GMOs Scary or not?
Replies
-
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".
From Merriam-Webster .... " to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner" ... a perfect description of your posts. It seems you were unaware of the meaning but now you know. You're welcome.
I was typing. You inferred the manner.0 -
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.0 -
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".
From Merriam-Webster .... " to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner" ... a perfect description of your posts. It seems you were unaware of the meaning but now you know. You're welcome.
I was typing. You inferred the manner.
You've made yourself quite clear which eliminated any need for inference.0 -
0 -
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".
From Merriam-Webster .... " to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner" ... a perfect description of your posts. It seems you were unaware of the meaning but now you know. You're welcome.
I was typing. You inferred the manner.
You've made yourself quite clear which eliminated any need for inference.
Thank you. I do try to be clear. Being clear has nothing to do with manner of delivery. Ranting is rarely clear.0 -
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?0 -
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?
I think this thread is a clear example of why it would be a bad idea in unnecessarily label as most people don't even know which foods are GMO and just assume from the great marketing tool "organic" is that anything without "organic" is GMO.0 -
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.0 -
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".
From Merriam-Webster .... " to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner" ... a perfect description of your posts. It seems you were unaware of the meaning but now you know. You're welcome.
I was typing. You inferred the manner.
You've made yourself quite clear which eliminated any need for inference.
Thank you. I do try to be clear. Being clear has nothing to do with manner of delivery. Ranting is rarely clear.
The only thing clear is you rant without basis in fact as many here have noted.0 -
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.
This. People will see the label for GMOs, not understand what that actually means, and automatically assume it is bad. GMOs have not been shown to be harmful, so it would be scaring people for absolutely no reason. It would be about as useful as putting a label on a jar of pesto that says "Warning: Contains Basil."0 -
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?
Name one state that prevents voluntary labeling of GMO foods.0 -
I really do not understand the backlash against labeling a food GMO. What is so scary about labeling!
There is more to the debate than whether a food has been genetically modified, I love the argument that all food has been genetically modified since the dawn of man. Combining 2 different tomatoes to make another breed of tomato is alot different than breeding as tomato that is resistant to herbicides, because, you know, they keep using more and more and stronger and stronger chemicals. Never mind what that is doing to native plants and insects.
I just think there is still not enough info on it yet. Besides, who trusts the companies providing these GMO crops? Monsato? Dow? You think they are being strait with the public?
And since I am a bourbon drinker, I also found this an interesting take on the whole thing, Four Roses and Wild Turkey are the only whiskey's NOT using GMO corn
“European and Asian markets won’t buy whiskey made with GMO corn,Whiskey distilled today won’t be bottled for four to 15 years. If GMO grain is discovered to have issues 5 years from now, or if the government requires GMO labeling down the line, the distillery would be in quite a bind with a lot of aging whiskey that could be affected.”
According to Colin O’Neil, regulatory policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, “to assume that the only real risk is contamination of genetic material ignores the fact that these crops by and large will either produce an insecticide – which has been proved not to break down in the human gut – or are engineered to withstand exposure to herbicides.
“Residues of pesticides on corn present an increased exposure to consumers,” concludes Mr. O’Neil.0 -
I really do not understand the backlash against labeling a food GMO. What is so scary about labeling!
There is more to the debate than whether a food has been genetically modified, I love the argument that all food has been genetically modified since the dawn of man. Combining 2 different tomatoes to make another breed of tomato is alot different than breeding as tomato that is resistant to herbicides, because, you know, they keep using more and more and stronger and stronger chemicals. Never mind what that is doing to native plants and insects.
I just think there is still not enough info on it yet. Besides, who trusts the companies providing these GMO crops? Monsato? Dow? You think they are being strait with the public?
And since I am a bourbon drinker, I also found this an interesting take on the whole thing, Four Roses and Wild Turkey are the only whiskey's NOT using GMO corn
“European and Asian markets won’t buy whiskey made with GMO corn,Whiskey distilled today won’t be bottled for four to 15 years. If GMO grain is discovered to have issues 5 years from now, or if the government requires GMO labeling down the line, the distillery would be in quite a bind with a lot of aging whiskey that could be affected.”
