GMOs Scary or not?

I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.

I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.

I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?

But cancer!

Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.

So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?

No.

I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.

Your not a child you are just not very informed about cancer biology (clearly) and yet still feel the need to voice strong opinons about how cancer researchers should conduct their research.

That makes you annoying.

I respected you until you decided to resort to personal attacks. Your education clearly didn't include logic and debate. Mine did.

Edit: And despite all my education, I still let you aggravate and derail me!

Make up your mind: Are the rats good in cancer research or not? And if so, why were they not suitable for this particular cancer research involving GMOs?

I've watched him do this before, and he's had it explained to him before previously why rats of that type are used, but he just likes to go back and say the same misleading stuff when it serves him. I really don't know how people on here get the time for so many responses either, 850+/month?!

I don't trust the American public to make any decisions about science because they are informed in bite-sized, factoid, news nugget style. A nation that believes that evolution is a "theory," that vaccinations cause autism and that angels really do exist doesn't deserve to be given the option to ruin companies simply because they see a "GMO" label on the food in the produce section.

Most people don't know what GMOs are, certainly don't understand or even CARE to understand the science behind it. While I am not arguing for or against the use of GMOs, the technology is certainly interesting and can be used for good. While some people argue that they have a right to be informed, do they really know what they are being informed about?

"This tomato is labeled GMO!" Well, yes, but the alteration was to remove a gene responsible for the production of a gas that causes the fruit to rot prematurely. They aren't adding genes from dinosaurs to get Tomatosaurus Rexes.

Well, thats the exact reason I don't trust or particularly like people talking about it here like they know all about the issue. Its easy to get stuck on here about this or that little bit or a radical view from either side that pops up. Its easy to mistake a high volume of posts and users or that it "sounds good" and nobody has the time to explain, for truth. Real qualifications are hidden, people us volume of posts or statements of authority without any verification and talk as if they have the answer. This happens all the time, not just on MFP.

You yourself just pulled a whole bunch of misleading links into one to tarnish the plain idea of labeling up there ...autism ... angels...whatnot, erm...no, this issue is right to information and those people exist maybe, (if you haven't just made them up), odd views exist on both sides, but why try to paint one side with that and obscure the issue? TomatoRex may be a funny little picture, and very easily entertaining, but the reality is, any gene can and will be added if there is any advantage seen for any reason. Just like we've had added "glow worm" firefly genetic info to make glowing tomatos. When we start extracting enough genetic material from dinosaurs to re-build these organisms and genetic decoding for their genome, if we find an advantage to them, we may very well add some genes from there. What if you could find a gene from a Trex to make tomatos grow massive? And maybe it wouldnt necessarily be bad if its tested and shown to be harmless, but I'd want to know its in there before deciding to eat it.

It really doesnt matter if the vast majority know exactly what they are being informed on, it is standards of straightforward information for the future, and is useful to some with various conditions as well. You or I may never be able to foresee an important issue, or what effect certain combinations may be found to have, but this makes discrimination between variants easy if it becomes an issue. If one finds there is one variant they are sensitive to, its pretty difficult to find out what products have it inside without labeling. Yes, if you have the knowledge and time, you could find out, but most people in a store...do you really think they would take the time to go research each and every component in each and every product?

Go find a package of biscuits and look at that ingredients list. Do you think you can go research the origins of each and every ingredient from a particular company's formulation? Do you realize there are many different formulations from the same company? Now go compare it to another brand, and the next 20 items you get from the store and their alternate choices...It becomes next to impossible, and nobody will have the time to even research this on their own, let alone make an informed choice on it without some type of simpler labeling. We already have 10s of names for simple MSG, yet some are sensitive to it. Dont conceal it, be straight forward.

Maybe certain genomes will have better quality proteins than others. Maybe certain cys and trans amino acid forms will be higher in some genetic modifications than others, but by law both are counted and half are useless to you nutritionally, can you understand a point to this then? Maybe some will be allergic to a protein in a particular GMO. There can be many other effects as well that will not be "deadly", slightly irritating to some, you find one your body gets an upset stomach with for some reason eating something, you just may want to avoid it, etc etc If you think about it carefully, there are many reasons you may want to know that do not involve "oh horrors a GMO" like the other side here wants to make the argument into. And many many reasons you cannot, or I cannot imagine here, which may become very important for some to distinguish between in the future. Or even just make an informed choice for the "new improved" modification which is better/higher quality than the older one?

Next the expense argument is just silly, they already do it for other ingredients, we spent money on a pretty pointless redesign of the label actually recently, and if expense really becomes a huge issue, its very little to just at least add "GMO" to "wheat". Seriously, that is just silly. It does have a small impact that eats into profits however, every tiny bit will always be protested by corporations, since their job is to maximize profit. You may deny CEO one of his porsches this year, (or more likely several sub managers a vacation, CEO wont go without that newest model in his fleet), but thats probably about the effect of it. However, they can also make profit on it, by marketing their "improved protein content wheat" for example...there are ways to recoup more cost than expense very very easily. Again back to MSG, there are many names that have been used to conceal this additive, and the cost and space it takes up to conceal it, or use 4 types of sugar so that they can put sugar lower down on the ingredients list is not prohibitive. So certainly a small reasonable notation of GMO is not prohibitive.

Real qualifications are hidden, people us volume of posts or statements of authority without any verification and talk as if they have the answer. This happens all the time, not just on MFP.

While I'm not saying I have all the answers, I do have a degree in molecular genetics, so I'm not speaking from a place of scientific ignorance. Not saying that to wave a degree in your face, I just wanted to clarify that if you discuss things with people here or anywhere else on the internet, an intelligent discussion does not need somebody with lots of letters after their name. Any person is capable of becoming informed on nearly any topic if they apply themselves to it.

You yourself just pulled a whole bunch of misleading links into one to tarnish the plain idea of labeling up there ...autism ... angels...whatnot, erm...no, this issue is right to information and those people exist maybe,

I made that statement about the level of scientific ignorance this country has come to. it's not to tarnish the idea of labeling, it is to demonstrate that a sticker on a fruit does nothing to inform the average person about what the GMO is or how it was created. The people of this nation have been trained to react to information out of a place of fear rather than a place of knowledge. The letters "GMO" inspire fear in the average person and I will bet that if you ask those same people what GMO means and why they are afraid of it ... they won't even know.

Yes, if you have the knowledge and time, you could find out, but most people in a store...do you really think they would take the time to go research each and every component in each and every product?

If it matters to them, yes. I became a vegetarian close to 30 years ago and I went through a dramatic learning curve about what foods are vegetarian and which are not. And I'm not talking about picking up an apple versus a hot dog, I'm talking about all those hidden ingredients in the processed foods people eat every day. It was a pain in the *kitten*! But it mattered to me, so I did it.

Maybe some will be allergic to a protein in a particular GMO. There can be many other effects as well that will not be "deadly", slightly irritating to some, you find one your body gets an upset stomach with for some reason eating something, you just may want to avoid it,

People can and are allergic to many things. There is no way to know before hand. A sticker on a cucumber is not going to help people avoid an allergen unless all the cultivar information is printed on it and THEN only if the people reading the sticker know anything about the process itself.

And it isn't the expense of labeling, it is the stampede effect of throwing knowledge at people who don't know how to receive it. Just look at this vaccination fiasco. A Playboy centerfold and a doctor who falsifies data shout from the rooftops that vaccines cause autism. Now look where we are. Measles outbreaks, whooping cough... people who have no knowledge of vaccines, immunology or even the most basic science it seems, have now decided that vaccines are to be avoided. The stampede they have created IS killing people.

