To GMO or Non-GMO

Then go after THEM, not GMOs. That is all I am saying. Anyways, I keep trying to bow out and fail to do so, maybe I will just look away for a bit. Cheers.

One more thing from me, too, then I'm done. By the way, I do suggest we go after them and sweep every politician who takes corporate money and every lobbyist out.

But do you know what will really strike the death blow to this research? If failure to regulate ever results in deaths and people figure out GMOs caused the deaths. I certainly wouldn't advocate covering up the cause of those deaths, I hope you wouldn't either. Regardless, if it ever happens, it will make what happened to stem cell research look like a minor setback.

I think you are confusing food regulations with nutritional/dietary supplement regulations.

The FDA regulates current GMO foods in the same way as non-GMO foods because the GMO products have already been tested for potential allergenic and teratogenic properties and none have been found. (New products would have to hold up to the same rigorous testing.) Food safety is tightly regulated by the FDA.

Nutritional supplements have largely been deregulated due to lobbying. The FDA can only regulate supplements retroactively because the onus is on them to prove that supplements are hazardous rather than on the supplement manufacturer to prove they are safe. This is due to voters in the 90's writing congress to prevent regulation following numerous ephedra-related deaths.

It's sort of funny...20 years ago, people were writing Congress to stay out of their medicine cabinets despite a wealth of data that many nutritional supplements are harmful, ineffective, and/or contain none of the ingredients on the label. Today we have a biotechnology that is literally saving lives and has shown to produce crops identical to non-GMO products, and people want it labeled.

American voters will stop at nothing to get their way so they can regret it a couple decades later.

Exactly my point. Suppose its a big assumption to make but I'm going to guess you work in the sciences as well?

I understand where both of you are coming from. But if you want a smart voting citizenry, educate them. Don't keep them ignorant. That is literally the worst, as well as most unethical solution to the problem.

If you think adding a label to a package equates to educating the public, you have far more faith in humanity than I do! I don't have anything against the labeling itself, but here's the problem: The Timing.

10 years ago, adding a GMO label would have meant little or nothing to the public. Most people didn't even know GMO's existed. Now people know they exist, but because so few are biotechnologists, they don't really understand what they are. That perpetuates fear. The anti-science movement is very popular right now, as evidenced by the epidemic of MMR in the US. This is absolutely the worst time to add a GMO label and perpetuate unfounded beliefs that GMO's are something 'other' than plain old food. People will go: "Ah HA! I told you so! GMO's are dangerous so the FDA had to label them!"

If you really want to educate people, EDUCATE them. Don't placate them.

The label wouldn't be a problem for an educated citizenry that has a reason to have at least a speck of faith in the regulatory process. Instead we have a poorly educated citizenry that is nevertheless aware enough to know our system is corrupted. Your solution is more ignorance by refusing to tell us what is in the food we put in our own bodies. That sort of thinking is not conducive to a democratic society. Not that we have one of those, but someday I'd sure like to.

Did you miss the part where the supplement industry was deregulated by lobbyists and supported by millions of voters who literally wrote to their Congressmen to tell them not to allow the FDA to increase regulations? That is what the 'educated' citizenry did. Shot themselves in the feet.

Most people don't even know the regulatory process, nor to they care to find out. It's pretty boring. How do they decide to have faith in it? I mean, honestly, did you know any of it before I wrote about it?

Then go after THEM, not GMOs. That is all I am saying. Anyways, I keep trying to bow out and fail to do so, maybe I will just look away for a bit. Cheers.

One more thing from me, too, then I'm done. By the way, I do suggest we go after them and sweep every politician who takes corporate money and every lobbyist out.

But do you know what will really strike the death blow to this research? If failure to regulate ever results in deaths and people figure out GMOs caused the deaths. I certainly wouldn't advocate covering up the cause of those deaths, I hope you wouldn't either. Regardless, if it ever happens, it will make what happened to stem cell research look like a minor setback.

I think you are confusing food regulations with nutritional/dietary supplement regulations.

The FDA regulates current GMO foods in the same way as non-GMO foods because the GMO products have already been tested for potential allergenic and teratogenic properties and none have been found. (New products would have to hold up to the same rigorous testing.) Food safety is tightly regulated by the FDA.

