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?

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.

So, we should pass laws forbidding truth in labelling because of what some think it implies? And THAT doesn't bother you?

We don't have laws forcing meat raised on hormones, steroids and/or antibiotics from being labelled as such, but we don't prevent meat raised without from being labelled free of it. Do we need to pass a law to prevent those labels too?

Should we have laws preventing wild caught fish from being labelled as such?

Do you ever speak the truth?

I vaccinate my kids and believe that non-GMO is the best approach to foods. Wow...that was quite the stretch of a comparison.

Not even a little. The same logic that goes into thinking GMO foods are bad is the logic used by anti- vaxxers.

"Science is doing stuff in a lab that they don't understand, we don't know, maybe it's harmful, everything should be natural, etc. etc." <--applies equally to anti-GMO or anti-vaxxers.

Exactly, hence my avatar, there's a reason I lump those topics together. I just *knew* I was going to need that pic today.....

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"?

No there shouldn't be laws against a manufacturer labeling their product whatever they like. There are of course laws that prevent someone else labeling a product that isn't there product with a label the manufacturer doesn't want on their product, but that law is not specific to GMOs its a general law.

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"?

No law prohibits labeling as GM or GM free. There is also no law forcing such labeling.

Now, please feel free to continue your baseless ranting.

There are state law re: GM labelling. I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word "rant".

The level of fear mongering is what I find scary.

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.

So, we should pass laws forbidding truth in labelling because of what some think it implies? And THAT doesn't bother you?

We don't have laws forcing meat raised on hormones, steroids and/or antibiotics from being labelled as such, but we don't prevent meat raised without from being labelled free of it. Do we need to pass a law to prevent those labels too?

Should we have laws preventing wild caught fish from being labelled as such?

Stop lying.

We don't have laws preventing GMO free foods to be labeled as such:

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/06/25/usda-approves-voluntary-gmo-free-label/

I'm not lying. We do not have these laws, nor did I say we did. But it is a very real possibility. And THAT is the scary part about GMO, IMO.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/09/genetic-labeling-bill/7519937/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/12/vermont-gmo-idUSL2N0OT20620140612

http://www.alternet.org/food/how-food-industry-uses-threat-law-suits-stop-gmo-labeling-laws

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

NONE of those articles address voluntary labeling.

It's not a reading comprehension issue. It's a problem with honesty. It's part of the game

I'm not lying. We do not have these laws, nor did I say we did. But it is a very real possibility. And THAT is the scary part about GMO, IMO.

Yes I agree. The part that is scary about GMOs is an unrealized unsubstantiated future scenario that exists only as fears in the minds of some.

This is not a legitimate basis for government enforced regulations.

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.

So, we should pass laws forbidding truth in labelling because of what some think it implies? And THAT doesn't bother you?

We don't have laws forcing meat raised on hormones, steroids and/or antibiotics from being labelled as such, but we don't prevent meat raised without from being labelled free of it. Do we need to pass a law to prevent those labels too?

Should we have laws preventing wild caught fish from being labelled as such?

Stop lying.

We don't have laws preventing GMO free foods to be labeled as such:

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/06/25/usda-approves-voluntary-gmo-free-label/

I'm not lying. We do not have these laws, nor did I say we did. But it is a very real possibility. And THAT is the scary part about GMO, IMO.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/09/genetic-labeling-bill/7519937/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/12/vermont-gmo-idUSL2N0OT20620140612

http://www.alternet.org/food/how-food-industry-uses-threat-law-suits-stop-gmo-labeling-laws

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

NONE of those articles address voluntary labeling.

Did I say voluntary labeling? I said preventing labeling. Overriding a state law to require it would essentially prevent it, no? Or do you believe companies would voluntarily label GMO foods?

And honestly, it’s these lawsuits that create much of the fear. Why not label it? Too expensive? No. Most GMO are used in processed foods and they are all labelled. And those labels are regularly updated without passing the cost along to consumers. So the question becomes, why spend millions of dollars to prevent the labels? What are they hiding?

Why not label it?

We don't label things as "containing GMOs" for the same reason we don't label things as "containing leucine". Sure, maybe there are some people out there who wish to avoid GMOs...perhaps there are some people out there who really dislike leucine, but there is no legitimate REASON besides fear or personal taste to consider either a source of danger. There is no study that demonstrates that GMOs (by being GMOs) are in some way harmful anymore than there is a study demonstrating the harm of leucine. As a result we do not label them.

This is not a difficult concept to understand.

We label things for which there is a demonstrated harm. Cigarretes are labeled due to the demonstrated carcinogens present, things that contain nuts are often labeled due to the prevelance of nut related allergies that can send people into anaphalactic shock.

If you do "A" there should be a reason "B" that is clear cut and definable before you seek legislation. There is no "B" for GMOs, its just "well what if this happens, or what if that happens" vagueness.