If I were to tell people that those super big strawberries that look like there are three or four of them in one berry, are actually genetic mutants called "polyploids," people would run for the hills and write their local news about how to ban them .. all without even bothering to find out what a polyploid is. I don't distrust people who don't have scientific degrees, I distrust people who have knee-jerk reactions to information they don't understand and, from a place of intellectual laziness, choose not to understand. People fear what they don't understand and when it comes to genetics ... there is a LOT of fear.

Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.

So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?

No.

I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.

It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?

What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.

I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.

The analogy here is flawed. A GMO label isn't like a company willingly putting a "Made in the USA" label on their product, it would be like forcing any company whose products weren't made in the USA to put a "NOT Made in the USA" label on their products. How legal do you think that would be? How well do you think that would go over?

There is nothing stopping someone from putting a label on their product that says "Contains no GMO" just like there is nothing stopping companies from putting "Made in the USA" on their products.

Off topic question -

Do you not have labels saying where your food, clothing, electrical appliances etc are made?

Like, not just Made in USA to encourage patriotic buying but made in China, Korea, Japan etc.

I am surprised - everything in Australia has such labels.

Well I best not say absolutely everything - somebody will pipe up that they bought a tablecloth or something that didn't say - but certainly all food does, and as far as I know, all packaged items, food or otherwise.

Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.

So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?

No.

I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.

It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?

What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.

I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.

The analogy here is flawed. A GMO label isn't like a company willingly putting a "Made in the USA" label on their product, it would be like forcing any company whose products weren't made in the USA to put a "NOT Made in the USA" label on their products. How legal do you think that would be? How well do you think that would go over?

There is nothing stopping someone from putting a label on their product that says "Contains no GMO" just like there is nothing stopping companies from putting "Made in the USA" on their products.

Off topic question -

Do you not have labels saying where your food, clothing, electrical appliances etc are made?

Like, not just Made in USA to encourage patriotic buying but made in China, Korea, Japan etc.

I am surprised - everything in Australia has such labels.

Well I best not say absolutely everything - somebody will pipe up that they bought a tablecloth or something that didn't say - but certainly all food does, and as far as I know, all packaged items, food or otherwise.

This is true....and I don't see why that's necessarily needed information....I mean, where something is made shouldn't affect the product or whether it serves it's intended purpose, should it?

Honestly I'm not sure, I'm guessing it has to do with tariff law and import law but I don't know.

I've watched him do this before, and he's had it explained to him before previously why rats of that type are used, but he just likes to go back and say the same misleading stuff when it serves him.

You are referring to the discussion I had on the Aspartame thread with Richard Heath. I had brought up skepticism of the results of the Soufetti et al 2006 publication whereby they showed tumor formation in rats upon administration of aspartame. My point was they also showed tumor formation in their control group that received no aspartame because they used Sprague-Dawley rats which seemed questionable to me. Richard's point, which I conceeded in part, was that if you were going to look for very small effects of a test product on an animal with regards to cancer you would want a test subject that was basically on the tipping point for getting cancer anywyas...because SD rats get cancer about 45% of the time they make good test subjects for that reason it just means you have to have a huge sample size to discern if the differences you see are real.

My follow up to that was to point out that they tested a wide range of aspartame dosages and the one dosage they claimed a significant change in tumor formation relative to the control was the highest dosage group (which was the equivalent of drinking 20,000 sodas a day for a lifetime). The thing was though that other dosages they tested had LESS tumor formation the same distance below the control group so if the authors were claiming significance for tumor formation in the highest dose they would have to also support the idea that at some dosages of aspartame tumor formation is somehow inhibited. This seems extremely unlikely so the more likely was that the sample size was insufficient to lower the background on the signal enough to determine significance. This was also demonstrated by the fact that the dosages they tested did not yield a dose dependent response (in other words increasing or decreasing dosage did not lead to increasing or decreasing tumor formation in a predictable manner). There was nothing wrong with the study though, I just disagreed with its authors conclusions based on the data they provided. I do NOT think that study should be retracted though I think it was performed appropriately.