Nutritional supplements have largely been deregulated due to lobbying. The FDA can only regulate supplements retroactively because the onus is on them to prove that supplements are hazardous rather than on the supplement manufacturer to prove they are safe. This is due to voters in the 90's writing congress to prevent regulation following numerous ephedra-related deaths.

It's sort of funny...20 years ago, people were writing Congress to stay out of their medicine cabinets despite a wealth of data that many nutritional supplements are harmful, ineffective, and/or contain none of the ingredients on the label. Today we have a biotechnology that is literally saving lives and has shown to produce crops identical to non-GMO products, and people want it labeled.

American voters will stop at nothing to get their way so they can regret it a couple decades later.

Exactly my point. Suppose its a big assumption to make but I'm going to guess you work in the sciences as well?

I understand where both of you are coming from. But if you want a smart voting citizenry, educate them. Don't keep them ignorant. That is literally the worst, as well as most unethical solution to the problem.

If you think adding a label to a package equates to educating the public, you have far more faith in humanity than I do! I don't have anything against the labeling itself, but here's the problem: The Timing.

10 years ago, adding a GMO label would have meant little or nothing to the public. Most people didn't even know GMO's existed. Now people know they exist, but because so few are biotechnologists, they don't really understand what they are. That perpetuates fear. The anti-science movement is very popular right now, as evidenced by the epidemic of MMR in the US. This is absolutely the worst time to add a GMO label and perpetuate unfounded beliefs that GMO's are something 'other' than plain old food. People will go: "Ah HA! I told you so! GMO's are dangerous so the FDA had to label them!"

If you really want to educate people, EDUCATE them. Don't placate them.

The label wouldn't be a problem for an educated citizenry that has a reason to have at least a speck of faith in the regulatory process. Instead we have a poorly educated citizenry that is nevertheless aware enough to know our system is corrupted. Your solution is more ignorance by refusing to tell us what is in the food we put in our own bodies. That sort of thinking is not conducive to a democratic society. Not that we have one of those, but someday I'd sure like to.

Did you miss the part where the supplement industry was deregulated by lobbyists and supported by millions of voters who literally wrote to their Congressmen to tell them not to allow the FDA to increase regulations? That is what the 'educated' citizenry did. Shot themselves in the feet.

Most people don't even know the regulatory process, nor to they care to find out. It's pretty boring. How do they decide to have faith in it? I mean, honestly, did you know any of it before I wrote about it?

Some of it. I've forgotten a lot of it, too, but my education and training is in history and political science. I did not specialize in the USDA or FDA though. And frankly, the FDA could very well have kept its filthy fingers off my herbal Ma Huang supplement and I would have been overjoyed.

My point stands: If people are making stupid decisions, it's improper education. Both education regarding facts, and education to resist propaganda from those who would manipulate us.

You want to hide the nature of our food from people by refusing to label it clearly. Again, this mindset is not conducive to a democratic society. Regardless of what you think of the choices people will make based on those labels, to deny us choice is a mistake. It's our decision.

Last comment from me, I really need to sleep:

You don't want me to have the information on my food label because you don't like what I might do with that information. I might not buy something. Other people might not buy something. Valuable research could be lost due to lots of people refusing to buy something and then deciding something shouldn't exist at all (slippery slope right there).

I have a serious problem with this whole concept of keeping people ignorant because you don't like what they might do with the information, and I don't care how pristine the motives are.

Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?

Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?

Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.

Did I say anything about Marxism? Cause I thought we were talking about power grabs in the name of the "greater good"

We're talking about the death penalty for a for-profit corporation that is corrupting our government even more than it already was, then nationalizing it for the greater good, no quotation marks required.

You're talking about outright theft. And giving even more power to the most corrupt and powerful entity in the country. What could go wrong?

Their lobbyists stole our entire legal system by getting politicians to give them immunity. Not worried about what happens to that company, the sooner it ceases to exist the better.

And what's a little harmless unconstitutional power grab as long as you approve of the ends, right?

The lunacy of putting the federal government -- you know, the guys who you say got bought out in the first place -- in charge seems to have escaped you in your rage against Monsanto. If the rule of law can be cast aside to go after your enemy, it can surely be cast aside to go after you.

The federal government is already in charge. Big money owns it. I propose we remove the grip of big money from it, control it ourselves, and prevent companies like Monsanto from obtaining immunity from lawsuits and other such nonsense. But hey, if you'd prefer anarchy, we could discuss that option, too.

Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?

Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.

But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.