with common sense knows when dealing with someone who's ultimate goal is to obtain higher profits, as long as acceptable dangers are maintained and they cannot be shown to have broken laws (decreased profits to defend), they will go ahead with it. So it is wise to know all information you can when dealing with such an entity. Is it bad? Well that's your judgement, but even if not bad, you have to recognize the nature of the animal. Do you go to a used car salesman and trust him explicitly without getting information? Trust the salesman because he's after higher profits makes sense how? But you don't want information on what you are putting in your body? That is illogical and a very unscientific viewpoint to not want information on this.

Yeah, this is exactly on target! No reason not to want to know if you have any sense at all.

No reason except for all of the reasons already given in this thread that shouldn't have to be repeated over and over.

It could be that many people don't think a reason you put up (that you think is a good reason), is a good reason for allaying concerns, as is the case here. There is a difference between putting any statement up you think supports your idea personally, and actually putting a valid reason that could be shown to allay concerns up. And then there is proving it. What in any statement anywhere proves or shows that having more information listed on GMOs is a bad thing?

Nothing you have said addresses MY assertion, or even shows a vague it is "good to have this stuff labeled for all to see", if not for now, for the future, so we have information out there is bad? This opens a wide gateway for entities which are concerned only for profit. I'm actually very disheartened people who want to say they are thoughtful and scientific cannot see this. Information is key. Yes the vast majority wont understand it, won't care, and eventually will get over it. But it should be out there freely and easily available, trackable and traceable in case there is a problem with this or that variant, a sensitivity, an allergy, a plasmid that crosses over, concerns we dont even know about at this point but may in the future. Its information that all should have easy access to to make a choice.

I've not said GMO stuff is inherently evil, or even bad, or even scary, they are highly valuable. We have so little controls already, the testing process is broken and short, and people should at least know what they are putting in their mouths. How else could you track any allergies or sensitivities? There may be future concerns, and information is not to be concealed for profit. This is content information we should be able to easily see before putting something in our mouth.

Yes people may not agree with my reason, but it is still a reason. I've managed to state my position without going to the point of stating that there is "no reason" to hold another opinion or that those who feel differently have "no sense".

You know that not all GMOs are for profit right? My own instiute we take a loss on our GM products. Honestly it sounds to me like your beef is with for profit corporate buisness practices abd patent law and not GMIs. I have no comment there because I don't disagree with you. But what does that have to do with GM itself?

QueenBishOTUniverse

Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.

NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.

In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.

You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.

Preferably with some primary peer reviewed sources to back your claims so that we can make an informed decision.

I thought you had a science background? If you do, you would understand the difference between crossing plants the old way and genetic modification. Seems pretty inconsistent to want peer reviewed information that something is obviously different, but you don't want any information on what you are putting into your mouth? I want to know what I'm eating, if I have a new cross of a peanut and a watermelon, if it were possible the old hybridization way, we'd get some info on this, but if its done by manipulating genes I get no data? What sense does that make except to conceal for profit? It doesn't matter if its harmful or not now, its information we should be entitled to. In fact, if corporations were a little smarter, they'd jump on this and use it to convince people these foods were not only good but better, and market "better, improved" foods...so this leads me to believe either its because they think this requirement will decrease profits, or, though unlikely, maybe there are some other motives here. So, the true motives are only: decreased profits because people have information and choice. That is bad for us how?

Its also a very unscientific and undemocratic view to hold. To not have the right to know modifications to food we are eating is absurd and though it may not be a problem now, it opens the gateway to all sorts of things in the future. Corporations are all about profit, regardless of the individual. Anyone with common sense knows when dealing with someone who's ultimate goal is to obtain higher profits, as long as acceptable dangers are maintained and they cannot be shown to have broken laws (decreased profits to defend), they will go ahead with it. So it is wise to know all information you can when dealing with such an entity. Is it bad? Well that's your judgement, but even if not bad, you have to recognize the nature of the animal. Do you go to a used car salesman and trust him explicitly without getting information? Trust the salesman because he's after higher profits makes sense how? But you don't want information on what you are putting in your body? That is illogical and a very unscientific viewpoint to not want information on this.

Yeah, this is exactly on target! No reason not to want to know if you have any sense at all.

No reason except for all of the reasons already given in this thread that shouldn't have to be repeated over and over.

It could be that many people don't think a reason you put up (that you think is a good reason), is a good reason for allaying concerns, as is the case here. There is a difference between putting any statement up you think supports your idea personally, and actually putting a valid reason that could be shown to allay concerns up. And then there is proving it. What in any statement anywhere proves or shows that having more information listed on GMOs is a bad thing?

Nothing you have said addresses MY assertion, or even shows a vague it is "good to have this stuff labeled for all to see", if not for now, for the future, so we have information out there is bad? This opens a wide gateway for entities which are concerned only for profit. I'm actually very disheartened people who want to say they are thoughtful and scientific cannot see this. Information is key. Yes the vast majority wont understand it, won't care, and eventually will get over it. But it should be out there freely and easily available, trackable and traceable in case there is a problem with this or that variant, a sensitivity, an allergy, a plasmid that crosses over, concerns we dont even know about at this point but may in the future. Its information that all should have easy access to to make a choice.

I've not said GMO stuff is inherently evil, or even bad, or even scary, they are highly valuable. We have so little controls already, the testing process is broken and short, and people should at least know what they are putting in their mouths. How else could you track any allergies or sensitivities? There may be future concerns, and information is not to be concealed for profit. This is content information we should be able to easily see before putting something in our mouth.

The average consumer can't even properly interpret a basic nutrition label, what on EARTH are they going to do with that information? I have no issue with making sure the information is AVAILABLE, but there is absolutely no need for labels for something that has not been shown to be harmful and containing information that will be absolutely useless to consumers, other then so they can feel better about "knowing" what's in their food.

The information is already out there for purposes of tracking and monitoring, labeling does the consumer zero good other than making them feel warm and fuzzy.

EmpireBusiness