GMOs Scary or not?

GMOs don't scare me. Companies creating them without proper independent testing, independent oversight, and legal consequences for problems terrifies me.

Also, I'm terrified of the world's most vital resources being steadily concentrated into the hands of a tiny, wealthy percentage of the world's population.

I guess if they want to label they can but I don't think they should. All it will do is scare the uneducated and then raise the price of food that is already getting to expensive.

What the anti GMO crowd does not get is that if it wasn't for GMO corn and such there would be a lot more starvation in the world. First because there wouldn't be as much product available. Secondly because if you think price of corn and meat is high now, if it wasn't for GMO it would be double what it is now. A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford what they could now thanks to GMO corn.

Most corn consumed by humans is not GMO. There is only one sweet corn available that is GMO. Most GMO corn is feed corn, and most feel corn is GMO. So, sweet corn prices have nothing to do with GMO, and if feed corn is overly expensive, then clearly GMO is not the answer.

Crops and food have been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. Have you seen any problems yet?

You beat me to it.
And looked better doing so, incidentally.

But it's NOT TRUE

Oh really, you sure about that? Care to prove it?

Because since we started farming the smartest among us have found ways to improve crop yield, grow heartier plants producing more fruit, use seeds that were resistant to rot and do away with the weaker strains, etc. etc.

Which is a good thing. It's kept people alive. It's advanced us as a species.

Now all I see are people who want to strap on their "natural" hat to identify with a cause rallying against something they don't even understand.

SELECTIVE BREADING IS NOT GM

"While selective breeding of plants and animals has been practiced for centuries, genetic modification (Agricultural Biotechnology) is still fairly new. "

What breads do you select? Did you mean bread crumbs? Or bread rolls? Leaven bread, what exactly?

I guess if they want to label they can but I don't think they should. All it will do is scare the uneducated and then raise the price of food that is already getting to expensive.

What the anti GMO crowd does not get is that if it wasn't for GMO corn and such there would be a lot more starvation in the world. First because there wouldn't be as much product available. Secondly because if you think price of corn and meat is high now, if it wasn't for GMO it would be double what it is now. A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford what they could now thanks to GMO corn.

Most corn consumed by humans is not GMO. There is only one sweet corn available that is GMO. Most GMO corn is feed corn, and most feel corn is GMO. So, sweet corn prices have nothing to do with GMO, and if feed corn is overly expensive, then clearly GMO is not the answer.

SUCH a logic fail.

Again, tell starving people that being able to provide more food at cheaper cost is bad for them, because...something.

Tell farmers that being able to plant crops more resistant to disease and insects without the use of pesticides is bad because... there's science behind it that you don't understand, so it must be bad.

The people at work making GMO foods are smarter than we are. That makes some people feel insecure, so they label it as bad. Working to make the best crops possible, some capable of saving lives of those in poorer countries, is noble work.

It's attacked in this country by rich people who want to shove their poorly thought out beliefs on others who are suffering.

Not really sure what you are talking about in regards to my post that you quoted. I didn't tell starving people or farmers anything. I didn't say anything was bad. I didn't attack anything. You have no idea who is smarter than I or what I understand.

Seriously dude, calm down and get a grip.

This content has been removed.

I have a feeling that people in the first world, who have never gone hungry, are the only ones who are screaming about how scary GMOs are.

So?

Genetic modification is a tool, much like a hammer. Any food product should of course be put through safety testing and be appropriately regulated but trying to lump things by what tool was used to create them isn't informative at all. Inspecting a buildings construction can tell you if the building meets code or not but just labeling it "made with a hammer" tells you nothing. In fact if you did start labeling all structures with "made with a hammer" stickers then people would start to feel like that meant there was some sort of issue with hammers and it was important to note if something was hammer-made or not. It would create an issue out of a non-issue.

Labeling things as "GMO" gives you the sense of being informed without actually informing you of anything much in the same way replacing building code guidelines with stickers that inform you what tools were used in the buildings construction would be equally useless information.

I view the label movement as requesting something that is actually rather useless (knowing if something has a GMO in it or not doesn't actually tell you anything) while at the same time justifying what I consider to be unwarranted concern that somehow GMOs are something to fear. Should we test each one individually and hold it to the same standards as we do any other food? Yes, most definitely. Should we separate them out and treat them as somehow more dangerous...no, I see no reason to do that any more than I would see a reason to include additional building codes for any construction made with hammers. I feel in fact to do that would be to somehow provide justification for the idea that there is something to fear there even though there is really nothing to support the idea that being a GMO makes something inherently dangerous.

I have a feeling that people in the first world, who have never gone hungry, are the only ones who are screaming about how scary GMOs are.

So?

Just an observation. Although I think it's pretty funny that for so long, all of the Miss America's and Bono's of the world wanted an end to world hunger. We finally have the technology to start working on it, and those same types of people want it banned because they're scared of dirty science touching their food.

But if one isn't starving, so why shouldn't they have choice over what food they consume?

I'm pasting from my response to the organics good/bad thread because it's the same damn problem.

I may need to switch my avatar for this one. Look, I work in marine ecology. There are some major concerns about ecosystem effects from large scale farming practices, and as someone has already mentioned, monoculture crops etc. are also an issue. But let me be clear on this.... NONE of the scientific concerns relating to organic farming practices or GMO's have ANYTHING to do with whether the foods are harmful for the consumer. These are large scale ecosystem effects, and ecologist's very real concerns are getting drowned out by a bunch of scare mongering propaganda and turning the entire issue in to a damn joke so that the real problems get swept under the rug and aren't being dealt with. /end rant.

I have a feeling that people in the first world, who have never gone hungry, are the only ones who are screaming about how scary GMOs are.

So?

Just an observation. Although I think it's pretty funny that for so long, all of the Miss America's and Bono's of the world wanted an end to world hunger. We finally have the technology to start working on it, and those same types of people want it banned because they're scared of dirty science touching their food.

But if one isn't starving, so why shouldn't they have choice over what food they consume?

People should eat what they want to eat. However, I think that calling for GMOs to be banned, or screaming their "dangers" from the rooftops could be detrimental to getting them to the countries that need them.

*Edit to fix quotes.

in for tin foil friday

I have a feeling that people in the first world, who have never gone hungry, are the only ones who are screaming about how scary GMOs are.

So?

Just an observation. Although I think it's pretty funny that for so long, all of the Miss America's and Bono's of the world wanted an end to world hunger. We finally have the technology to start working on it, and those same types of people want it banned because they're scared of dirty science touching their food.

But if one isn't starving, so why shouldn't they have choice over what food they consume?

People should eat what they want to eat. However, I think that calling for GMOs to be banned, or screaming their "dangers" from the rooftops could be detrimental to getting them to the countries that need them.

*Edit to fix quotes.

How so? As you point out, the people doing the screaming don't generally live the areas that may need it. Yet isn't it here, in the land of plenty, that it is mostly sold and used?

I have a feeling that people in the first world, who have never gone hungry, are the only ones who are screaming about how scary GMOs are.

So?

Just an observation. Although I think it's pretty funny that for so long, all of the Miss America's and Bono's of the world wanted an end to world hunger. We finally have the technology to start working on it, and those same types of people want it banned because they're scared of dirty science touching their food.

But if one isn't starving, so why shouldn't they have choice over what food they consume?

If you read back you'll see that people opposing GMOs aren't just making a choice for themselves. They're choosing what food other people can eat as well.

If it were simply a matter of people choosing what to eat for themselves this would be a non-issue. Anti-GMO proponents are electing to make that choice for everyone.

I would imagine there are far more against laws that prevent labelling of GMO, or even forced labelling of GMO, than there are against the modifiction itself.

Anyone in favor of laws that prevent labelling of GM foods are, in fact, also making a choice for others.

There are laws against hitting someone in the face with a hammer, not laws against the existence of hammers.

There are laws against releasing a GMO product that is harmful to the general population with no warning label. There aren't laws against the existence of GMOs.

There are laws being voted on regularly that would prevent the labelling of GMO foods. That would take away a citizen's right to know whether they are consuming GMO foods or not.

I don't see how your hammer reference is relevant to this. Has anyone suggested physically attacking others with food should be okay?