|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I still don't get how people are still so ignorant in regards to GMO's, especially the general public? Has there even been any theories as to why a genetically modified organism would impact the human body, especially since most claim cancer regarding GMO. If GMO's were some how harmful, in regards to increased cancer risk, then it would have something to do with affecting our ability to replicate DNA, and either target the replication, or target the repair process. Of which, there hasn't been any real proof or theories regarding these mechanisms.
I could see the argument of pesticides that go along with the GMO's causing issues, but then that's an argument against pesticides, and business practice on usage of pesticides in relation to GMO's, not the actual genetic modification of organisms that we consume.
|
That's a harder sell to a lot of lefties, but I totally agree with you.
|
On April 10 2015 08:51 farvacola wrote:
That's a harder sell to a lot of lefties, but I totally agree with you.
I mean, unless the GMO causes the organism to create toxic proteins, then yeah... I guess. But, that's not anywhere close to what people have suggested.
|
GMO's I think its mostly a fear of coorporations and the inability to understand the science behind it. also the fact that obviously you can't run 20 year diet tests before exposing the stuff to market. I think its dumb but I know a lot of smart people who don't like GMO's .
|
On April 10 2015 08:55 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
GMO's I think its mostly a fear of coorporations and the inability to understand the science behind it. also the fact that obviously you can't run 20 year diet tests before exposing the stuff to market. I think its dumb but I know a lot of smart people who don't like GMO's .
I don't like the companies, or their business practices, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument regarding the consumption of genetically modified organisms.
|
On April 10 2015 08:51 wei2coolman wrote:I still don't get how people are still so ignorant in regards to GMO's, especially the general public? Has there even been any theories as to why a genetically modified organism would impact the human body, especially since most claim cancer regarding GMO. If GMO's were some how harmful, in regards to increased cancer risk, then it would have something to do with affecting our ability to replicate DNA, and either target the replication, or target the repair process. Of which, there hasn't been any real proof or theories regarding these mechanisms. I could see the argument of pesticides that go along with the GMO's causing issues, but then that's an argument against pesticides, and business practice on usage of pesticides in relation to GMO's, not the actual genetic modification of organisms that we consume.
the argument tends to be "we dont know" and "insufficient testing has been done." there may be some legitimacy to those arguments (debatable), but thats far different from what happened with this french scientist who caused gmos to be removed from numerous markets due to shoddy practices.
people are stupid and believe what they want.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
To sum it up, Golden rice is GMO rice that produces a vitamin many people in 3rd world countries don't get enough of. Typically, the victims are children, who go blind then die within 6 months of having a deficiency in that vitamin. Anti-GMO morons burned the first test fields, and doomed hundreds of thousands to horrible deaths.
|
We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs.
GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. Show nested quote +GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication.
When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products.
Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition?
|
Sorry don't really care about Monsanto. I know why they don't want to and I just don't care.
|
On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition?
This analogy is pretty weak.
I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects.
The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim.
|
On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim.
When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON".
|
On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON".
Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label.
|
On April 10 2015 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON". Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label.
PR is all about momentum, and the anti-GMO people are driving a freight train. I think it's unwinnable from a PR perspective.
|
On April 10 2015 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON". Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label.
I'm for labeling, to the same extent it's necessary to label ingredients in food products, though from what I understand the labeling suggestions have been a bit egregious.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is completely asinine to encourage naked favoritism in the marketplace and enable 'organic' industry lobbying.
|
labeling is great. it does basically nothing for consumer awareness, but keeps lawyers busy! pro-label! pro-prop 65! please keep fear mongering so that i can get more money.
|
It sounds like Monsanto should have done a better job educating the public instead of suing farmers and being shady as fuck. Naked favoritism is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe "organic" is silly, but that's beside the point. We can label GMO products and at the same time rationally talk about the quality of non-GMO foods.
|
which farmer suing cases are you referring to?
Also, labeling as "GMO" doesn't provide useful information except for those irrationally afraid of GMOs.
Now for useful info, given how good package tracking is these days; we could have goods have a link to a website which would have info on the supply chain for where that lot came from, all the way back to the farm and specifying the seeds used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
