GMO Labeling?

I am with you 100%! I try my best to avoid anything genetically modified when I can, but it's difficult (especially for me being a student - organic food is a lot more expensive).

Also, you will probably end up with a lot of haters on this site - ignore them. I get the impression that most of them are aiming to be body builders to an extent, thus still eat most of the foods that are modified. That is more than likely over-generalizing, but that's what I've seen so far. Either way, ignore the hate, because it's rampant. There is more than enough evidence out there that anyone can Google it, find it, and make an informed decision on it without being an *kitten*-hat.

Feel free to friend me! I would love to have support and give support to a fellow non-GMO/GMO labeling supporter.

You do realize that almost everything you eat has been genetically modified in some way, shape, or form, correct? Either bred for flavor, longevity, or other factors. We have been doing it since the dawn of time. We took one crop that was really good, and tried to make sure that crop pollinated our other crops. It's kind of how wheat became our staple crop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#History

Oh, I am more than aware. If I wasn't aware, I probably wouldn't consider it such a big problem with the non-labeling of foods. But since the dawn of time? Not at all - I think you are confusing genetically modifying foods (ie. adding a gene that does not exist in that variety to it to make it resistant to pesticides) with - what I am completely drawing a blank of the correct term - humans understanding dominant and recessive gene traits in plants and selectively breeding them in such a way as to bring out the traits that make the plants stronger. From my understanding, that is how wild grass became a wheat.

QUOTE:
You do realize that almost everything you eat has been genetically modified in some way, shape, or form, correct? Either bred for flavor, longevity, or other factors. We have been doing it since the dawn of time. We took one crop that was really good, and tried to make sure that crop pollinated our other crops. It's kind of how wheat became our staple crop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#History
QUOTE:

Actually, this is not true, and is why many people are in favor of labeling (I am as well, and am not interested in getting into the debate about whether they are addicting, make one fat, etc., I would just like to be able to make an informed decision about my food.). However, to be clear, there is a large difference between a GMO food and a food that has been bred for certain traits. You are entirely correct that we have been "breeding" food for generations, a process that essentially entails an interference with a plant's reproductive cycle, so that we can breed for certain traits. A great example is corn: taking the reproductive pollen from a plant with traits you like, and dusting it over the seeds of other plants, to "breed" for that trait. Is there a certain level of artificiality in this? Yes. But it still uses the reproductive process of nature to make the desired shift.

A GMO plant, on the other hand, has been modified in a laboratory, and injected with a genetic strain often from a completely different species. It's a process that involves actual cell invasion, so as to implant the desired genetic code in the plant's DNA. Often, this is done by using viruses, which are good at invading cells, E-Coli is often used for example. A lab tech will inject the desired string of DNA into an E-Coli virus, and then insert this virus into the cells of a plant. The virus will do what it's good at, which is invade the cell, and thus deliver the desired new genetic material. This is a VERY different process from that described above, and many studies have already shown possible negative side effects of GMO plants.

The example you use of wheat is actually a perfect example because while we have been breeding wheat for certain traits for ages, it has not yet been approved as a GMO. There are some field tests of GMO wheat in the US, but none has been approved for sale and human consumption.

Please make your own decisions about what you eat, me: I'm against GMOs and for labeling, but make sure that you're making them with all the facts in hand.

I am with you 100%! I try my best to avoid anything genetically modified when I can, but it's difficult (especially for me being a student - organic food is a lot more expensive).

Also, you will probably end up with a lot of haters on this site - ignore them. I get the impression that most of them are aiming to be body builders to an extent, thus still eat most of the foods that are modified. That is more than likely over-generalizing, but that's what I've seen so far. Either way, ignore the hate, because it's rampant. There is more than enough evidence out there that anyone can Google it, find it, and make an informed decision on it without being an *kitten*-hat.

Feel free to friend me! I would love to have support and give support to a fellow non-GMO/GMO labeling supporter.

You do realize that almost everything you eat has been genetically modified in some way, shape, or form, correct? Either bred for flavor, longevity, or other factors. We have been doing it since the dawn of time. We took one crop that was really good, and tried to make sure that crop pollinated our other crops. It's kind of how wheat became our staple crop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#History

Oh, I am more than aware. If I wasn't aware, I probably wouldn't consider it such a big problem with the non-labeling of foods. But since the dawn of time? Not at all - I think you are confusing genetically modifying foods (ie. adding a gene that does not exist in that variety to it to make it resistant to pesticides) with - what I am completely drawing a blank of the correct term - humans understanding dominant and recessive gene traits in plants and selectively breeding them in such a way as to bring out the traits that make the plants stronger. From my understanding, that is how wild grass became a wheat.

Yeah those are essentially the same thing. We aren't "splicing" things that could never exist in the plant. We find the gene that we want, turn it on, then breed it. That way, we don't have to spend generations upon generations until we get a plant with the "purebred" version of the gene. That's really all that we are doing.

And to OP, you keep posting random websites, but none of them have peer reviewed scientific studies? Can you please point me towards peer reviewed scientific studies?

I really wish this would've passed in CA it is important to know what we are eating so that we can make good choices. Unfortunately the rules and laws in labeling are so lax that frequently people think they're making good choices when they aren't. It is important that people do research into the industrialization of food in this country to see how much money and influence is really only held by a few big business companies who don't have our best interest in mind. We need to demand better whole foods!

I agree with this comment from another site. Good info.

"From listening to an interview on http://www.itsrainmakingtime.com (Kim Greenhouse) I found out that wheat genes were modified some 40-50 yrs ago and it is not the wheat people used to eat way back then.

Dr. William Davis, the Author of Wheat Belly explained that it now has 10X the yield & a much shorter growing season, making it a super carb making people fatter and fatter….and it causes celiac disease which destroys the intestines….and it can cause rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Hashimoto’s, weight gain, diabetes, Chrone’s disease and colitis etc

The wheat of today was transformed and is no longer edible without high chance of disease: Wheat used to have 28 chromosomes. It now has 42 chromosomes.Glydin protein in this wheat of today, is an appetite stimulant and they put it in everything from soups to desserts….Since hearing this interview, I quit eating any breads, even organic made from wheat of any type including sprouted breads, and breads made from Spelt, Kamut, and other types of wheat. I found that I was “addicted” to it. Once I started eating some, I had 2, 3, 5, 7 pieces….I thought this was weird…..I was never “addicted” to bread before……I noticed that all other products,for example crackers made of buckwheat all contain rice flour which , according to Dr. Davis, raise blood sugar even more than wheat….so I make my own dehydrated vegetable crackers using an almond flour and ground flaxseed base plus red/yellow peppers or tomatoes/basil or apple/fennel and they are delicious! ….I am passing on this info to everyone I know. Please do your own investigation and pass this on…."

Oh my. Wheat does not cause celiac disease. If it helps you to blame the govt or big corporations for your weight problems, then that's fine. Whatever works for you. But if you really seek good nutritional information, you need to do research a little further. I'd also suggest looking at more objective sources.

I've always wondered: What do people who fear GMOs think of the insulin that diabetics take to control their blood sugar? As well as a number of other medications that people take in order to survive?

Me, I fear no genetic modifications of any sort, natural or artificial. Why should I fear a tomato with fish DNA, for heaven's sake? I dunno, maybe it's because I understand genetics? Am I supposed to fear them because their creation happened in a lab rather than in "nature?" Well, "natural" doesn't always mean "good," you know. Many things that are natural are lethal and many things that are "artificial" are completely benign. To me, if it means longer shelf life or more durable produce or more production in a smaller space or in harsher environmental conditions in order to feed more people at a lower cost, then it's all good. "Organic" is nice and all, because I'm not especially enthused about eating pesticide, but on the whole I prefer to have more food available to more people at a lower cost, thanks. And I'd be happier if meat was produced by cloning meat rather than by slaughtering animals, personally. And that's totally an "in the lab" thing, of course.

IMO, the only bad thing about GMOs is the developer's tendency to patent them and then get all touchy about it. I mean I can understand why they do; they spent good money developing their product and all I think they should have some recourse to protect their investment. But on the other hand, the whole patenting thing tends to trump the "making more/better food available to more people" thing. So, that's a dilemma I have about the whole GMO thing, but I have no issues with the general idea of GMOs. I much more unhappy about animals being stuffed full of antibiotics and growth hormones, but that's A) Not an issue for me since I went vegan and Only an issue because I think it sucks for the animals, not because I think it's necessarily "unhealthy" to eat what such animals produce.

All that said, I don't care one way or the other if GMOs are labeled or not. Labeled or not, I will buy them, eat them, and likely have a happy belly afterward. I understand that people want to be "informed" and that's cool and all, but I personally don't feel a need to be "informed" about genetic alteration of the food I eat since such work has been going on forever, in and out of a lab. Frankly, I'd much sooner get behind lobbying for more extensive nutrition labeling on foods beyond just the macronutrients, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, calcium, and iron that is the standard label. To me, that's something way more worth being "informed" about.