GMOs Scary or not?

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?

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?

Banning GMOs would cause irrevocable damage to the developed world as well.

What harm would labelling it do?

Scaremongering

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?

Banning GMOs would cause irrevocable damage to the developed world as well.

What harm would labelling it do?

My god you like to argue for the sake of arguing!

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?

Banning GMOs would cause irrevocable damage to the developed world as well.

What harm would labelling it do?

Scaremongering

In what way would a label be scaremongering? Foods have labels of all sorts. Why is it necessary to forbid this one?

They're safe for human consumption. Labeling it implies otherwise. It's the game that you all play. Science be damned, GMO sounds frightening. Let's label and then continue scaremongering.

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?

Banning GMOs would cause irrevocable damage to the developed world as well.

What harm would labelling it do?

Scaremongering

In what way would a label be scaremongering? Foods have labels of all sorts. Why is it necessary to forbid this one?

You're too smart to ask a question so naive. You don't think if (hypothetically) food had to label EVERY pesticide used to grow them that it would effect sales?

I tend to try and stay away from GMO's, they usually end up being tasteless. Those giant strawberries in the stores? We have to add sugar and chocolate and such to them because we modified them to be big, because we thought bigger was better. The natural, smaller strawberries are YUMMY. Unfortunately the walmart here doesn't sell them.

That was all natural selective breeding...no GMO

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?

Both genetic modification and hammers are tools. Labelling something as being a product of genetic modification is about as informative and useful as labelling construction that involved use of hammers with a "built with a hammer" label. What we need, and have, is building codes...not "built by hammers" labels. What we need, and have, is stringent regulations regarding consumer saftey fir foods noy "contains GMOs" labels. It is useless information that appears to legitimize an unjustified concern.

There is nothing inheirently bad with GM anymore than there is something inherently bad wit hammers. We don't need laws labelling hammers and restricting their use, we need building codes and laws against causing people harm.

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?

Banning GMOs would cause irrevocable damage to the developed world as well.

What harm would labelling it do?

Scaremongering

In what way would a label be scaremongering? Foods have labels of all sorts. Why is it necessary to forbid this one?

You're too smart to ask a question so naive. You don't think if (hypothetically) food had to label EVERY pesticide used to grow them that it would effect sales?

I do think it would affect sales. I don't see what it has to do with my question above.

Can we affix a permenant label to your forhead that reads "not a rapist" since apparently you don't see any problem with informative labelling and cannot fathom how it might give the general public a misplaced and illegitimate concern?

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?

Both genetic modification and hammers are tools. Labelling something as being a product of genetic modification is about as informative and useful as labelling construction that involved use of hammers with a "built with a hammer" label. What we need, and have, is building codes...not "built by hammers" labels. What we need, and have, is stringent regulations regarding consumer saftey fir foods noy "contains GMOs" labels. It is useless information that appears to legitimize an unjustified concern.

There is nothing inheirently bad with GM anymore than there is something inherently bad wit hammers. We don't need laws labelling hammers and restricting their use, we need building codes and laws against causing people harm.

My question did not ask about laws labelling GM foods as GM. My question was about laws preventing such labels. It is not against the law to label construction as "built with a hammer"?