General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCore Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked
http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked/Later this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture may approve the Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden, the first genetically modified apples to hit the market. Although it will probably be another two years before the non-browning fruits appears in stores, at least one producer is already scrambling to label its apples GMO-free.
The looming apple campaign is just the latest salvo in the ongoing war over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—one that’s grown increasingly contentious. Over the past decade, the controversy surrounding GMOs has sparked worldwide riots and the vandalism of crops in Oregon, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Philippines. In May, the governor of Vermont signed a law that will likely make it the first U.S. state to require labels for genetically engineered ingredients; more than 50 nations already mandate them. Vermont State Senator David Zuckerman told Democracy Now!, “As consumers, we are guinea pigs, because we really don’t understand the ramifications.”
But the truth is, GMOs have been studied intensively, and they look a lot more prosaic than the hype contends. To make Arctic apples, biologists took genes from Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties, modified them to suppress the enzyme that causes browning, and reinserted them in the leaf tissue. It’s a lot more accurate than traditional methods, which involve breeders hand-pollinating blossoms in hopes of producing fruit with the desired trait. Biologists also introduce genes to make plants pest- and herbicide-resistant; those traits dominate the more than 430 million acres of GMO crops that have already been planted globally. Scientists are working on varieties that survive disease, drought, and flood.
So what, exactly, do consumers have to fear? To find out, Popular Science chose 10 of the most common claims about GMOs and interviewed nearly a dozen scientists. Their collective answer: not much at all.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I live a GMO free lifestyle by choice.
No GMO apple will ever be brought into my home.
It's principle.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)8 — Applies to genetically modified produce (GMOs)
9 — Applies to organic produce
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/produce.asp#Uw5SYO1AArFGKlf2.99
5 digits beginning in an 8 = GMO = NO SALE.
Second, enjoy eating poison.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Plenty of conservatives that are afraid of technology... Plenty of liberals who distrust science...
On this board alone, I see many attacking politicians because they support GMOs, and that somehow goes against being liberal...
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)I love real science, and love tech, but I am afraid of powerful people only concerned with wealth. I don't know if you have been paying attention for the last few thousand years, but money power addicted people have been the cause of just about everything evil. Scientist don't have control how corporations use their research, if they did we wouldn't have so much arsenic and toxic heavy metals in our food.
I believe it is more of a conservative belief to let the wealthy do what ever they want,although the DLC types do love their money.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)That's the problem with this argument. You say GMOs are safe, and everyone yells MONSANTO IS EVIL!
We, as humans, are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Monsanto has unsavory business practices, AND GMOs that are on the market are safe.
Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #187)
sammy27932003 This message was self-deleted by its author.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's the corporations behind the technology I don't trust.
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #9)
sammy27932003 This message was self-deleted by its author.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)That's a pretty good one.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)That system is not a required system. Yes, you may see 5 digit PLUs with an 8 that signifies GMO. You may also be buying GMO without said PLU system. Depends on what the store and distributor uses. This paragraph follows the one you posted.
"However, it is not the case (as suggested by the above example) that consumers can depend upon PLU codes to reliably distinguish between different forms of produce. For starters, the use of PLU codes is optional, so many produce items don't bear them. Additionally, PLU codes were developed for the benefit of suppliers and retailers to assist them in sorting and pricing produce, not to provide information to end
buyers. If GM-based food suppliers think consumers won't want to knowingly buy their genetically modified corn, for example, they can simply decline to tag it with PLU codes. Or, if retailers don't expect to price GM corn differently than conventionally grown corn, they can label the former with just four digits and omit the leading '8' that identifies it as a genetically modified product.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/produce.asp#3l5zjZ2Wjqpvr48W.99"
Also, science says it's not poison, but I'm going to assume you didn't read the article, nor ANY of the 770 publicly funded studies that have determined it NOT to be poison. Enjoy the FUD and woo!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I lead a GMO free lifestyle.
Enjoy your poison. I won't eat glyphosate, not to mention the pesticides.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It's water soluble. Washes away easily.
You think organic has no pesticides??
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It is abosred into the plant. You consume minute quantities with every mouthful.
91% of all apples will still ahve pesticides present if treated with chemical pesticides even after washing.
And yes, organic apples atre 100% chemical pesticide free. It cannot be labeled as organic other wise.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)There are pesticides used in organic farming. They're just not made in a lab. Nicotine is a big one used.
Just because it's "natural" doesn't make it safe.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Eat your synthetic herbicides and your synthetic pesticides that has been absorbed into your synthetic organisms fertilized with your synthetic plant food.
You're welcome to it.
And pray to your masters in the oil industry who provide all of the synthetics you claim to live on.
That's much less than life.
I choose a different life style.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Meanwhile, I'll enjoy living.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Surrounded by anti-vaxxers and climate change denialists.
Science is NOT on your side. But hey, if you like to stay ignorant of the facts and waste your money, far be it from me to stop you...
As I said before, enjoy your FUD and woo.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I am the anti-corporate farming camp.
Big difference.
HUGE!
You, on the other hand, support huge multi-national conglomerates, who can control political dialogue and claim religious beliefs, controlling the food supply.
Yeah, you are REALLY moral.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)and you are trying to reframe the argument to fit some sort of moral high ground that you believe you stand upon.
I am not supporting a corporation. I am supporting scientific study.
I could give TWO SHITS about Monsanto, Baer, Proctor & Gamble, et al... But I do care about facts. Something you seem devoid of.
You are supporting pseudo-science. Plain and simple. Take your FUD and woo somewhere else.
wisechoice
(180 posts)How to get a better yield with organics is good science. Using patented seeds and accepting whatever comes out of Monsanto is bad science.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)tell me you're wrong.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So you label opponents of your corporate masters "anti-science" when you knw damned well they aren't.
lexx21
(321 posts)From reading your replies I can almost picture you growing ass thorns as you type.
FACT: when it comes to things that you put into your body, it can take time to see the actual ramifications.
FACT: "Science" doesn't always get it right. Case in point... back in the late 1980's a drug was released and approved by the FDA for migraines. It was supposed to stop them for up to 5 years. A few years later it was found that the drug caused cerebral hemorrhages and was pulled from the market.
FACT: What the big agri companies are doing when they modify a seed are not as simple as hand pollination to get a new breed of produce. They have inserted animal genes among other things to get the seed to do what they want.
The bottom line is just chill out before you stroke out and eat what you want to. If eating GMO food makes you happy, rock on. If you decide to eat only organic foods, then do so.
WCLinolVir
(951 posts)Because the facts are that these corporations aren't promoting GMO for science. It is all about controlling the market. Have you noticed how they sue left and right? Maybe you should incorporate a larger fact finding into your support for GMO's and look at the actual corporate strategies that exist. That are proven to exist through a pattern of intimidation, abuse, high seed prices, and monopolies. And let's not forget their corporate lobbying to change the laws in their favor. So here are some facts you could care about if you weren't devoid of the larger picture. No please, take your pseudo comprehension and hand picked data elsewhere. It's not woo, it's poo.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of being 'anti-science' is the new talking point to attack those who want to know what they are eating?
It won't work, we are more and more aware of these tactics.
If GMOs are not harmful, then label them proudly. Why try to hide them if they are so benign?
I rarely agree with the other poster but on this we agree, no GMOs will be purchased in this family. We grow our own apples, cherries, pears etc all without pesticides or any other unnatural chemical. Nature, which is science at its best, is remarkable. Show me where science can grow a single apple without using the science that already exists.
When someone fights so hard to hide what they claim is 'safe', we can assume they have something to hide.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And being anti GMO is NOT a mostly liberal position.
No one is hiding ANYTHING with GMOs. Over 1,500 studies prove they're safe. 770 of those studies are independent, publicly funded studies. That is, 770 studies that had ZERO dollars from Monsanto or any other Big Agra company.
You, as a consumer, have ZERO RIGHT to know if the food you are eating is a GMO or not. You know why? ALL FOOD IS GMO! Maybe not done in a lab, but still genetically modified all you want.
Humans are a part of nature. Anything a human makes, therefore, would be natural. You are using buzzwords created by the "organic" industry (that's another one that pisses me off, if it's a living organism, it's fucking organic) to try and sell more stuff. Which is WHY the biggest players in the organic industry fight AGAINST GMO labeling. They want to keep their slice of the market.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I shall wait for your link since the last I knew no researcher could obtain GMO seeds without strings attached.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Humans are a part of nature. Anything a human makes, therefore, would be natural.
Sure, in the broadest brush possible. And you accuse others of 'using buzzwords'? You make words so meaningless there's no point in even trying to debate you.
lexx21
(321 posts)I have zero right to know what it is that I am purchasing and putting into my body? Are you insane?
wisechoice
(180 posts)"Humans are a part of nature. Anything a human makes, therefore, would be natural"
This is what right has been saying for years. Humans cause global warming. So is that part of nature? You are so anti science.
And you swiftboat us that we are anti science.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)read in a long time.
Anti science vs woo is so much bull shit!
People must do their research and make personal choices and either live with the results or make changes. The process goes on all our lives. Trying to bully people into accepting your life choices is disappointing to say the least!
alarimer
(16,245 posts)If you think you are not getting pesticides, think again.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You might want to check it out. Synthetic pesticides are forbidden.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but it is entirely up to the producer or store as to how they label it. If you were producing a GMO product, would you label it if you knew it would impact sales?
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)thanks for posting. 
Sid
Duppers
(28,125 posts)This atheist thinks Dr. Dawkins' website jockeys should stick to debunking religious mythology and superstitions because they most certainly haven't researched this subject enough.
Want to argue with MIT?
See: http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/players.html
And just why have the GMO players and Monsanto thrown so much money into defeating the labeling efforts in California ??
See: http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/08/22/monsanto-dupont-spending-millions-to-oppose-californias-gmo-labeling-law/
I'm very disappointed that Dr. Dawkins would lend his name to this rightwing propaganda.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)You know who else lobbies against GMO labeling bills? Whole Foods. Cascadian Farms. Many other "organic" and "natural" companies as well.
This GMO debate is NOT right vs left. It's science vs woo.
And there are 770 peer-reviewed, publicly funded projects that are all in favor of GMOs. That is, 770 articles that have NOT been tainted with Big Agra money. That MIT website you link to is part of a collection of controversial projects. None of which are presented in a scientific format, and look more like research papers turned into websites...
http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/projects.html
Also, pretty sure this falls under "debunking religious myth and superstitions"... You anti-GMO folk are just as deluded.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Promote science that finds ways to get better yields with safe organic farming. Don't let Monsanto hold monopoly with food and patented seeds and spraying poison on food. Left always care for safe science like green tech. Right supports corporate science.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Not so wise a choice, eh?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Researchers can't conduct any study unless they obtain seeds, and they can't obtain seeds except from the manufacturers, who can then make them sign confidentiality agreements and prevent them from publishing results. So the GMO producers can make sure that the only studies that see the light of day are the ones with results they approve.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward technology.”
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)So now you're claiming that 770 different independent researchers are part of a vast conspiracy with Monsanto to hide information about the safety of GMOs?
Sounds like something an anti-vaxxer or climate change denialist would say. Remember what camp you're a part of.
I'll stand with the WHO and American Association for the Advancement of Science. You can side with Mercola, Natural News, and Seralini.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 16, 2014, 04:23 PM - Edit history (2)
important -- may or may not be representative of all the studies that have been done, or could have been done, if the industry wasn't restricting the use of seeds in research, and claiming veto power over publishing of the results. It's not the number of studies that is important -- it's the quality, and the particular results. There could be ten favorable studies about a specific GMO and then one study that demonstrates a serious problem. That one study can be enough to overturn all the positive studies.
To give an example, there were many studies that once proved the safety of thalidomide, before it was placed on the market. Then babies began to turn up with horrible birth defects -- about 10,000 in Germany alone. Eventually, the drug was taken off the market. The scientists who had studied the drug were NOT involved in some conspiracy with the drug company. Their research hadn't been able to show the risk to human beings because the animal models didn't show any ill effects from the drug. All they would have needed, however, would have been one single study showing serious birth defects and this drug would never have gone to market. Unfortunately, human beings turned out to be the first species that showed this reaction to thalidomide. All the previous studies were outweighed by the informal post-market experimentation on millions of pregnant women. But one single study done on the right animal model could have stopped thalidomide from ever getting approved. This was an inadvertent error; not a conspiracy.
I am not an antivaxxer. I and my children are fully vaccinated. Since the government approved the safer DPT vaccine, we have even been able to get the vaccine that my pediatrician had earlier stopped with my children, after two of them had serious problems. Two years ago, I got the new adult form of the vaccine to help protect my (now fully vaccinated) baby granddaughter. (Even though my own sister had developed encephalitis and died the day after she received the original DPT vaccine.)
I am also not a climate change denialist. You throw around accusations like this because you don't have the facts on your side. So you resort to personal insults. No scientist would behave like that.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Rather than numbers of studies that count. Your comparison was also well thought through and written.
If I could recommend a post, would recommend yours.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Duppers
(28,125 posts)Your subject line is misleading and contradicts what I think. (Heh, I've two liberal Phd scientists in my immediate family who'd also think it laughable.)
I'm busy now but may return with more research links later.
roody
(10,849 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)People are so invested in the organic bullshit, that they ignore science.
ALL of your food has been modified from its original form. You would not recognize wild wheat or corn at all.
This particular strain of rice has been modified to combat Vitamin A deficiency, which leads to blindness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that independent scientists have been blocked from using seeds in their research and from publishing all their results.
Researchers can't conduct any study unless they obtain seeds, and they can't obtain seeds except from the manufacturers, who can then make them sign confidentiality agreements and prevent them from publishing results. So the GMO producers can make sure that the only studies that see the light of day are the ones with results they approve.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward technology.”
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)For those who cannot get vitamin A any other way, fine, eat the GMO rice.
I don't need it. I eat Kale, Red Peppers, Carrots, etc.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)But to the blind, undifferentiate acceptance of GMOs that put pesticides into our food supply via modifying plants to accept pesticides.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017202953
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)How come transparency and truth-in-labelling are so important in every other case but this?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And that stand is making the claims a bit suspicious in my mind.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Now you see the controversy.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The controversy is in the application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals. GMOs are the source of genetically modified foods and are also widely used in scientific research and to produce goods other than food. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism' defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology"
.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)How convenient.
A nectarine is a GMO and no matter how "organically" grown it is and no matter how much hippies chanted and danced as it grew, it must also in fairness be labelled as a GMO.
But I bet Big Organics and Big Kinda Sorta All Natural don't mean their products now do they?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)because it wasn't developed using genetic engineering techniques.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)If I use a small paintbrush it is not.
One tool is fine and dandy but the other was done by Satan himself.
Shouldn't small farmers cross pollinating crops by hand and selling them at the local market have to fairly label them as GMO; or do they get a pass simply because they wear tie dye and sandals rather than lab coats?
"Genetic Engineering Techniques" My tools and methods for getting DNA from A to B are legit. Yours are not and thus I want the government to force you to use a label that I don't have to use, so that I can unfairly put you out of business, after spending decades creating FUD around that very label.
That about sums it up.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Nothing is added that came from outside the genus.
So stop trying to muddy waters by attempting to redefine genetic modification. your attempts to redefine a well defined term are anti-science.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Genetic modification is the use of modern biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism.
If cross pollination was genetic modification, nothing could ever be labeled as certified organic.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Simple level biology.
The genotype and phenotype of something has changed it has been genetically modified.
If cross pollination was genetic modification, nothing could ever be labeled as certified organic.
Ding ding ding. You want YOUR favorite food with an altered phenotype and questionable growing method protected at the expense of others.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Genetic modification is the use of modern biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism.
Cross pollination is not a modern biotechnology technique and has, in fact, be used for millenina.
Stop attempting to redefine terms that have been well defined already.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Why is altering a genotype with a paint brush OK but using microscopic resin and a specially modified "gun" is not, if they both have the same outcome?
Actually the second method is better since you can actually control what happens.
If you spend decades getting a gene into an apple to make it more frost resistant and a scientist can get the same gene in it in a day why should they be penalized?
Why is theirs "Genetic Modification" but yours isn't?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Part of Speech: n
Definition: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
Usage: science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic+modification
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)it is not a good definition to exclude older methods in a forced labeling system designed to penalize one set of tools while exempting others.
Great for textbooks and scientific journals... shitty for government to use it unfairly.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Your agenda is showing.
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
Usage: science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic+modification
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Mo matter how real it is for you.
Yes it sets up unfair competition and helps the farmers you like. I understand that.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)and a blatant attempt to confuse the issue.
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
Usage: science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic+modification
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)nectarines and broccolini. Fortunately, the public isn't as dumb as you think they are.
If a company goes out of business because they produce GMO's, so be it. Other companies will rise in its place. But that's so much hysteria, because GMO's are so widespread in our processed foods that most consumers will simply ignore the label, just as they ignore current food labels. That doesn't mean, however, that we should do away with ingredient labeling. The people who want to avoid certain ingredients should be able to do so.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)It is indeed standard for the anti science crowd and it is the very problem with using it. You want a definition that protects the type of farmers YOU like and excludes others.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Genetic modification is the use of modern biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism.
You're the one making up a new definition for genetic modification out of whole cloth.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)The rest of shouldn't be forced to use it to please you. You have narrowed the concept of genetic modification to encompass only particular methods you don't understand and fear.
Lawmakers and hopefully courts, will listen to actual science and dismiss the bogus GMO term.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Stop making up definitions to suit your argument. You're falshoods have been debunked on multiple occasions.
So far, you haven't backed up anything with science.
Genetic engineering and genetic modification are synonymous terms.
Genetic modification did not exist until 1973.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Mankind has been genetically engineering food for millennium.
Scientists simply have a term that sets modern techniques into a particular group. You still can not answer why only modern methods should bear the label.
If modern methods should be called genetically modified how about if all hybrids have to be labeled as genetically altered? We can all be happy and it's fairer for everyone.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)When conditions require new terminology, new terms are invented.
You just cannot stop yourself from going around in circles.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That's why Genetically Modified Organism functions so well in public policy, it's so well defined.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)It is a bad term that sets one type of modifying plants as somehow bad as compared to another method of modifying plants.
Just because some methods are newer and better doesn't mean the government should be involved in forcing them to use a loaded label to appease the tin foil woo woo crowds.
I want to know if my food has been crossed in some weird experiment by a farmer. I demand that ever farmer at the local market label their plants as genetically altered organisms if they are not in their natural state.
I DEMAND IT DAMN IT
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It defines a new form of producing new organisms that could have come about via no other means than by what is described.
And the push for a GMO label only came about because Monsanto, Dow, and the others in the bioengineering business have lobbied AGAINST a USDA Certified GMO-Free labeling program.
Give us that and to hell with requiring companies to label their food GMO. It'll be easy to distinguish. Any food that does NOT have the Certified GMO-free labeling will contain GMOs. And the companies seeking the GMO-Free certification for labeling will bear all of the costs.
Are you on board for that?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You might learn something.
But probably not.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Because there is so much ignorance around the subject (as evidenced by this thread). People will be happy (and you KNOW it) if labeling is required because ignorant consumers will shy away from it.
Sadly, an unfortunate byproduct of this is we lose a GREAT tool that could help immensely in feeding the world's population. However, we live in a nice comfortable first world nation and finding food is a tiny problem (compared to the third world countries), so who cares?
Given the science behind this and the great benefit in feeding the poor, I really am at a loss for why so many liberals fight this cause.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The only production improvement for the majority of GMOs has been in the production of profits for companies producing herbicides.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Okay. Studies showing increased yields with fewer resources required are all lies. Good to know.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I see someone didn't even bother to read the original post. Good to know you are a know it all who ignores what is written in the opening post and just flies in to educate everyone on how you already have everything figured out.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)They are all for shutting down GMO foods that go into their bodies, but notice how they sign a different tune to GMO medicines they put into their bodies?
Add vitamin A to rice and it's the work of Satan. Point out that Insulin is from a GMO; oh that's different.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Avoid it until you require it is what the medical communities is advising us. Nobody goes and gets insulin without a need. Nobody takes antibiotics unless they need it. Do you know that most of the medicine is harmful and hence they have label listing the side effects. I don't see what your point is. We want to avoid GMO unless it is a necessity. So far it is creating more harm than good. Label it.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)That is the very FUD that the label nazis want to push.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and oppose labeling and transparency.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Because there are two groups of people and they are NOT Democrats and Republicans. There are those that relate it to corporations and those that relate it to science. Those that relate it to companies fall out along party affiliations. Those that relate it to science fall out into sane and crazy (same as anti-vaccers).
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)who happen to disagree with joeglow3.
PhD level, I mean. Also, two M.D.'s. None of them oppose GMO labeling. We all recognize that most processed foods in the US probably have GMO components but see no reason not to label them properly. The same companies that are squawking about labeling GMO's also squawked about allergen labeling for the decades that Ted Kennedy was trying to get his bill through Congress. All that hysteria and yet passing the bill didn't hurt the food companies a bit. Not a single one went out of business because they had to label their allergens. Imagine that.
If nothing else, proper labeling is necessary for epidemiological studies after the release of products onto the market. You anti-labeling, anti-transparency people never seem to think about that.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Golden Rice will do just the opposite and help keep people healthy. But certain people are interested in tearing it down because they do not understand and thus fear the science behind it.
wisechoice
(180 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)have succeeded in restricting the research that's done and approving only the publication of favorable research.
And, since any GMO food is now considered safe by the FDA, unless proven otherwise (which can't be done unless approved by the producers), that means that allergenic elements from one species can be introduced into another -- and this wouldn't show up in any labeling.
It was proven long ago that allergens can be transferred through genetic engineering from one species to another.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
CONCLUSIONS
The 2S albumin is probably a major Brazil-nut allergen, and the transgenic soybeans analyzed in this study contain this protein. Our study shows that an allergen from a food known to be allergenic can be transferred into another food by genetic engineering.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You certainly appear to be moving the goalposts both quickly and deftly with each response you receive...
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)or they don't think their product will benefit from labeling.
The food manufacturers fought basic ingredient labeling tooth and nail for decades. Has it put any of them out of business? No.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)use alpha amylase? How was it derived?
If you own a small coffee house and re-sell custard filled pastries from a local bakery that purchases the custard from a food distributor that bought it from a manufacturer that used rennet to set the custard and that rennet was manufactured by yet another company with GMO products; must those pastries be labelled as GMO?
If the cheese was made using rennet or chymosin cultured from bacteria should those sandwiches be labelled?
Every food item on the shelves of a supermarket would have to bear the GMO label.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that it would be very widespread. So I don't understand the manufacturers' hysteria about labeling it. They didn't suffer when they had to comply with ingredient labels -- though they fought Ted Kennedy on that tooth and nail, for decades. And they won't suffer from this.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That's what freaks them out. The public actually finding out how much food has these products as ingredients.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)would be more expensive. But those who chose to buy non-GMO foods would have that option.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Shouldn't my insulin have the same label?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Mercola and Doctor Oz said so
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)That insulin is injected directly into my body.
Why only food?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Other labeling will be handled by the pharmacist.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'm pretty sure they could put a label on it before it ever gets to you. And it obviously wouldn't change your use of it, so why would you even care if it had a label?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Spent a decade working for Big Pharma (oh my God I can hear you gasping now), and am now a Nurse.
I wouldn't fear the insulin, but yes I can just picture explaining to all the patients that is OK and they should ignore the link to some silly conspiracy website their idiot cousin sent them on Facebook.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'm willing to be the percentage of people who would even notice or care would be tiny.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)why some groups should be forced to use a a particular label that implies that their food is unsafe simply because of a certain set of methods used to make it.
GMO is a loaded term that does nothing but make people reflexively assume that something is bad.
This is a push to force certain groups to unfairly say that their product is bad and unsafe when they are not.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You obviously don't see GM as 'unsafe', so it doesn't imply it to you. Yet you choose to assume that the implication is 'unsafe', when it's been shown that many people have many different reasons for which they prefer not to use GM, and not all of even those in opposition do so for 'safety'.
It is what it is, and labeling it does not say 'bad or unsafe', any more than labeling things like carrageenan in ice cream does.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That's it exactly. Almost every processed 'food' item on American shelves would end up with the 'contains GMO' label. The pressure to develop non-GMO products would be enormous, and a lot of people who have invested a lot of money in GMO would lose a lot of money. That is the heart and soul of anti-labeling opposition.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)The ones made with tools that scare you, or all of them?
Shouldn't any organism with an altered genotype and/or phenotype be labeled? Do we just label the altered ones using methods that the general public does not understand and views as scary? And since the O in GMO stands for Organism why don't we also terrify diabetics and other people who take medicines derived from GMOs?
Why should we just put certain farmers out of business and not everybody?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Claiming hybridization is genetic modification has been demonstrated to be a falsehood on numerous occasions in this thread.
REpeating a falsehood multiple times doesn't make it any less false.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)YOUR definition is wrong.
When you cross a peach with a plum has the genotype and phenotype changed?
Your view of what is genetically "genetically modified" is bullshit and should be rejected. People should not have to label anything with such a silly and narrow definition. It is pure bullshit.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Part of Speech: n
Definition: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
Usage: science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic+modification
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)but shitty for an imposed legal system.
It is as I have been saying. Why are your tolls and methods OK but not others.
Why should one farmer be punished for a fruit that has one method of changing it's phenotype and another farmer shouldn't just because you and other's don't understand the tool?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Predictable you are.
And who is being punished? NOBODY!
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)because the "I don't understand genetics" crowd wants to put one set of goal posts on the ten yard line but put theirs outside the stadium, behind a brick wall.
Those goal posts need to be moved.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So keep on moving those goal posts to fit with you unscientific definitions and lack of understanding.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Only thing I can do.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)IF you consider hybridization techniques to be genetic modification, you have already demonstrated your lack of knowledge about genetics.
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
Usage: science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic+modification
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)The resulting organism's DNA is modified from what it originally was. That's the FUCKING DEFINITION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM.
Quit moving the goal posts to fit YOUR anti-science position.
As for your last sentence, that fits EXACTLY the shit you're spewing.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Part of Speech: n
Definition: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
Usage: science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic+modification
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)"any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions"
Sounds like a Tangelo to me...
Also, this from your link: "denoting or derived from an organism whose DNA has been altered for the purpose of improvement or correction of defects"
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So where do you splice the genes when you cross breed?
How does recombinant DNA come into play when you use a paintbrush to move pollen from one breed of tomato to another?
How are you performing genetic engineering when you are dependent upon standard propogation methodologies to produce your hybrid?
You do realize the terms "genetic modification" and "genetic engineering" were invented in 1973 to define the methodologies utilized to produce a better means of insulin production, don't you?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)No, it is not. It's DNA has been modified. Is GMO food organic? Yes. It is (or was) a living organism. Organic is a scientific term that's been in use longer than the woo-peddling "natural food" crazies have been using it.
You are running in circles to deny PEER-REVIEWED science.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Hybridization requires two organisms of at least the same genus. The DNA is not changed. Nothing new from outside the genus is introduced. The DNA has not been modified, it' merely been rearranged between two organisms of the same genus, or in the vast majority of hybridizations the same species.
Your tangerine argument is further debunked by the fact that taxinomically the tangerine is now being classified as a subspecies of Citrus oculata. Since it is capable of sexual reproduction, it should not have been capable of being bred from two different species.
Even mules, which are the result of the species, Equus asinus, being crossed with the species, Equus caballus, are not considered to be genetically modified organisms and any paper submitted to any peer reviewed scientific journal that attempted to classify mules as a GMO would be rejected out of hand for failing to follow standard scientific definitions.
Organic has a very well defined set of criteria. GMO is strictly prohibited from ever being labeled certified organic. For further information visit the USDA's web site.
You're the one running around in circles to deny peer reviewed science.
Hybdridization is not genetic modification and any peer reviewed journal would reject any paper that attempted to equate the two.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Organic means a living organism. People are organic. Trees are organic. GMO corn is organic.
And I said TANGELO (orange/tangerine hybrid), not tangerine. Once again, reading comprehension. You're really bad at that.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)organic.
What's your point?
Tangelos are not genetically modified organisms. Any paper submitted to any peer reviewed scientific journal that attempted to classify a tangelo as a GMO would be rejected out of hand for failing to adhere to standard scientific definitions.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Oh yeah, you don't want to use standard scientific definitions.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There is a rigorous process to obtain Certified Organic status.
One piece, it must contain no GMOs.
For further information, please visit the USDA web site.
wisechoice
(180 posts)You cannot eat poison. GMO corn is a living organism.
What is your point fighting with meaning of words. We all know what we are talking. Unless you are trying to muddy the arguments. You don't like to define the GMO food? is that what you are fighting for?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)and why do we have to stop at genus to consider crossing genes to be OK? Why not go up to family if science can do it and it betters the organism?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)In many cases it goes outside the Kingdom.
Genus is where hybridization stops. You cannot hybridize outside the genus.
Now, admittedly you could genetically modify within the same species even, but that would be a waste of time and effort when the same desired traits can be achieved through a simple breeding program and such a breeding program would still be necessary to produce your desired result even in genetic modification.
To try and keep it simple, when you insert genetic material into a cell of an organism, you have achieved genetic modification, however, you do not yet have a genetically modified organism.
You see, you can produce a hybrid organism without genetic modification but you cannot produce a genetically modified organism without having fixed the desired genetically modified allele in offspring usually via a hybridization program.
A hybrid has not been genetically modified but a genetically modified organism is typically hybridized after the modification.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)but it is not a genetically modified organism?
And you said I argued in circles?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It never has.
It never will.
Again, you are attempting to redefine terms to suit your argument and you have failed to do so on every attempt.
Stop being dishonest.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The bulk of my courses were in various disciplines of Chemistry (Organic Chemistry, Qualititative Analysis, Quantitative Analyis, etc.), Physics, Calculus, and Engineering (Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, etc.) as I was a Chemical Engineering major.
Took 5 1/2 years to obtain my bachelors degree. The biochemistry minor was a bit of a distraction (I thought I'd be getting a leg up on competition as this was the early 80s) and engineering degrees are typically five year programs.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I choose a GMO free lifestyle for purely principled reasons.
wisechoice
(180 posts)However, because the Cry9C protein lingers in the digestive system before breaking down, the EPA had concerns about its allergenicity, and PGS did not provide sufficient data to prove that Cry9C was not allergenic.[5]:3 As a result PGS split its application into separate permits for use in food and use in animal feed only.[3][6] StarLink was approved by the EPA for use in animal feed only in May 1998. After the incident the company at first tried to get the application for human consumption approved, and then withdrew the product entirely from the market.[4]:15
On October 26, 2000 StarLink corn was reported to be found in Japan and South Korea.[4]:20–21 The market and distribution network for corn in the US was thrown into disarray through 2001, as there were no existing means to segregate the grain;[23][24] the disarray eventually eased due to the Aventis' testing and buyback program discussed below.[25]
In August 2013, StarLink corn was reported to be found again contaminating some foods in Saudi Arabia.[47]
It is very difficult to recall a crop. It gets cross pollinated and spreads.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Sorry. It just is. Deliberate hybridization to obtain desirable characteristics is genetic modification in the identical sense that the term is used throughout this thread.
--Mike C.
Professor of Zoology.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)(Science: molecular biology) Spliced dNA formed from two or more different sources that have been cleaved by restriction enzymes and joined by ligases. Genetically engineered dna made by recombining fragments of dna from different organisms.The joining together of genetic material from two different organisms.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Recombinant_dna
Hybridzation is NOT recombination of DNA.
On Edit: I m not inferring there is anything sinister or evil about the processes that are utilized to produce rDNA. In fact, the benefits have been enormous. The term was coined back when genetically modified organism were produced in order to provide a better means of providing insulin, a HUGE benefit to mankind.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)That you guys keep bringing this bullcrap into each of these threads is so incredibly disingenuous and completely insulting. Using your definition, humans haven't had GMO free food since the very first hints of farming 15,000 years ago. Oh, hell, even before that because we had an influence on our environment and we influenced the genome of plants even before we figured out farming. LOL, WTFever. Continue with your holier than thou definitions because the rest of us are clearly too stupid to know the difference between a fish gene in a corn cob and crossing 2 tomato plants together to get a bigger/smaller/redder/firmer/etc tomato. Stop treating us like we are stupid anti-science hicks. JFC.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Seeing as how they redefine terms that science has already defined, the charge of them being anti-science follows logically.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Because I'm not 'scared', or motivated by fear.
As to your final question, because we believe in the 'free market'. Which depends upon people having the information to make choices as to the value of the transactions into which they enter. No one would have to go 'out of business', they'd just have to adapt to follow the demands of the marketplace.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)The GMO labeling is neither.
The government forcing certain people to put a ill defined and misleading, as well as loaded label on their product while exempting others is not even remotely "free market"
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It simply is. I'm sure the fracking concerns consider it 'unfair' to be forced to reveal what they pump into the ground, which is why they bought enough politicians to allow them to keep such information 'proprietary'.
If you're a business or government, and you want to hide information from people, there's only one reason - self-interest. You're not doing it out of any sense of altruism. You're doing it because you're afraid that it will either hurt your bottom line or let people know you're up to something they won't approve of - for whatever reason. Proclaiming that the only 'acceptable' reason anyone could have for not wanting to us GM products is 'safety' is to place a burden on consumers that is not present in any other transaction in which they engage.
We're free not to buy things based on colour, taste, country of origin, whether or not they meet religious restrictions, philosophical values, or many other criteria. But a large segment of the population also wants to know whether the food they eat is GM. Maybe because, as you think, they're 'scared', but maybe because they simply don't care for the Monsanto corporation, and wish to push the market towards not using their products. Fighting labeling is just protectionism for corporate America.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Fair as meaning legitimate and reasonable.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)They should have the label as well.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)The tools and methods are different but a whole segment of anti science people don't understand the tools or technology involved in one method and so they want to punish people who make it.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Part of Speech: n
Definition: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology
Usage: science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic+modification
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)spreading bullshit to people.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Both base themselves on fictions, after all.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Progressives supposedly support transparency. Everyone except for the industry shills.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Controversy has been created around GMOs thanks to bullshit studies like Seralini's, and the buzzwords created by the "natural food" industry (not to mention all the woo peddlers). Labeling GMO could likely cause quite a few companies and farms to go out of business. Keeping in mind that this won't hurt Monsanto's bottom line as much as it would farmers who grow the crops. The public has a tendency to do things that are NOT in their interest (ie, voting Republican) based on false information.
You want to buy organic? They have a label for that. Have at it.
But let's be honest... ALL food is GMO in one way or another. Whether it was modified in a lab, or cross-bred/hybridized/selective mutated over centuries, then end result is the same: different genetic code.
Wild bananas are not edible. Wild corn is but a weed. Wild cattle are NOTHING like beef cattle.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)by people against any kind of labeling. If some small farmers go out of business because of GMO labeling, too bad. Others will thrive. That's the way it works in a free market system.
The GMO producers are fighting to be able to label their products as natural and organic. Under your plan, if the GMO producers succeed, those labels would be useless to the consumer.
There is nothing natural about cross-species hybridization of DNA. It was wrong in 1992 that the Reagan FDA declared that henceforth, all GMO products -- whatever the particular GMO involved -- would be considered safe, and those who alleged a problem would have to prove it -- while at the same time allowing the producers to restrict and veto further research.
If GMO products are to be marketed, the producers should freely allow research; and they should cooperate with labeling. If their products are safe, neither condition will pose a problem.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That is not true.
Organic food CANNOT be GMO. I is the only way to be certified Organic.
Nearly all processed food contains GMO ingredients, unless it is certified organic.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We mixed pollen and stamen until we got the plant we wanted. That modified the genes of the resulting plants - they weren't natural anymore. We're not talking natural selection here. We're talking about picking the relevant bits off a plant, mixing them in a lab and then seeing what comes out.
The fact that it was done long ago, and thus you aren't scared of it, does not change that the wild plant's genes were modified.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)We see something similar in the fine-print dislaimers in ads for "health supplements." Why are these concealed so carefully if there's nothing to hide?
One obvious reason why companies would resist GMO labeling is because fear and ignorance are more often powerful motivators than reason and knowledge. Thanks to an ongoing campaign to identify all GMOs as dangerous, anything that carries such a label is likely to be perceived as bad or unhealthy, even if it's perfectly safe. Why would any company want to hobble its products with the burden of public paranoia?
Interesting.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Since corn and soy are used in so many processed foods, and GMO's are so common in these crops, the GMO label would be widespread, and most people would buy these products simply because they were cheaper.
But the label would allow some people to avoid the items, if they chose; and it would be the only way a post market study could ever be conducted. How could we know if widespread ill effects had ever developed from a particular product if it was never labeled?
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Even many "organic" foods have been gene-modified through decades or centuries of selective breeding. Should these be labelled as well?
GM didn't slap a label on its cars announcing "faulty ignition switch may shut off engine," but somehow we were able to track this down once it became a widespread issue. After decades of intensive study, it seems unlikely that a completely unknown health hazard will pop up suddenly with no way to trace its origin.
To date there is minimal evidence that GMOs cause health problems, and a very large amount of evidence showing that they're safe. Why foster paranoia?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 16, 2014, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)
genetic engineers.
It isn't about fostering paranoia, it's about fostering transparency and truth-in-labeling.
Without labeling, it's impossible to trace GMO products once they're on the market. When there is a problem with contaminated beef, for example, people know if they have eaten beef. If there is a problem with GMO soy, people can't even know if they've eaten it or not.
GM's faulty ignition switches aren't hidden in their products, as GMO's are. And every car has an ignition switch. And yet it took more than a decade and millions of cars before that issue was tracked down. So that analogy fails on multiple levels.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Does every organic product on the shelf have a label that says "grown with cow shit?" Why shouldn't this be stamped on every organic product? What's the harm in transparency?
To date, no health problem has been demonstrably linked to GMOs, despite decades of luddite fear-mongering. You are proposing that GMOs be emblazoned with a scarlet letter for no real reason beyond the aesthetics of the consumer.
In the absence of any evidence of harm from GMOs, I still don't see why companies should be required to tag their products in a way that might foster undue paranoia. Why not also make them reveal that one of their drivers was once arrested for vandalism and an accounting supervisor is undergoing chemo? Statistically, these factors pose about as much of a health risk as GMOs, so why not force them to disclose it?
For that matter, why not simply encourage non-GMO products to advertise as such? That would accomplish the same thing and could actually be used as a selling point among consumers who've only read the fear-mongering.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)They have a long history of being forced to. GM didn't want to spend a couple bucks a car to save lives. That's why they let the problem continue so long.
I will repeat: genetic engineering techniques used by genetic engineers. No genetic engineer would say this includes nectarines.
And it's fine by me if labels say organic foods were grown in manure.
And I'm not saying we need a "beware of GMO" warning label. Simply a "contains GMO" label. Without such a label, we would never be able to detect that GMO soy was causing a problem in the general population, much less warn about it.
Why is it necessary for you to twist everything I say? That is the mark of having a weak argument of your own.
Finally, you ask: "For that matter, why not simply encourage non-GMO products to advertise as such? " Apparently you are unaware that the GMO producers are also fighting that. They want to ban other producers from labeling their foods as non-GMO. And they want the government to allow them to label their products as "natural" and "organic." They are doing everything they can to blur the lines between their products and non- GMO products.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)No difference has been demonstrated between GMO and non-GMO foods. You call for transparency. Identifying "soy" as an ingredient is transparency.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)who wanted to advertise that their cow's milk was free of a GMO?
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Most of the milk debate I've followed has been BGH-related, without getting into the GMO aspect. Milk in my area is clearly labelled BGH-free when appropriate.
Again, if companies are trying to restrict other companies from factual self-labelling, then I agree that this is incorrect.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The companies not only refused to label their own products. They tried to bar organic milk producers from labeling their milk as "rBGH free."
And they lost that particular battle, so they've moved on to other anti-labeling battles.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/10/court-rules-ohio-ban-on-hormone-labeling-unconstitutional/#.U8cIiBa4llI
After more than two years of litigation, a federal court last week struck down an Ohio ban on labeling dairy products as “rbGH free,” “rbST free,” or “artificial hormone free” if produced by cows not treated with bovine growth hormone.
In what could prove to be a landmark case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ohio’s absolute ban on hormone-free claims violated dairy processors’ First Amendment rights and was “more extensive than necessary to serve the state’s interest in preventing consumer deception.”
Perhaps more notable, the court also ruled that rbST-treated milk is compositionally different, disagreeing with both the lower court’s ruling and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s finding that there is no significant difference between milk produced by cows treated with rbST and by those without.
As NPR reported Friday, the court cites three reasons milk produced by rbST-treated cows is different: Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, a period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation, and increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk). The court further noted that higher somatic cell counts indicate milk is poor quality and will turn sour more quickly.
roody
(10,849 posts)more visible this week. What is Monsanto scared of?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)want any more states to pass labeling laws in New England.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's pretty disturbing to anyone who cares about evidence as a basis for legislation.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)so your first sentence is proved false.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Sorry to break it to you, but selective breeding for desired characteristics has been going on longer than recorded history, for "organic" food and otherwise.
It's fashionable to distinguish "old school" modification from modern methods, but that's largely an aesthetic distinction and, in any case, there's still no evidence of harm from GMOs.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Selective breeding.
I hate to break it to you, but selective breeding does not fall into the definition of genetic modification as defined by genetic engineers.
I know the corporate big agra lobby attempts to change that definition all the time, but it's too late. Genetic modification is well defined and does not include selective breeding.
Try again.
Oh, and if you want to understand ORganic Agriculture, you may want to check out the USDA which runs the program for organic certification. I know the corporate big agra lobby is also attempting to redefine organic and muddy those waters also, but so far they haven't been successful:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=organic-agriculture.html
Orrex
(63,213 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)OR, since you appear to be lazy (redefining terms to suit your agenda etc.), here are a few simple guidelines:
Organic crops. The USDA organic seal verifies that irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms were not used.
Organic livestock. The USDA organic seal verifies that producers met animal health and welfare standards, did not use antibiotics or growth hormones, used 100% organic feed, and provided animals with access to the outdoors.
Organic multi-ingredient foods. The USDA organic seal verifies that the product has 95% or more certified organic content. If the label claims that it was made with specified organic ingredients, you can be sure that those specific ingredients are certified organic.
Right there in the basic definition from the USDA to be certified organic. NO GMOs can EVER be labeled certified organic.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)I know from long experience that truebelievers like you will stomp around and insist that you're being reasonable and that everyone else is a tool of big agra or a closet republican or something similar, and in the end there's simply no way to convince you that you're unwilling to address the subject objectively.
What, exactly, could convince you that GMOs are safe?
The same scientists to whom you defer for definitions of "GMO" are the ones who recognize (and have demonstrated) that there is no greater risk from GMO foods versus non-GMO foods.
You can get your socks in a knot about the perceived glories of so-called organic food, but I don't really care. Organic foods provide minimal demonstrable benefit over non-organic foods, except perhaps that they cost more.
Your as-needed evocation of science is embarrassing and driven solely by the demands of moment-by-moment convenience. So fume and rant to your organic heart's content. I don't give a shit.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I don't demand a ban on GMOs.
I don't care if you consume GMOs.
I choose not to for very good reasons. The biggest reason is, big agra owning the patents on food is too much power for a small group of corporate interests.
Furthermore, you do not know if there are ANY health risks related to GMO, and neither do I. I am willing to admit the probability of health risks for most GMO food is most likely extremely low to the point of almost non-existent (biggest risks I see are potential unforeseen allergy related reactions). That is not the point. Since big agra controls the seeds needed to perform proper studies into potential long term effects from GMO food and the only way to obtain those seeds is from the big agra producers, there has to date never been a single completely independent study because to obtain those seeds you must agree that big agra has veto power over publishing any results.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
What are they afraid somebody will discover in a legitimate independent study where big agra does not have veto power over any publication of results?
Next, big agra has been lobbying to remove the restriction on GMOs from the defining characteristics of certified organic foods. Right now, those of us who choose NOT to consume GMO food have a single recourse and that is to only purchase organic foods, and big agra is attempting to take that away from us. That stinks to high heaven.
And finally, the outright lies from big agra (ooooh, we've been eating GMO for thousands of years because SELECTIVE BREEDING!!!) and the resistance to labeling. Really, putting GMO in front of corn on the label is going to cost so much more? IT WON'T. All it will do is make it easier for people to choose not to consume GMO food.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)If it can be demonstrated that there is a compelling reason to identify GMO foods as such, then let us proceed with regulation to do so.
Consumer squeamishness, driven by science-ignorance and the internet rumor-mill, is not a compelling reason. Paranoid innuendo about the dark machinations of "big agra" are not a compelling reason. Do you have something substantive to offer?
I didn't think so.
And now that you've resorted to accusing me of being part of big agra while scolding me for employing ad hominems, I can officially ignore you as a hypocritical crank with nothing to contribute to the discussion.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
Really?
I mean, REALLY?
I assumed nothing. If a group of corporations are going to demonstrate suspicious behavior, I am well within my rights to be suspicious of them. All of the big agra companies producing GMOs are demonstrating that suspicious behavior. I am therefore suspicious of their motivations.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Attacking a person (or corporation) to undermine the argument is an ad hominem.
Attacking a person (by association) to undermine the argument is an ad hominem.
Care to try again?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Are you saying Big Agra is participating in this discussion on DU?
The only arguments I am seeing in this are from registered DUers and I have not attacked any of them personally, though multiple ad hominems have been flung at me.
The OP made some arguments. I attacked those, not the OP.
You've made some arguments. I've attacked your arguments but not you, though I cannot say that you reciprocated that behavior(call me a luddite? REALLY?). IT appeared you were being lazy when you demanded I define Organic, I provided a link, and you failed to go to the link, then demanded again that I define Organic. So I provided the link again and even copied a section for the highlights of the definition of Organic, though it is far more complex than those highlights and you should really read about the rigorous process it takes to be certified organic to truly understand the definition of the term.
So how can I be flinging an ad hominem at Big Agra when Big Agra is not even participating and making arguments here? I've attacked their arguments they've used against labeling and for including GMOs in the definition of Organic foods. I've stated my reasons for holding suspicion against Big Agra's motivations in many of their actions due to their suspicious behavior.
But nowhere have I flung an ad hominem.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)It's hardly necessary that "big agra" participate @ DU in order for you to be guilty of ad hominem attacks. That's a silly objection based on nothing more than internet logic.
You have attacked the studies sponsored by "big agra" because you have decided that "big agra" is pursuing its agenda. Your suspicions may be sincerely held, but they aren't refutations. Rather than demonstrating that the findings of those studies are incorrect, you impugn their credibitility by implying that "big agra" is dishonest and must therefore be tainting the studies. That's attacking the person, and it's an ad hominem.
You have attacked me as an apologist for "big agra" (by reiterating my position while attributing it to "big agra" . Rather than addressing my argument, you seek to undermine the argument by implying an unsavory assocation between me and "big agra." That's attacking the person, and it's an ad hominem.
Please, stop making things up.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Forgive me, but I am not swayed by the might of your opinion.
Now I have to decide if you're worth putting on Ignore or if I should simply ignore you.
roody
(10,849 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Dow and Monsanto both introduced GMO sweet corn a couple years ago.
They FLOPPED because the farmers wouldn't grow it. The only GMO sweet corn in production today is mostly ending up in frozen corn.
RadicalGeek
(344 posts)Is that most of the GMO opponents I have met don't want them out and out banned, they just want consumers to know if the food they're eating is GMO or not.
Alas, Monsanto, ADM, etc have manged to manipulate some of the left it would seem.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)how some who purport to be on the left defend giant multinational corporations so vehemently. Must take a lot of cognitive dissonance, that.
RadicalGeek
(344 posts)<EOM>
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)or you can die of starvation. Trust us. 
What? You though you had a choice?
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Really, that shouldn't be asking too much.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)posted about organic food. You do know that your twisty rhetoric does not change even one mind, right?
And don't equate natural crossbreeding with inserting genetic changes in a lab. You just seem silly at best.
Also, conflating people who do not want GMOs with all other "conspiracy theories" is really pathetic.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It happens in every one of these GMO propaganda threads.
And I've noticed a huge tendency to post the same article every day for weeks on end, make the same lame ass arguments that "humans have been consuming genetically modified food for thousands of years because SELECTIVE BREEDING!" try to muddy the waters on Organic food, which the USDA has defined very precisely, and overall spread the same BS that Big Agra has for the past two decades.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)So now if you are anti-GMO your are in support of pseudoscience and should be marginalized, ridiculed and shunned.
djean111
(14,255 posts)I just consider the source.
Proud to be marginalized, ridiculed and shunned by those people - makes me feel I must be doing something right.
Sort of like it must feel to be told Dick Cheney is making fun of you - yesssssss!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If you can't be like they are and live a lifestyle like theirs, you must be icky.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)What a cheap and self-serving assertion for you to make.
And how unsurprising.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)IF those of us who choose a GMO free lifestyle are to be compared to anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers it's completely fair to compare those who denigrate us for our lifestyle choices to the anti-gay lobby.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Can you not see that that's grossly offensive?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)We are making choices, not declaring anything about science, no matter how much you declare otherwise.
Edited to add: Look at my posts above. I freely admit, there is most likely so little potential for health risk from the majority of GMOs as to be nearly non-existent. Risk from residual herbicides on most GMO corn and soy? ABSOLUTELY. You'll never wash it all away and we still don't have any idea of long term risks associated with consistent consumption of small quantities of glyphosate over two or three decades. I have no doubt that there may be an increased risk of liver and kidney damage from long term consumption of small quantities of the herbicide, but to date we have no legitimate studies of those potential long term effects, and that is really a side issue from the GMOs themselves.
My choice is really a lifestyle choice, much like I choose not to consume Chik-fil-a food, or Eden Organic food (was a long time customer but recently wrote them off), I also choose not to consume GMO food.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)You are ignoring the well-established science that shows no meangiful difference between GMO and non-GMO food. You are denying science while claiming to be basing your views upon science. Make whatever fucked up choices you care to make, but don't require others to enable your choices unless you can come up with a solid justification for it.
Yet somehow you see fit to equate an online disagreement with decades of real-world, society-wide persecution?
That's disgusting.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You are the one using some weird form of psychic power to determine the why behind my lifestyle choice.
And yes, so long as I am compared to anti-vaxxers, I will consider those who are opposed to my lifestyle choices as no better than the anti-gay lobby.
Edited to add: I did give you a clue as to my motivations for my lifestyle choice by giving you examples of other foods I choose not to consume, but you conveniently ignored that.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Until then, we really ahve nothing more to say to one another.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)You might be, but I haven't called you that.
I have called you a narcissist, and I have called you out for your ad hominem attacks. I've also called you anti-science, because your "reasoning" depends on an on-demand embrace of science, rejecting it when inconvenient. That's anti-science.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I am not anti-science.
The only anti-science arguments I've seen made here have been made by you and others in support of cramming GMO down the throats of people who choose not to consume GMO food.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)You rely on science when it suits you and reject it when inconvenient. That's inherently anti-science. I accept science even when its findings do not flatter my worldview.
Your likening of GMO labelling to decades of persecution is preposterous, and rather than recanting this sick assertion you doubled down.
You are in no position to lecture anypne pn anything.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You simply don't accept my choice to live a GMO free liffestyle for reasons other than science.
I also notice the pro-GMO people tend to ignore the verifiable harmful effects of GMO crops. Scientifically proven ill effects from growing Roundup Ready corn are out there, but get ignored.
And no, I'm not talking about some flawed study into liver damage.
I'm talking about the fact that growing Roundup Ready crops has resulted in heavy usage of glyphosate, resulting in an unintentional selective breeding program for weeds that are glyphosate resistant.
OOPS, time for Monsanto to develop the next herbicide/gene combination to breed an entirely new line of toxin resistant weeds
Fascinating how an organism created in a lab can result in unintentional consequences in the field.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Since I'm now dealing with at least three different anti-GMO posters repeating the same points, you'll forgive me if I become more selective in my replies henceforth.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)And the bioengineering industry can avoid a fight for mandatory GMO labeling if they would simply stop lobbying the USDA to keep the certified GMO-free labeling program from being instituted because a certified GMO-free labeling program would still have the same desired effect.
No goalpost moving by me.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You didn't, because it didn't matter, and it still doesn't matter. It gives you no actual information.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)It is simple. I want the option to chose.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)What you don't have is the right to compel a company to identify the GMO components of its products in the absence of a compelling reason to do so.
Your convenience is not a compelling reason.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)If you choose to eat conventional AG and GMO, that's fine. I choose not to.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Or the name of the mechanic whp repaired the combine that harvested ot? Do you have the right to dand that these be indicated on labels on the food you buy?
They're as relevant to the food's safety.as whether or not the food contains GMO.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You just want meaningless information to keep you entertained.
Sheesh.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Nor do I understand why anyone be so upset at being required to post information they think is meaningless. My guess is that they don't want to provide such information because it may not be meaningless. The consumer should be the one to decide how relevant the information is basd upon their own research.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Labeling all the ingredients of food stuff was going to destroy the grocery industry for no compelling reason whatsoever according to those who were opposed to ingredient labeling.
All anybody is really asking for is honest ingredient labeling.
And really, the producers it would help are those who produce foods without GMOs that cannot achieve the high standards of the certified organic labeling today. Really, your only option to insure you do not consume GMO food is to insure you only eat certified organic food because Monsanto, Dow, and others in big agribusiness are opposed to the GMO Free labeling program, thus there is no national standard for certified GMO free foods.
So how about that? Can we at least have food labeling on food that is GMO free with a standard for being certified GMO free so that you can eat non-organic food and remain GMO free? Seriously, there are only about 25 foods that I consider absolute musts for eating Organic as those are the fruits and vegetables that readily absorb synthetic herbicides and pesticides, so you could knock a hell of a lot of money off my food bill if you could just help us get that labeling program in place.
I would have no problem in not labeling foods as having GMOs if the companies producing the GMOs would just let us have a standard for certified GMO-free labeling instead of constantly lobbying the USDA against it.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)I have asserted elsewhere that I don't agree with companies preventing other companies from factual self-identification.
The problem with calls for "honesty in labelling" is that, by calling it "soy," they're telling the truth whether it's GMO or not. You want them to distinguish on from the other, and as yet no one has demonstrated a compelling reason to do so.
The only reasons offered are aesthetic and conspiratorial and not based in science.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I AM FUCKING EATING IT.
I am putting it into my body as a means of survival. I have every right to know what is in it.
I'm sorry but it's the "convince" of the corporation that needs to suffer when it comes to what I put into my body.
I understand that you personally may not care what you eat, what is in your food, but I do. I have every right to know what it is I am eating, you call that convenience, I call it being smart and taking care of myself.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Ypu don't have the right to compel disclosure where it hasn't been required.
Nor does this restrict your freedom of choice; it merely limits the available options. You are still free to choose not to consume food that isn't labelled to your self-righteous satisfaction.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Ok, I guess that's better than being someone that will shove any old unknown shit into their body... Good luck with that.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Your holier-than-thou, judgmental "good luck with that" attitude is self-righteous.
If that's the "personality" you get from a heathy lofestyle, you can keep it.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)You sit there telling people that corporations have the right to genetically modify their food and not tell the consumer. Then you call me self righteous, and then you tell me I have an attitude.
Yeah I do have an attitude. I like to fucking know what I'm eating. I apologize if that offends you. Although for the life of me I can't really figure out why that would offend you enough to actually mount a defense for not labeling food.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)And it's not hard to mount a defense against a half-assed offense. Every argument put forth here in favor of requiring GMO labeling is based on a tepid and poorly-aimed appeal to one's right to choose, a rejection of accepted science, or a bizarre likening of GMO-phobia to LGBT persecution.
You are free to choose as you wish. No one here has denied this or tried to stop you.
But in your self-righteous health-rage you jump up and down and rail against anyone who thinks that your choice might be silly.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The bio-engineering industry has lobbied the USDA to cease any and all "GMO free" labeling AND to remove the prohibition against GMOs from the organic certification requirements. If successful, no American would ever know if any food contained GMOs. They want to remove the choice entirely.
And you actually support this bullshit.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)If you're eating crop plants or domesticated livestock, it's been undergoing constant genetic modification for thousands of years. The ONLY difference is that now scientists are using better, faster, and more successful methods to do it in some cases. So if you're anti-GMO, you are by definition anti-science.
I oppose mandatory labeling of GMO foods because it promotes the anti-science agenda of fearful, irrational folks who'd rather discriminate against farmers and other food producers than educate themselves about basic biology.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The only way your claims are correct is if you rejected the definitions of specific terminology as set by science and replace those with the anti-science definitions you've claimed.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why can't you accept that your preconceived notions on this matter are not supported by the science?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The bioengineering industry, you cannot be taken seriously.
Hybridization introduces no genetic material from outside the genus. Genetic modification does on most occasions.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your description of the site is wrong. You don't want to know the reality on this issue.
We both know that. Also, let's see proof of your claims. Peer reviewed in a legitimate publication.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I had no idea DU has so many genetic experts with PhD! WOW! So I see the fight between Lefty Organic and Righty Conglomerate didn't work out to well.
All I care about is labeling food correctly so I can decide what I want to eat by what is in the ingredients. Funny how supposed liberals are all against transparency, but WOW...you guys are so smart! All that fighting is really bringing about a new understanding of GMOs and their hippie organic cousins!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)So why would you want to spend government money to label it?
PS: http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It has nothing to do with corporations. The question is why is the incredibly vehement anti-GMO movement getting traction with conspiracy theories and fictions. It's bizarre, to be kind.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)OMG! NEW TECHNOLOGY!! SCARY!!!!!!
Explain how the old technology did the same thing, and they insist the new stuff is evil voodoo anyway.
But just like anti-nuke attitudes really helped climate change, anti-GMO people will decry the famines they cause while insisting it wasn't their fault.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)The inability to distinguish the number 6 from the number 10 does make one wonder about their arguments.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)There were 10... Now it's cut off...
This one still has all 10:
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)They want to keep their preconceived notions intact.
Here's another good piece that covers a little more ground:
Decimating the Flawed Beliefs of Anti-GMO Activists
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/25/decimating-the-flawed-beliefs-of-anti-gmo-activists/