GMOs Scary or not?
Options
Replies
-
That, I think, is a legitimate concern. My point continues to be that isn't a problem with GM, that is a problem with how some companies are using the technology. The backlash should be against the viewed misuse of the technology, not the technology itself.
That is what annoys me. People get upset with Monsanto's business practices but rather than going after Monsanto they want labels on things that say if GM was involved in their production. What? That is what I don't get. What does one have to do with the other.
GM is an incredibly useful tool and I think many people focus so much on this one use of it they remain completely blind to its many other uses.
All of this, yes - Genetic Modification is not evil, antinatural, or heretical. It's a tool. And as every tool, it sometimes is misused. Smartphones are great. Texting while driving is not.
Funny enough, where I live country of origin is mandated in all goods (feel free to boicot all Iranian tahini or israeli dates if it suits your ideology) AND genetic modification covers natural hybridization to create new varieties, and subject to testing and cool-down periods. I am ok with that - imagine if you naturally grafted an apple with 300x the level of cyanide.
I don't have the image of evil, white-coated lab geniuses creating frankenfoods. But saying that GM foods will save world from hunger is disingenuous - so far,they've only solved the cash-flow issues of some companies. And that's fine, too. But nothing wrong with people knowing what they are consuming, even if there's not that many options.0 -
That, I think, is a legitimate concern. My point continues to be that isn't a problem with GM, that is a problem with how some companies are using the technology. The backlash should be against the viewed misuse of the technology, not the technology itself.
That is what annoys me. People get upset with Monsanto's business practices but rather than going after Monsanto they want labels on things that say if GM was involved in their production. What? That is what I don't get. What does one have to do with the other.
GM is an incredibly useful tool and I think many people focus so much on this one use of it they remain completely blind to its many other uses.
All of this, yes - Genetic Modification is not evil, antinatural, or heretical. It's a tool. And as every tool, it sometimes is misused. Smartphones are great. Texting while driving is not.
Funny enough, where I live country of origin is mandated in all goods (feel free to boicot all Iranian tahini or israeli dates if it suits your ideology) AND genetic modification covers natural hybridization to create new varieties, and subject to testing and cool-down periods. I am ok with that - imagine if you naturally grafted an apple with 300x the level of cyanide.
I don't have the image of evil, white-coated lab geniuses creating frankenfoods. But saying that GM foods will save world from hunger is disingenuous - so far,they've only solved the cash-flow issues of some companies. And that's fine, too. But nothing wrong with people knowing what they are consuming, even if there's not that many options.
Yeah agreed. I mean I think GMOs have great promise but they aren't the holy grail to save all of the world's problems or anything, just another tool...one that shares the possibilities and pitfalls of any other new invention. I think it would be disingenuous, or at least hyperbolic, to claim otherwise in either direction (positive or negative).
This is going to be a weird analogy but when I see people going on about the dangers of GMOs (almost always with regards to Monsanto) while simultaneously ignoring the possibilities and the doors it opens I view it like someone watching the Saturn V rocket launch to the moon and commenting negatively about the emissions of the rocket and how that isn't good for the environment. Yeah okay, I can see how there are negatives sure...but you are sort of ignoring the big picture aren't you?0 -
Economics is intrinsically related to access. A company that reduces its price beneath that of its competition increases its market share which can create jobs, increase revenue, increase overall profitability. It also increases access to products for folks with fewer resources.
If everything were organic or non-GMO, food in the US would become prohibitively expensive. Thus stating that 'more organic is better' or 'GMO is bad' just completely breaks down. Failure to acknowledge that food and economics are related denies the reality of Wonderbread. Wonderbread is real, gentlemen. Like it or not, Wonderbread is real.0 -
2. If products are labeled, manufacturers will enter into an arms race to create the best label. Much akin to "no-fat", "gluten free", "fair trade" marketing items. The neat side effect of that is that data will be made available to purchasers, for purchasers to ignore by choice, as opposed to ignore thanks to lack of transparency.
But that isn't what is being asked for here. Companies can already label their products "GMO-free" if they so choose, nothing wrong with that.
True, but not relevant. They can choose to label non - gmo, and you get the granola crunchy crunchy patchouli stuff doing it, but that's no indicator of whether or not they contain GM items. A GMO label isn't an indicator of healthfulness, it's an indicator of a specific process being used to modify a foodstuff. I see it akin to requiring an MSDS label on an industrial agent.
Already posted a link regarding CKDu upstream. Read it. Review it. Where? Here.3. There is some evidence that the manufacturing process involved with GM food stuffs can be unhealthy to growers/processors and the environment.
Is there? Where? Cite it.
True. For example, my printer doesn't. However, we're talking about food here, not consumer disposables. Food is going to be an item that is going to be polarizing along more than a few lines, but the simple question remains. Why hide the addition of GM products in a good? We got food labeling because people wanted to know what was in their food, through smart lobbying gm items don't need to be identified as such under existing law, I think we could easily get that amended though. Then, producers can cite, show, and demonstrate how GM items are 100% safe, and educate the population that there is zero to be concerned about.4. I'm not a fan of manufacturers lying by omission.
No product has its entire manufacturing process just listed out verbatum on a label.
Does that make it ok? If it's ok in area A, it must be fine in area B? I don't ascribe to that. We're a society of special cases.
Isn't this true of just products in general including non-GM products?5. It's more than a single step in a lab, there is a large factor of corporate vs. grower politics and practices that are involved with the production of GM items. Those are all behaviors that should be a part of a person's purchasing decision.
I've come to realize that this argument is essentially the same arguments that were held prior to food labeling requirements being created. You had groups on both sides arguing the case, with some saying the populace wasn't smart enough to understand the contents of their food.
Now, is that still the case? On the whole, do people have a better idea of what they're eating? I'd say no, but that wasn't the point of food labeling.0 -
WARNING: THIS FOOD HAS BEEN IRRADIATED
would that scare the **** outta you? I wouldn't bat an eye and would eat it.0 -
I was irradiated yesterday.0
-
Out of curiosity those who are pro-labeling do you think insulin or vaccines should be required to have a label on it that proclaims it to be a GM product?
If not why not? After all these are products that forgo your normal protections that come from ingestion and get injected directly into your blood stream. They are GM produced. Doesn't that make them MORE of a threat if GM is what the issue is?
Do you take vaccines in the same quantity as food? How about insulin?
I think when it comes to informing and respecting the consumer, sure. Same reason I'm told that the fu vax is potentially harmful is you are allergic to chicken/feathers/eggs. Could there be aspects that we'll find in the future are harmful? Yes. Could it be the next OMGThimerosalAutism! Sure.
I'd personally like to see them labeled, and that labelling could easily be spun as a marketing benefit. It's all a matter of competition, let the consumers decide what they want to buy, and let the market determine the victor, labeled or unlabeled. Once science catches up after some long term studies, we'll then see what happens physiologically after long term exposure.
However, that article shows we may not need to wait very long to find out that CCD and CKDu are both current and very real reasons to not jump on the GMO bandwagon.
To be fair vaccines that contain egg as part of their formulation are labeled as such because we know there are people in the population with egg allergies.
Warning!
Another off topic comment from me.....
I know next to nothing about GM foods or American policies.
But I do know about vaccines.
It is extremely rare to have an egg allergy serious enough to not be able to have a vaccine - the amount of egg traces is so negligible. One would have to have an extreme anaphylactic reaction to eggs for this to be of any concern at all.
People with mild egg allergies ( they get a rash or diarrhoea or something ) are at no risk at all.0 -
WARNING: THIS FOOD HAS BEEN IRRADIATED
would that scare the **** outta you? I wouldn't bat an eye and would eat it.
I would swear I used to see 'irradiated' on some food packages years ago. And I ate it. Not the packaging, the food. If that is still on any labels of foods I've eaten recently, I stopped noticing it long ago.
And unless something goes terribly wrong with GMO foods, I suspect most Americans will also eventually cease noticing or caring about a label proclaiming something to be GMO, too. In fact, it's widely known that a lot of corn products and soy products are GMO, and if people were that arsed about it, the entire American snack food industry would be in the red right now.
And if something does go terribly wrong, not labeling won't save the technology. It might even make the backlash worse. Especially if an offending company is immune from liability in our courts.0 -
I really don't see why people shouldn't know what they are buying (in a convenient way). And for what its worth I think if Americans had labels on GMO products they would actually become more positive toward them on account of realising most of what they eat already is,
That, I think, is a legitimate concern. My point continues to be that isn't a problem with GM, that is a problem with how some companies are using the technology. The backlash should be against the viewed misuse of the technology, not the technology itself.
That is what annoys me. People get upset with Monsanto's business practices but rather than going after Monsanto they want labels on things that say if GM was involved in their production. What? That is what I don't get. What does one have to do with the other.0 -
The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.
^^THIS
Two things:
1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.
2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.
Regarding #1----voter turnout is bad ( and I live in Italy where it is the same) because both sides turn off alot of voters. One can only choose between bad or worse. Politicians get so wrapped up in winning at all cost, that they lose contact with real voters. People don't believe pie in the sky anymore. If you can't choose, you stay home.
I definitely get the both sides are awful thing and it stinks to have to choose between bad and worse. The problem with not showing up at all, though, is that you can't change the game from not playing. The other problem that comes in is that, for at least midterm elections in the US, one party shows up in much greater numbers than the other party, which tends to get people elected who are going to broaden the divide. (Sorry for the off topic-ness... :drinker:)
It also doesn't help that we have one party in the US right now that has decided to almost exclusively cater to the anti-science brigade to win elections. I personally don't think that most of the politicians, on either side, actually believe some if not most of the things that they're saying, but the fact that they are saying it is pretty damaging.0 -
The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.
^^THIS
Two things:
1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.
2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.
Regarding #1----voter turnout is bad ( and I live in Italy where it is the same) because both sides turn off alot of voters. One can only choose between bad or worse. Politicians get so wrapped up in winning at all cost, that they lose contact with real voters. People don't believe pie in the sky anymore. If you can't choose, you stay home.
I definitely get the both sides are awful thing and it stinks to have to choose between bad and worse. The problem with not showing up at all, though, is that you can't change the game from not playing. The other problem that comes in is that, for at least midterm elections in the US, one party shows up in much greater numbers than the other party, which tends to get people elected who are going to broaden the divide. (Sorry for the off topic-ness... :drinker:)
It also doesn't help that we have one party in the US right now that has decided to almost exclusively cater to the anti-science brigade to win elections. I personally don't think that most of the politicians, on either side, actually believe some if not most of the things that they're saying, but the fact that they are saying it is pretty damaging.
Seriously. If it wasn't for the anti-science and the social conservatism (moral majority blah blah) stuff I might consider myself republican on the basis of things like fiscal conservancy and personal responsibility. As it stands though I can't, current Republican party still talks a big game with regards to fiscal conservancy and personal responsibility but their actions don't speak to that at all. Seems to me these days they are more about getting in everyone's business socially. I guess I view myself as somewhat libertarian with the democrat party being the current lesser of two evils.
I hear you about not being particularly enthused by either party these days though.0 -
^^^^^^^^^^I guess what I'm saying here is that both sides are only bent on destroying the other, no matter what the cost. This hurts all of us. I have seen it in Italy first, and was appalled when I happened to be on a visit home at election time. What does this have to do with the GMO scare? We depend on our lawmakers to legislate correctly and fairly--hah. There is little trust around. I just read that the Euopean Union will let each country decide if it wants to let OGM in their territory. Spain and France are listed as already using it. Italy is very much against. That's why I thank you all for the information--especially Aaron, who sees the positives and expresses them admirably.
0 -
Funny thing is most people don't even know they're consuming gmos a lot of the time so i'm thinking not
0 -
The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.
^^THIS
Two things:
1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.
2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.
If they are lying through their teeth, as most sociopathic, deceitful people do, how do I know who to vote for? Especially if they don't have much of a transparent history in politics, or are fairly new to the scene.0 -
WARNING: THIS FOOD HAS BEEN IRRADIATED
would that scare the **** outta you? I wouldn't bat an eye and would eat it.
I would swear I used to see 'irradiated' on some food packages years ago. And I ate it. Not the packaging, the food. If that is still on any labels of foods I've eaten recently, I stopped noticing it long ago.
And unless something goes terribly wrong with GMO foods, I suspect most Americans will also eventually cease noticing or caring about a label proclaiming something to be GMO, too. In fact, it's widely known that a lot of corn products and soy products are GMO, and if people were that arsed about it, the entire American snack food industry would be in the red right now.
And if something does go terribly wrong, not labeling won't save the technology. It might even make the backlash worse. Especially if an offending company is immune from liability in our courts.
I'm betting Cheetos are made from GMO corn. I really think if Cheetos were labeled as GMO, people would still eat them, because they taste good, and are addictive.0 -
bump0
-
The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.
^^THIS
Two things:
1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.
2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.
If they are lying through their teeth, as most sociopathic, deceitful people do, how do I know who to vote for? Especially if they don't have much of a transparent history in politics, or are fairly new to the scene.
I suppose if people really want to keep representatives instead of just going the direct route, we could make them contractually obligated to do everything in their power to fulfill their campaign promises on a specific timetable. Failure to do so could automatically result in either automatic impeachment, a nationwide vote to decide whether to impeach or not, and/or jury selection of random citizens to determine whether or not the failure to fulfill a promise on schedule was justified and if not whether to simply remove the culprit from office, or fine the culprit, or jail the culprit, or all of the above.0 -
The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.
^^THIS
Two things:
1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.
2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.
If they are lying through their teeth, as most sociopathic, deceitful people do, how do I know who to vote for? Especially if they don't have much of a transparent history in politics, or are fairly new to the scene.
I suppose if people really want to keep representatives instead of just going the direct route, we could make them contractually obligated to do everything in their power to fulfill their campaign promises on a specific timetable. Failure to do so could automatically result in either automatic impeachment, a nationwide vote to decide whether to impeach or not, and/or jury selection of random citizens to determine whether or not the failure to fulfill a promise on schedule was justified and if not whether to simply remove the culprit from office, or fine the culprit, or jail the culprit, or all of the above.
I could get behind that.0 -
The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.
^^THIS
Two things:
1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.
2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.
If they are lying through their teeth, as most sociopathic, deceitful people do, how do I know who to vote for? Especially if they don't have much of a transparent history in politics, or are fairly new to the scene.
I suppose if people really want to keep representatives instead of just going the direct route, we could make them contractually obligated to do everything in their power to fulfill their campaign promises on a specific timetable. Failure to do so could automatically result in either automatic impeachment, a nationwide vote to decide whether to impeach or not, and/or jury selection of random citizens to determine whether or not the failure to fulfill a promise on schedule was justified and if not whether to simply remove the culprit from office, or fine the culprit, or jail the culprit, or all of the above.
Jailing representatives for failure to get other representatives to vote for their platform? Seems like a great way to attract good people. Maybe if we paid them less too. If you really care then get involved, otherwise you're just part of the problem.0 -
I'm sorry, I had to, it doesn't take a lab to make some crazy crazy plant crosses. Grafting as a technique has been around for quite a while:
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/single-tree-grows-40-kinds-fruit0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions