Support GMO foods

[tupac chopra]

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.

This is more about the fact that people don't trust corporations to do the right thing in the USA and they don't trust government agencies to do the right thing in the USA.
Combine this with the appalling level of education in the USA and that you have people who know what DNA is but who know that corporations will probably put crap in their food and that their government agency responsible for managing this is probably run by people who who once worked for Monsanto.

 

[Toni]

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.

This is incorrect. If hybrids could not breed true, there would be no new varieties of plants developed, ever. In fact, I can go to any garden supply store and purchase seeds from plants which were developed, often over many generations of breeding, hybridization, cross pollination, etc. Depending on the process and the plant, they will breed true.

 

[Toni]

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.

But selecting non-GMO food requires that the food is labeled as to whether or not it is GMO. Or else you grow your own or buy only from farmers who can certify that they use no GMO seeds.

I put this in exactly the same category as being able to choose whether to purchase milk or chicken or eggs produced without hormones or antibiotics. It is my preference to do so and apparently enough people feel the same because even in my small city, the local grocer stocks foods which are specifically labeled as being produced without added hormones or antibiotics.

I'm fine if some or most people don't find GMO products to be an issue, but personally, I prefer to know and to be free to make the choice myself. As far as the US being full of poorly educated sheep who don't understand what GMOs are, this is not an issue confined only to the US. In fact, the EU has some of the most stringent regulations with regards to GMOs in the world. I think the US should follow their lead.

 

[Wiploc]

There are many conspiracy-minded zealots in white society whose delusions about genetically-engineered foods have an unintended genocidal effect. They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA.

I might support the foods, but there's no way I'm going to support them if they aren't clearly labeled.

If they are trying to sneak their foods into the diets of people who don't want to eat that, then they are evil.

They should be proud of what they're doing. "Yes, this is modified. Notice that it is cheaper and better than the unmodified stuff right next to it?"

I'm thinking the dispute over GMOs would already be over if people had seen each other buying GMO-labeled packages with no ill effects for all this time.

 

[Toni]

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.

Really? That's pretty insulting, actually.

My preference is not that non-GMO food be labeled as such but that GMO food be labeled as such and preferably not show up on my grocers shelves. I also prefer food raised with a minimum of pesticide use, and without the addition of artificial hormones or antibiotics in the raising and processing of the animals. It's healthier not just for me but for the planet.

 

[bilby]

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.

Really we need to protect the population of the planet from morons who assert, and accept, stupid claims without any evidence.

By the way, I notice that you once again forgot to provide a single shred of evidence for what you are saying. It's almost as if you don't care about the credibility of your argument at all.

 

[bilby]

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.

Only if you don't care whether the label is stating the truth. Let's just label EVERYTHING with "May contain GMOs" and be done with it. Only stuff that can be shown to NOT contain GMOs would be eligible to not include the label.

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 await evidence that the cost is negligible. Meanwhile, you might want to take a look at this article: http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-costs-of-gmo-labeling.html, written by a farmer who already segregates some of his product and who is therefore fully aware of the small part of the cost that he personally deals with, which indicates that the cost is NOT negligible - and he hasn't even looked at most of the supply chain, only the bit that farmers are directly involved with.

 

[Axulus]

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.

This is more about the fact that people don't trust corporations to do the right thing in the USA and they don't trust government agencies to do the right thing in the USA.
Combine this with the appalling level of education in the USA and that you have people who know what DNA is but who know that corporations will probably put crap in their food and that their government agency responsible for managing this is probably run by people who who once worked for Monsanto.

Appalling level of education? According to who? US isn't top in the world, but the education is still quite respectable.

 

[bilby]

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.

This is more about the fact that people don't trust corporations to do the right thing in the USA and they don't trust government agencies to do the right thing in the USA.
Combine this with the appalling level of education in the USA and that you have people who know what DNA is but who know that corporations will probably put crap in their food and that their government agency responsible for managing this is probably run by people who who once worked for Monsanto.

Most people seem not to know very much about anything. It would probably be a good idea if they learned stuff first, and spouted off about it afterwards; but sadly few people seem inclined to do so.

It is easy to tell who is ignorant though; they indulge in logical fallacies, such as saying that people know stuff because they are badly educated and they make flat statements of pure faith, like "GMO foods only introduce risks. They don't give any benefit.", without providing a shred of evidence to back their bald assertion.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Only if you don't care whether the label is stating the truth. Let's just label EVERYTHING with "May contain GMOs" and be done with it. Only stuff that can be shown to NOT contain GMOs would be eligible to not include the label.

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 await evidence that the cost is negligible. Meanwhile, you might want to take a look at this article: http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-costs-of-gmo-labeling.html, written by a farmer who already segregates some of his product and who is therefore fully aware of the small part of the cost that he personally deals with, which indicates that the cost is NOT negligible - and he hasn't even looked at most of the supply chain, only the bit that farmers are directly involved with.

Actually it does indicate the cost is negligible. Most of his analysis is irrelevant since he is talking about tracing every different GMO seed. But the bin costs are fixed costs which can be spread out over many bushels.

 

[bilby]

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.

Really? That's pretty insulting, actually.

To whom?

My preference is not that non-GMO food be labeled as such but that GMO food be labeled as such and preferably not show up on my grocers shelves. I also prefer food raised with a minimum of pesticide use, and without the addition of artificial hormones or antibiotics in the raising and processing of the animals.

Your personal and irrational preferences are not a reason to make everyone else pay more for food.

It's healthier not just for me but for the planet.

It is demonstrably NOT healthier for you to eat non-GMOs. To say that it is healthier for the planet is to make a category error. Your opinion, no matter how devoutly held, is not something that should be allowed to overrule the facts.

 

[Axulus]

Only if you don't care whether the label is stating the truth. Let's just label EVERYTHING with "May contain GMOs" and be done with it. Only stuff that can be shown to NOT contain GMOs would be eligible to not include the label.

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 await evidence that the cost is negligible. Meanwhile, you might want to take a look at this article: http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-costs-of-gmo-labeling.html, written by a farmer who already segregates some of his product and who is therefore fully aware of the small part of the cost that he personally deals with, which indicates that the cost is NOT negligible - and he hasn't even looked at most of the supply chain, only the bit that farmers are directly involved with.

Actually it does indicate the cost is negligible. Most of his analysis is irrelevant since he is talking about tracing every different GMO seed. But the bin costs are fixed costs which can be spread out over many bushels.

But you are completely ignoring all the steps in the supply chain. The GMO ingredients would have to be tracked every step of the way. For example, from the flour seller, to the flour buyer, to the seller who used the flour to make a new ingredient, to the buyer of that ingredient who made yet another item with it, etc. We are talking about ingredients sometimes sourced from international sources who are under no such labeling law, sources that are sometimes GMO and sometimes not GMO. Even then, you and I have no idea on the possible costs without a comprehensive analysis. You can't possibly know all the hidden costs that may arise without a through study.

Here is an estimated cost for just one state:

Annual Family 4: $500 annually best estimate with full
labeled/unlabeled product range. 2.5% food budget; $2.4 billion annually for State

http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf

This is for an NY labeling law. Across the whole country we are talking about tens of billions. What a waste. It makes all of us a little bit poorer, and you support that? That $500 for a family of 4 at or below the poverty line is a serious hardship. But I guess all is OK because you are on a comfortable middle class salary.

 

[thebeave]

Its kind of odd (and disheartening) to see the people here who are strong advocates and defenders for the poor pushing for something that will make food more expensive for poor people.

 

[Axulus]

Its kind of odd (and disheartening) to see the people here who are strong advocates and defenders for the poor pushing for something that will make food more expensive for poor people.

And to the extent that the poor are ignorant due to lack of education and understanding of the complex arguments for the relative safety of GMOs vs. non-GMOs, and all the misinformation they are fed by groups with agendas, the labeling may push them to use their limited budgets on the more expensive non-GMO products because they are wrongly worried about the GMO products, making the impact on them especially great. Most of the college educated members of this board can't relate to this kind of ignorance and living on this kind of budget and the impact it has. Most of them can absorb the additional cost and/or stick to the GMO products (because they understand the science) without a worry in the world.

 

[Enigma]

Can somebody tell me if they like eating Roundup? Why else would it be a benefit to genetically engineer "Roundup ready" (resistant to Roundup) GMO crops if we were also getting a little roundup in our diets. Back to the drawing boards...genetically engineer humans that are resistant to corporate bullshit! When roundup and other toxic petrochemicals become so prevalent in fields where food is grown, it is a certainty those who eat that food are being exposed to these chemicals. It should be a right to know what chemicals you are eating.

FYI non-stick surfaces on cookware yield chemicals that are detectable in the blood of people who eat food prepared on them. These chemicals are not naturally occurring in the human body...just saying....do these people really care what is in your body...HELL NO!

Indeed, the chemicals they keep putting into our food is disgusting.

There isn't a single crop in the US that isn't pumped full of dihydrogen monoxide as a growth agent. Now everybody living in the US has an alarmingly large amount of the stuff lurking in their body even though there are more than 300,000 deaths each year worldwide directly attributable to dihydrogen monoxide poisoning. They should label food containing this toxic chemical so that customers can make an informed decision about what they are putting into their body.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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

OK, let's start here at the first item on the list:

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15115

The best solution to vitamin A deficiency is to use supplementation and fortification as emergency "sticking-plasters", and in the meantime, for funding support and research to go into measures which tackle the broader issues of poverty and malnutrition.

That quote is the thrust of the article. I take it to be akin to taking away someone's eyeglasses and saying, "You don't need these, they may damage your eyes, so just get laser surgery."

An agricultural student in Madagascar (blog here) made a sign to mock that perspective, pranking a lot of online anti-GMOs activists into giving their approval, which would be funny if such elitist delusions did not have horrifying effects. His cousin went blind for lack of vitamin A, as GMOs are outlawed in Madagascar.

 

[tupac chopra]

Your opinion, no matter how devoutly held, is not something that should be allowed to overrule the facts.

The fact is we don't know much about GMO foods.

That is why you earlier wrote...

There is no obvious mechanism by which GMOs would be expected to be more harmful (or more likely to be harmful) than non-GMO crops;.

This is pretty much your entire argument (apart from studies you extrapolate from mostly funded by corporations that profit from GMO's).
You assume that the long term effects of GMO's are the same as non GMO foods. You have no facts to show this but that is your devoutly held belief.
Barely any long term studies have been done on GMO's and the short term studies (mainly funded by corporations that profit from GMO's) are then extrapolated in the assumption that testing some GMO's shows they are all safe.
You are welcome to your devoutly held belief but you should stop proselytising

 

[tupac chopra]

There are no extra risks introduced.

You would not know. All you are doing is parroting something you heard.
But maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you explain how you know, not how you assume there are no extra risks.

You have pretty clearly shown you have not done enough research in this area. You merely post a propaganda video and try to convince people that they should spread that video.

Go and study what we know about GMO's and what we assume about them

 

[Axulus]

There are no extra risks introduced.

You would not know. All you are doing is parroting something you heard.
But maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you explain how you know, not how you assume there are no extra risks.

You have pretty clearly shown you have not done enough research in this area. You merely post a propaganda video and try to convince people that they should spread that video.

Go and study what we know about GMO's and what we assume about them

Every scientific society and medical society has concluded such and released statements supporting such. The scientific consensus is as strong on this issue as it is on global warming. Are you a global warming denier? If not, why are you a GMO safety denier?

 

[ApostateAbe]

There are many conspiracy-minded zealots in white society whose delusions about genetically-engineered foods have an unintended genocidal effect. They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA.

I might support the foods, but there's no way I'm going to support them if they aren't clearly labeled.

If they are trying to sneak their foods into the diets of people who don't want to eat that, then they are evil.

They should be proud of what they're doing. "Yes, this is modified. Notice that it is cheaper and better than the unmodified stuff right next to it?"

I'm thinking the dispute over GMOs would already be over if people had seen each other buying GMO-labeled packages with no ill effects for all this time.

I would be cool with the labels, but, coupled with the fear campaign, it will mean pushing GMO foods out of the market. That is what happened in Europe. The mobs are much better at marketing fear than the agricultural industry is at marketing cost savings. It takes only a small percentage of scared consumers who refuse to buy a product before it's overtaken by competitors and it is no longer profitable to sell. If there was a fear campaign that convinces people that eating food harvested in the same constellation as your star sign will cause cancer, then they would want all foods to be forcibly labeled with the constellation of harvest on it, but it isn't evil to sell food without such labels. The hysterical people already have the option of buying foods with hysterical labels as they see fit. That is what Whole Foods is for.