This paper though, the one for GMOs that was retracted, didn't even include a control of SD rats alone and the percent tumor formation they saw was not significant relative to the normal background seen in SD. What we got from this study is SD rats being held up for the camera doing what SD rats do which is have tumors all over their bodies and then those images get put up in blogs stating that GMO products give you tumors.

If you really believe Richard Heath would object to what I have said here then feel free to ask him, my guess is that he'd probably agree with me but if he doesn't then I have no issue with his response I respect his opinion on it.

I really don't know how people on here get the time for so many responses either, 850+/month?!

I travel a fair amount and have my smart phone with me. Rather than play angry birds I follow the forums here. This is the main reason I end up having to edit my posts after posting, stupid phone autocorrects to typing errors all the time and I have to go back and fix them. Is that okay with you free-time police?

Interesting read.

Very interesting.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24876-monsantos-herbicide-linked-to-fatal-kidney-disease-epidemic-will-ckdu-topple-monsanto

Interesting indeed. It raises a lot of questions, and I'm not certain a lot of what he claims is verifiable (have heard tons about WikiLeaks but don't know how accurate information obtained from it is). But the link between the herbicide(s) and kidney disease hypothesis is very compelling IMO. It will be interesting to see what happens now that El Salvador and Sri Lanka have banned glyphosates.

The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.

^^THIS

Two things:

1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.

2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.

This content has been removed.

In a similar manner to above GM tech has allowed for much cheaper and much safer production of antigen for vaccine formulations. My own institute is currently running human clinical trials for the first vaccine developed for leishmoniasis, a disease that mostly impacts the developing world. Given the economic status of the developing world any sort of therapy must take into consideration point of care delivery, on-site production and overall cost. GM has opened doors that were previously closed with regards to preventative care by making production both safer and more affordable allowing for non-profits like my own institute to develop recombinant vaccines on their own without having to have the billions of a large pharma and without needing high-cost sales to recoup cost. This allows us to go after diseases that afflict parts of the world that honestly don't have the economy to support payment. We can use this tech to do charitable good, save lives in a way that was economically untenable before its development. I will even go as far as to say this sort of development is NECESSARY to provide these developing nations the foundation of health that is required before they can start to develop their infrastructure and improve their lives.

http://endtheneglect.org/2012/03/a-short-history-of-leishmania-vaccines/

Don't just ignore this fact or brush it aside as somehow irrelevant or unimportant. This tech can do immense good. I get that you don't like Monsanto, I understand that...I even agree with it especially with regards to the environmental concerns or patent law concerns....but don't just place the blame on GM itself...please. We are doing good here, don't ruin it because you don't like one company. Just please...consider this.

I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.

I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.

I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?

I do conceive of them as two different things, and I'm not against GMOs.

But I wish educated people in the sciences would conceive of the entwined corporate and political decision makers as different from rational, educated professionals when it comes to how decisions are made about food safety in America. I'd be far less concerned about the issue if policy were being set by independent researchers with no financial stake in the matter. But these are not the people deciding what testing we should do, what should and shouldn't be labeled, and what liability should be imposed for screw ups.

I feel I am concerned by that and it would be a lot easier for me to be on the side of those who are against Monsanto's business practices if they weren't waving a big "Anti-GMO" flag around with them while they did it.

I think the notion of engineering in a terminator gene into food crops that requires farmers to continually repurchase the seeds from the same company in a contractual manner to be a highly questionable use of the technology. I think it opens up abuses where a company has control of the food supply which I think is the LAST thing any of us want, that would be horrible. I just view that as an issue with current patent law and its application...not an issue with GMOs.

This is such an interesting topic. I have a very good friend who is a chemist at Yale. She explained to me that GMO does not necessarily mean "harmful". For example, she explained to me that there are some countries in the third world who have received GMO rice that is enriched with vitamins and proteins that they were not able to get naturally before. It saved many lives. That being said, I like to be informed and educated about the content of my food on principle. Even if it's safe, I still feel more comfortable with full disclosure on my ingredients list.