Support GMO foods

[NobleSavage]

If it says "Non-GMO" on the package, I look for something else. I don't want to pay for expensive woo. Is it even possible to keep the GMO genes out of the food supply? I know they have terminator seeds and whatnot, but I keep thinking about that line in Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way."

 

[Toni]

It isn't the fact that a plant has been genetically modified artificially that poses the potential risk. It is what that genetic modification does (intended or unintended) that is the real question. Also in question are issues of patents, how a GMO crop can affect neighboring non-GMO crops through cross pollination, and how a GMO crop interacts with the environment: what species are winners and what species are losers and how does that affect the entire system. With traditionally developed crops, the changes were relatively slow ones and so we were able to see the effect a particular crop could have, although we have only recently begun to notice or care.

I also do not particularly trust Big Chemical Companies or their lackeys. Too much money is at stake and it is so easy to ignore or minimize unfavorable findings.

 

[Nexus]

Here's a simple solution for our pro-GMO people. Don't buy non-GMO foods. If GMOs can save the world and feed all the starving African babies those starving Africans babies will not refuse the food because some Europeans what their food labeled.

Furthermore, it's a joke to think that a product labeled "GMO" provides any useful information. Which gene was modified or inserted? What is the data in regards to the effect of this gene?

If you think the GMO label is useless then ignore it and buy all the GMO foods you like.

 

[Axulus]

Here's a simple solution for our pro-GMO people. Don't buy non-GMO foods. If GMOs can save the world and feed all the starving African babies those starving Africans babies will not refuse the food because some Europeans what their food labeled.

Furthermore, it's a joke to think that a product labeled "GMO" provides any useful information. Which gene was modified or inserted? What is the data in regards to the effect of this gene?

If you think the GMO label is useless then ignore it and buy all the GMO foods you like.

The GMO label is not cost free. It is difficult to track whether or not a grain silo or grain elevator has GMO varieties in it or not when it is mixed with crops from multiple farms. And then the food processors will have to keep track of which of their sources contain GMOs and which ones don't and label it accordingly. The costs of tracking all this will have to be passed along to me. What a waste of society's resources to provide me useless info.

Now, if the label requirement was merely "this product might contain GMOs", that is far less costly, but now even more useless. GMO-free products already gleefully label their products as such. Therefore, you can assume anything not labeled such "might contain GMOs". Therefore, what is the fuss all about?

If you don't like GMOs and are fortunate enough to have lots of extra money to buy more expensive things with zero extra benefit, stick with the "GMO-free" products and "organic" products that are already available. This cry for the government to get involved is completely nonsensical.

 

[laughing dog]

Here's a simple solution for our pro-GMO people. Don't buy non-GMO foods. If GMOs can save the world and feed all the starving African babies those starving Africans babies will not refuse the food because some Europeans what their food labeled.

If you think the GMO label is useless then ignore it and buy all the GMO foods you like.

The GMO label is not cost free. It is difficult to track whether or not a grain silo or grain elevator has GMO varieties in it or not when it is mixed with crops from multiple farms. And then the food processors will have to keep track of which of their sources contain GMOs and which ones don't and label it accordingly. The costs of tracking all this will have to be passed along to me. What a waste of society's resources to provide me useless info.

Now, if the label requirement was merely "this product might contain GMOs", that is far less costly, but now even more useless. GMO-free products already gleefully label their products as such. Therefore, you can assume anything not labeled such "might contain GMOs". Therefore, what is the fuss all about?

If you don't like GMOs and are fortunate enough to have lots of extra money to buy more expensive things with zero extra benefit, stick with the "GMO-free" products and "organic" products that are already available. This cry for the government to get involved is completely nonsensical.

Accurate relevant information to the user is a requirement for market efficiency. The cost of providing such information is negligible. Especially in the scenarios you posit. Clearly if one cannot certify the product is "X-free", then one doesn't make the claim. And if is too much of a bother to make such a claim, then don't. Really, what is the real issue here?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA. They have already won in Europe.

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

It depends on how the rules work.

So long as the labeling options include "We do not track whether this product contains GMO ingredients" then I have no problem with it.

Without this option you have a substantial logistics cost in tracking where your materials come from and a liability cost if some supplier has been found to be cheating.

 

[NobleSavage]

The GMO label is not cost free. It is difficult to track whether or not a grain silo or grain elevator has GMO varieties in it or not when it is mixed with crops from multiple farms. And then the food processors will have to keep track of which of their sources contain GMOs and which ones don't and label it accordingly. The costs of tracking all this will have to be passed along to me. What a waste of society's resources to provide me useless info.

Now, if the label requirement was merely "this product might contain GMOs", that is far less costly, but now even more useless. GMO-free products already gleefully label their products as such. Therefore, you can assume anything not labeled such "might contain GMOs". Therefore, what is the fuss all about?

If you don't like GMOs and are fortunate enough to have lots of extra money to buy more expensive things with zero extra benefit, stick with the "GMO-free" products and "organic" products that are already available. This cry for the government to get involved is completely nonsensical.

Accurate relevant information to the user is a requirement for market efficiency. The cost of providing such information is negligible.

Isn't relevant the key word there?

 

[laughing dog]

Accurate relevant information to the user is a requirement for market efficiency. The cost of providing such information is negligible.

Isn't relevant the key word there?

Relevancy is in the eye of the buyer/user.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

Bingo!

Of course, one type of GMO (one that I think is particularly bad) is the type altered to produce sterile seed. This means that the farmer would have to buy new seed every season instead of being able to harvest and store seed for next season. In other words, keeping starving people perpetually dependent on the multi-national corporations.

Of course, Monsanto also accomplishes that via lawsuits for "patent infringement"

Long before GMOs we had hybrid seeds. The hybrids are superior--but while they are not sterile they do not breed true, thus you have to buy new seed next year anyway. This isn't any evil on their part, it's the very nature of hybrids--you can't make a hybrid that breeds true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nice "bait and switch".
GMO foods only introduce risks. They don't give any benefit.

The world is full of morons who want to feel as though they are fighting the good fight;

Like the morons promote GMO's when GMO's don't give any benefits

1) It depends on what genes were inserted. This certainly helps people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

2) Having more food for less cost is a benefit to people.

 

[Angry Floof]

I would just like to note that about the same percentage of people who want foods with GMOs labeled also want foods with DNA in them labeled.

 

[NobleSavage]

Isn't relevant the key word there?

Relevancy is in the eye of the buyer/user.

If it's relevant to you than you can pay for it. Every grocery store I go to has tons of non-GMO foods. No one is stopping you from buying it.

 

[Axulus]

The GMO label is not cost free. It is difficult to track whether or not a grain silo or grain elevator has GMO varieties in it or not when it is mixed with crops from multiple farms. And then the food processors will have to keep track of which of their sources contain GMOs and which ones don't and label it accordingly. The costs of tracking all this will have to be passed along to me. What a waste of society's resources to provide me useless info.

Now, if the label requirement was merely "this product might contain GMOs", that is far less costly, but now even more useless. GMO-free products already gleefully label their products as such. Therefore, you can assume anything not labeled such "might contain GMOs". Therefore, what is the fuss all about?

If you don't like GMOs and are fortunate enough to have lots of extra money to buy more expensive things with zero extra benefit, stick with the "GMO-free" products and "organic" products that are already available. This cry for the government to get involved is completely nonsensical.

Accurate relevant information to the user is a requirement for market efficiency. The cost of providing such information is negligible. Especially in the scenarios you posit. Clearly if one cannot certify the product is "X-free", then one doesn't make the claim. And if is too much of a bother to make such a claim, then don't. Really, what is the real issue here?

The issue is the government mandating a "this product contains GMOs" label in a world where we already have products voluntarily labeling themselves as "organic" and "GMO-free", both of which contain no GMOs. For those customers who wish to have accurate relevant information on products that are GMO-free, when the cost to provide such is less than their additional willingness to pay for it, the market will provide, and it already has. Thus, why would the GMO products be forced to label them? It is more so a ploy by organic and GMO-free producers to increase the appeal of their products and increase the cost of their competitors, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

One should simply assume that any product not labeled "GMO-free" and "organic" might contain GMOs and, if it doesn't contain GMOs, then the company has determined that the cost to provide the "non-GMO" label exceeds the informational benefit to their customers.

The case for government involvement in this matter is superfluous, meaning that ulterior motives are at play here.

 

[Underseer]

They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA. They have already won in Europe.

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

Those seed producers are hardly saints. They're suing farmers when mama nature blows seeds into neighboring farms. Mostly though, I am simply not comfortable with such a small number of corporations having near total control over the human food supply. Nothing good can come from that.

However, that doesn't mean that GMO is harmful. The available science simply doesn't support the claim that GMO is harmful to human health. An entire industry has grown around peddling bad information about GMO, and this industry has more than a little in common with other anti-science movements such as creationists (who wanted warning labels on biology textbooks, remember?).

I mean, why would people complain about warning labels on biology textbooks unless they had something to hide, right? The fact that so many atheists opposed those biology text book warning labels proves that evolution is a lie that we should not be teaching to our children, right?

 

[tupac chopra]

Nice "bait and switch".
GMO foods only introduce risks. They don't give any benefit.

Like the morons promote GMO's when GMO's don't give any benefits

1) It depends on what genes were inserted. This certainly helps people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

2) Having more food for less cost is a benefit to people.

So many problems and potential issues with golden rice it's hard to know where to start.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/articles/gm-reports/15024

 

[laughing dog]

Relevancy is in the eye of the buyer/user.

If it's relevant to you than you can pay for it. Every grocery store I go to has tons of non-GMO foods. No one is stopping you from buying it.

I fail to see the relevancy to this comment. Who is attempting not to pay for something?

 

[tupac chopra]

Don't be so silly. If GMOs didn't give any benefits, there would be no profit in them. Farmers are not idiots; they buy the seed that allows them to get the best yields

Sadly many have listened to the lies spread by morons.
One example is that they have found they need to use more and more round-up and that weeds and bugs are developing resistance to these products.
Clearly you have a very short term view and if something works in some way for a year or two then it's time to start celebrating.

The OP has the following to say.

they are trying to push GMO foods out of the marketplace, with the effect of continuing the death trend of millions more people. Whenever you see their false, anti-scientific and anti-humanistic claims, I suggest you share this video. They need to be held accountable, and the misinformation needs to be corrected. Rational clear-thinking people have a moral responsibility.

But really we need to protect the planet from greedy people who can't see past the next few years and who have no conception of the longer consequences of seeking short term profits.

 

[laughing dog]

Accurate relevant information to the user is a requirement for market efficiency. The cost of providing such information is negligible. Especially in the scenarios you posit. Clearly if one cannot certify the product is "X-free", then one doesn't make the claim. And if is too much of a bother to make such a claim, then don't. Really, what is the real issue here?

The issue is the government mandating a "this product contains GMOs" label in a world where we already have products voluntarily labeling themselves as "organic" and "GMO-free", both of which contain no GMOs. For those customers who wish to have accurate relevant information on products that are GMO-free, when the cost to provide such is less than their additional willingness to pay for it, the market will provide, and it already has. Thus, why would the GMO products be forced to label them? It is more so a ploy by organic and GMO-free producers to increase the appeal of their products and increase the cost of their competitors, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

Adding "this product contains GMOs" is a negligible cost.

One should simply assume that any product not labeled "GMO-free" and "organic" might contain GMOs and, if it doesn't contain GMOs, then the company has determined that the cost to provide the "non-GMO" label exceeds the informational benefit to their customers.

In the world I live in, few people reason at all, let alone a moderate level like that.

The case for government involvement in this matter is superfluous, meaning that ulterior motives are at play here.

Since the cost is negligible, one could make the same argument about the argument against the labeling as well.

 

[Axulus]

The issue is the government mandating a "this product contains GMOs" label in a world where we already have products voluntarily labeling themselves as "organic" and "GMO-free", both of which contain no GMOs. For those customers who wish to have accurate relevant information on products that are GMO-free, when the cost to provide such is less than their additional willingness to pay for it, the market will provide, and it already has. Thus, why would the GMO products be forced to label them? It is more so a ploy by organic and GMO-free producers to increase the appeal of their products and increase the cost of their competitors, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

Adding "this product contains GMOs" is a negligible cost.

One should simply assume that any product not labeled "GMO-free" and "organic" might contain GMOs and, if it doesn't contain GMOs, then the company has determined that the cost to provide the "non-GMO" label exceeds the informational benefit to their customers.

In the world I live in, few people reason at all, let alone a moderate level like that.

The case for government involvement in this matter is superfluous, meaning that ulterior motives are at play here.

Since the cost is negligible, one could make the same argument about the argument against the labeling as well.

I already explained the cost wasn't negligable - there is currently not a tracking mechanism in place to verify which sources contain GMOs and which individual units used a batch of ingredients that contained GMOs and which ones didn't. Your assertions are not convincing. Furthermore, there will presumably be enforcement costs. All for something that provides essentially no benefit. Why does your willingness to support more red tape and extra costs for no societal benefit not surprise me?

 

[NobleSavage]

^ Negligible? The labeling maybe, but I doubt the food separating would be.

----EDIT---

That was meant as a response to laughing dog, not you Axulus.