GMOs Scary or not?

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?

So let me get this straight: We're all ignorant consumers, so we should be kept ignorant about our food because we're too ignorant?

I don't know, do you need the label on the hairdryer that tells you not to take it in to the bathtub with you? I can see the possible benefit of that one, so what's the benefit of the contains GMO label? Burden of proof, why do we need the label? What important and vital information is being provided for the consumer and why is it important? You want the label, you explain why it's necessary.

I favor letting the people decide if we want the label or not. And if most vote no, I'll shut up. But it shouldn't be up to politicians and the companies who buy them.

Edit and then I'm done for the night:

The funny thing is, there is massive amounts of money poured into convincing us that this is all safe and these companies aren't deceiving us and we're going to feed the world with this technology and blah blah. The fact that people are suspicious of these foods and companies despite the massive propaganda means something, somewhere, really stinks.

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?

So let me get this straight: We're all ignorant consumers, so we should be kept ignorant about our food because we're too ignorant?

I don't know, do you need the label on the hairdryer that tells you not to take it in to the bathtub with you? I can see the possible benefit of that one, so what's the benefit of the contains GMO label? Burden of proof, why do we need the label? What important and vital information is being provided for the consumer and why is it important? You want the label, you explain why it's necessary.

I favor letting the people decide if we want the label or not. And if most vote no, I'll shut up. But it shouldn't be up to politicians and the companies who buy them.

Edit and then I'm done for the night:

The funny thing is, there is massive amounts of money poured into convincing us that this is all safe and these companies aren't deceiving us and we're going to feed the world with this technology and blah blah. The fact that people are suspicious of these foods and companies despite the massive propaganda means something, somewhere, really stinks.

Yea, people vote for creationism in the classroom all the damn time, and the courts throw it out every. single. time. And that's where this argument is going to end up if the level of hysteria ever actually goes far enough to force through legislation. So then we're right back to burden of proof and evidence. There's a reason these rules for labeling GMOs aren't getting through legislation, and it has nothing to do with vague suspicions of conspiracy theories and money changing hands. It won't hold up in court. Period, end of statement, because if you want to force a company to place a label on their product that could potentially harm their sales, you'd better have DAMN good evidence for why it's necessary, and the anit GMO crowd doesn't have even a shred.

Bingo. The thing that stinks is the anti-science brigade's propaganda that is based in fear and not reality.

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.

A different perspective - not scary, but perverse. I don't think they will make me grow a third eye, or get massive tumours or something like that. But they present perverse incentives for damaging practices.

How perverse? Most GMOs (in economic terms) are modified so they can survive massive amounts of pesticides - specifically, Roundup, made by Monsanto.

So, increased production of GMOs resistant to pesticide increases the contaminant load in the environment AND reduces the biological diversity in the ecosystem. That is my main argument against them. The endgame is one single (sterile) type of corn, one single (sterile) varietal of wheat. All owned by a megacorp. That's not the problem. The problem is when that single strain gets devastated by a plague. See Gros Michel and Cavendish Banana problems.

In historical terms, its akin to monocultive systems: we exploit the land with a single crop until the nutrients required for that plant are depleted. Then we inject more nutrients, pesticides, etc. instead of improving our management systems. This is not an argument "ad natura", just my personal distaste towards waste and inefficient system. Using oil to produce fertilizers and pesticides is a waste of resources when good biodynamic practices can be used instead.

(for those in the person-criticizing book,I DO have a postgraduate degree in Environmental Science. And I'm willing to engage reasonable debate. This is far from a simple issue where you can simply disqualify the person and claim a "win")

That, I think, is a legitimate concern. My point continues to be that isn't a problem with GM, that is a problem with how some companies are using the technology. The backlash should be against the viewed misuse of the technology, not the technology itself.

That is what annoys me. People get upset with Monsanto's business practices but rather than going after Monsanto they want labels on things that say if GM was involved in their production. What? That is what I don't get. What does one have to do with the other.

GM is an incredibly useful tool and I think many people focus so much on this one use of it they remain completely blind to its many other uses.

Again. Insulin is fully a GM product. Most vaccines, also GM products. Being GM isn't the boogie-man here.

I think what is needed there is some sort of anti-monopoly enforcement on food that would prevent a particular company from monopolizing food itself which would be a horrible thing. I am against that of course, but that has nothing to do with GM. If it wasn't using GM it would be using some other approach or some other technique...GM isn't the bad guy here so I'd really appreciate it if people stopped referring to a particular aspect of Monsanto's business practices as being GMOs and acting like thats all that GMOs are.

I think the concerns you raise are genuine concerns, I think those genuine concerns are muddied by what appears to be the GMO witchhunt that most people seem to follow (not saying you do that personally).

I imagine QueenBish feels the same way given what her avatar says.

ETA: Yup, I hadn't seen her response until after I posted this.

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.

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.