According to Colin O’Neil, regulatory policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, “to assume that the only real risk is contamination of genetic material ignores the fact that these crops by and large will either produce an insecticide – which has been proved not to break down in the human gut – or are engineered to withstand exposure to herbicides.
“Residues of pesticides on corn present an increased exposure to consumers,” concludes Mr. O’Neil.
Is there anything besides fears, "what ifs" and "group X does it so we should do it too" style arguments that would legitimize labeling?
Is there a reason.0 -
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?
No. Overriding a state law will prevent the state from invoking unnecessary and expensive restrictions based on nothing but pseudoscientific fearmongering. It would not prevent non-GMO products from labeling themselves as such.
Therefore it will not prevent labelingAnd honestly, it’s these lawsuits that create much of the fear. Why not label it? Too expensive? No.
YesThe cost of labeling involves far more than the paper and ink to print the actual label. Accurate labeling requires an extensive identity preservation system from farmer to elevator to grain processor to food manufacturer to retailer (Maltsbarger and Kalaitzandonakes, 2000). Either testing or detailed record-keeping needs to be done at various steps along the food supply chain. Estimates of the costs of mandatory labeling vary from a few dollars per person per year to 10 percent of a consumer’s food bill (Gruere and Rao, 2007). Consumer willingness to pay for GE labeling information varies widely according to a number of surveys, but it is generally low in North America. Another potential economic impact for certain food manufacturers is that some consumers may avoid foods labeled as containing GE ingredients.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html
http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf0 -
Corn is corn. Why is it scarier if it grows better and is resistant to fungus? What do anti-GMO people honestly fear that it is going to do to them? All I've seen so far is fear of "what if?"... and that's like being afraid to leave your own home, because ... "well what if...?"0
-
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?
I think this thread is a clear example of why it would be a bad idea in unnecessarily label as most people don't even know which foods are GMO and just assume from the great marketing tool "organic" is that anything without "organic" is GMO.
That's because the organic or "non-GMO" label is the only way to know. The only reason not to label is to keep the consumer from making their own decision. If people want to know they should be allowed to know.0 -
Corn is corn. Why is it scarier if it grows better and is resistant to fungus? What do anti-GMO people honestly fear that it is going to do to them? All I've seen so far is fear of "what if?"... and that's like being afraid to leave your own home, because ... "well what if...?"
It's not always about what eating it will do. Some people are against GMO purely for environmental reasons. Some people like honeybees.0 -
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?
I think this thread is a clear example of why it would be a bad idea in unnecessarily label as most people don't even know which foods are GMO and just assume from the great marketing tool "organic" is that anything without "organic" is GMO.
That's because the organic or "non-GMO" label is the only way to know. The only reason not to label is to keep the consumer from making their own decision. If people want to know they should be allowed to know.
Once again, for the slow kids:
There
is
NOTHING
preventing
non-GMO
products
from
labeling
themselves
as
such
Consumers who wish to avoid GMO's can seek out products that do so.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Maybe we can stop being sidetracked on whether or not to apply meaningless labels to food, and focus on the real question and meaning of this thread.
GMOs, are they harmful?
Well, we've gone on for many pages. A lot of evidence has been provided proving they are safe.
Is there even one instance of someone being harmed from GMO foods?
Because if there isn't, I think this is a closed case. First you have to prove something is harmful, before you decide to warn people about it.
actually GMO's had to go through a bit of testing to prove they were "safe" (and I HATE that word) before they went to market/field...0 -
Corn is corn. Why is it scarier if it grows better and is resistant to fungus? What do anti-GMO people honestly fear that it is going to do to them? All I've seen so far is fear of "what if?"... and that's like being afraid to leave your own home, because ... "well what if...?"
It's not always about what eating it will do. Some people are against GMO purely for environmental reasons. Some people like honeybees.
Keep throwing dirt at the wall. Something's got to stick, right? lol0 -
and we actually eat a lot less "whole" gmo's than we think, usually we're eating a byproduct like just the corn syrup or soybean oil (cornmeal being a decent exception). Usually foods like whole kernel corn are a variety that is non GMO when they are consumed as the whole plant. Especially the tastier corns.0
-
Corn is corn. Why is it scarier if it grows better and is resistant to fungus? What do anti-GMO people honestly fear that it is going to do to them? All I've seen so far is fear of "what if?"... and that's like being afraid to leave your own home, because ... "well what if...?"
It's not always about what eating it will do. Some people are against GMO purely for environmental reasons. Some people like honeybees.
To this I say STOP IT. All this labeling fear mongering crap DISTRACTS from environmental and ecological issues. Yes, there are points of concern, but that's it....concern. You turn the entire issue in to a joke when you blow it up out of proportion and turn it in to a damn conspiracy theory.0 -
This discussion is pointless for another 100 years. There is no data old enough to be able to identify any trend on long term consumption of GMO over generation.
All we can do is theorical assumption based on scientific reason and it would not sound good.
However, with any data to discuss, any opnion is irrelevant0 -
that type of testing is a joke because it does not allow to determine long term effects
So yes you can eat them and you dont die; PASSED
What will happen in 150 years to human body: speculation0 -
that type of testing is a joke because it does not allow to determine long term effects
So yes you can eat them and you dont die; PASSED
What will happen in 150 years to human body: speculation
so let's just not eat anything or use any new products that weren't developed more than 150 years ago...0 -
I really do not understand the backlash against labeling a food GMO. What is so scary about labeling!
There is more to the debate than whether a food has been genetically modified, I love the argument that all food has been genetically modified since the dawn of man. Combining 2 different tomatoes to make another breed of tomato is alot different than breeding as tomato that is resistant to herbicides, because, you know, they keep using more and more and stronger and stronger chemicals. Never mind what that is doing to native plants and insects.
I just think there is still not enough info on it yet. Besides, who trusts the companies providing these GMO crops? Monsato? Dow? You think they are being strait with the public?
And since I am a bourbon drinker, I also found this an interesting take on the whole thing, Four Roses and Wild Turkey are the only whiskey's NOT using GMO corn
“European and Asian markets won’t buy whiskey made with GMO corn,Whiskey distilled today won’t be bottled for four to 15 years. If GMO grain is discovered to have issues 5 years from now, or if the government requires GMO labeling down the line, the distillery would be in quite a bind with a lot of aging whiskey that could be affected.”
According to Colin O’Neil, regulatory policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, “to assume that the only real risk is contamination of genetic material ignores the fact that these crops by and large will either produce an insecticide – which has been proved not to break down in the human gut – or are engineered to withstand exposure to herbicides.
“Residues of pesticides on corn present an increased exposure to consumers,” concludes Mr. O’Neil.
Is there anything besides fears, "what ifs" and "group X does it so we should do it too" style arguments that would legitimize labeling?
Is there a reason.
I grew up on a farm, and I think pestacides, fertilizer and their runoffs into lakes are more dangerous than GMO. I now live in Italy, which is highly anti-GMO. They are constantly ranting against it. However, and this I'd like Aaron to answer, I once read several years ago that foods will be specifically modified in the future to cure certain diseases. At that point the anti-GMO debate will be useless, since we will have to, and want to, eat GMO to cure ourselves. True or not Aaron? or anyone else in the labs? Everytime I read about these arguments demonizing GMO I think--just wait, one day the tide will turn. Am I right? Thanks.
0 -
that type of testing is a joke because it does not allow to determine long term effects
So yes you can eat them and you dont die; PASSED
What will happen in 150 years to human body: speculation
so let's just not eat anything or use any new products that weren't developed more than 150 years ago...
I guarantee that if you consume GMOs, you will die and your body will be unrecognizable in 150 years0 -
that type of testing is a joke because it does not allow to determine long term effects
So yes you can eat them and you dont die; PASSED
What will happen in 150 years to human body: speculation
so let's just not eat anything or use any new products that weren't developed more than 150 years ago...
I'm still trying to figure out if we're referring to a human body that's been exposed to it for 150 years, or that somehow the effects will pass from one generation to the next....0 -
These kinds of discussions remind me of discussions about vaccines, global warming, evolution, the latest "end of the world" predictions and so on. I rarely engage in them because I can't do it with a straight face.
There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically modified crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. If you are an insulin dependent diabetic, you are injecting yourself with one of the earliest GMOs, so why aren't we complaining? and that's just one example.
Either way, there's nothing wrong with having moral and spiritual opinions, or opinions based on scaremongering and marketing, what is wrong is calling them science.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions