GMO crops still making headlines.
Options
Replies
-
ldrosophila wrote: »poor italy hope theyll be able to keep up with their food supply when we hit 10 billion with climate change. guess time will tell
Depends if they're in Italy I guess. They have a declining birth rate I think.
It seems that Italy is not alone: 19 states out of 28 have submitted such request.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/eu-gmo-opt-out-idUKL6N0M01F6201510040 -
The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »ldrosophila wrote: »poor italy hope theyll be able to keep up with their food supply when we hit 10 billion with climate change. guess time will tell
Depends if they're in Italy I guess. They have a declining birth rate I think.
It seems that Italy is not alone: 19 states out of 28 have submitted such request.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/eu-gmo-opt-out-idUKL6N0M01F620151004
States <> Nations
"The 19 requests are from Austria, Belgium for the Wallonia region, Britain for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany (except for research), Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia."
So I make that 15 nations and 4 bits of 2 nations. Not that maize would be grown much in Scotland, Wales or NI in the first place.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »ldrosophila wrote: »poor italy hope theyll be able to keep up with their food supply when we hit 10 billion with climate change. guess time will tell
Depends if they're in Italy I guess. They have a declining birth rate I think.
It seems that Italy is not alone: 19 states out of 28 have submitted such request.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/eu-gmo-opt-out-idUKL6N0M01F620151004
States <> Nations
"The 19 requests are from Austria, Belgium for the Wallonia region, Britain for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany (except for research), Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia."
So I make that 15 nations and 4 bits of 2 nations. Not that maize would be grown much in Scotland, Wales or NI in the first place.
aside from the law terminology (EU refers to "member states" http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm), I still count 17 "nations" and 4 bits of 2 nations
0 -
yep, I count 17 too. I incorrectly subtracted 4 from 19.0
-
Whenever someone tells me about GMO foods and their ills, I ask them when was the last time they saw a pink pig in the wild, or a cow anywhere but a farm. What are cows, anyway? The progenitor of the cow, the Auroch (bos primigenus) has been extinct for half a millenia. All the animals we eat, other than game, are GMO, just using breeding as the manipulation technique.0
-
The EU member states banning GMOs is just plain old protectionism hiding behind phony health concerns. It's certainly not based on any credible science.0
-
dstromley90 wrote: »Poison. Monsanto pays congress off. Plenty of whistle blowers speaking out against the "studies" proving them safe. Why else would they pass laws forbidding gmo labeling
Project Non-GMO Verified exists. GMOs can be labeled all they want. What won't pass is laws that mandate labeling.
The reason why is because GMO labeling gives consumers no useful information in making a purchase, and leads to increased costs to the consumer.
Essentially GMO labeling laws involve upper middle class to rich people expecting poor people to pay more for food to satisfy their curiosity about the genes inside what they're eating, rather than they themselves paying the cost via purchasing things labeled Organic or Project Non-GMO Verified. Those seem pretty good reasons to avoid forcing a label on something harmless.
To add to the issue, why can Monsanto, with ~10 Billion in revenue pay off scientists and congress, but the major oil companies with about ~100 Billion in revenue each can't pay off the same about climate change? I mean, Monsanto's revenue isn't much bigger than Whole Foods.
To top it off, GMO is much more precise than mutation breeding where you bombard the product in question with atomic radiation hoping you get something useful without something harmful (which we've been doing for much longer than genetic engineering). If you start labeling things GMO, then you have to label mutation breeding, which is responsible for many of today's crops, including organic products. No one wants to label the organic food as "A product of Mutation Breeding", because it would look bad.
Even then, I don't support labeling mutation breeding, as it has been shown that there is more change in gene expression due to year-to-year climate variation than there was in creating the crop in the first place.0 -
By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do stuff like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do stuff like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.0 -
Or economics.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do *kitten* like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.
Or why, for that matter, the world "already produces more than enough food."
0 -
Um, where exactly did I say that at @auddii ?0
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Um, where exactly did I say that at @auddii ?
Oh good, then we can all admit that GMOs have been around for over 85 years not 21.0 -
Oh they have? Which GMO products were consumers eating in 1930?? I'm pretty sure the very first GMO food was a tomato in the 1990s0
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Oh they have? Which GMO products were consumers eating in 1930?? I'm pretty sure the very first GMO food was a tomato in the 1990s
Scientists have been irradiating food to induce mutations and then cross breeding the results since the 30s. Targeted gene alteration has come into existence much later; both produce the same results.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or economics.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do *kitten* like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.
Or why, for that matter, the world "already produces more than enough food."
Feel free to explain yourself. No need to just make a snarky comment. Let me guess, you seen a Facebook post that said the world needs GMOs to make enough food right?0 -
Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.0
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do stuff like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
No farmer drowns anything and stays in business.
Also, if you intend to eat no pesticides, are you only eating highly processed foods? Plants make their own pesticides all the time. Spicy peppers are one version humans can actually detect, but all plants make pesticides to some extent.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.
And not eating them is yours. If you want mandatory labeling, you're demanding other people subsidize your choice, particularly the poor. Labeling isn't free. For a family of 4, mid estimates are around $500 more per year in food costs.0 -
Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 971 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions