If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC 27)   States considering weighing labels on genetically-altered food. Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?   (abc27.com) divider line 161
    More: Interesting, Grocery Manufacturers Association, GMOs, genetically modified food, cash crops  
•       •       •

916 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:31 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-25 10:54:27 AM
fark monsanto
 
2014-01-25 11:04:08 AM
Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.
 
2014-01-25 12:04:04 PM
How heavy do they think the labels will be?
 
2014-01-25 12:10:57 PM

grokca: How heavy do they think the labels will be?


They're initiating the process of deciding whether to start to investigate considering weighing the labels.

If the labels have the complete genetic code for each ingredient, those are going to be some heavy labels.
 
2014-01-25 12:13:53 PM

itcamefromschenectady: grokca: How heavy do they think the labels will be?

They're initiating the process of deciding whether to start to investigate considering weighing the labels.

If the labels have the complete genetic code for each ingredient, those are going to be some heavy labels.


It's not heavy, it's my label.
 
2014-01-25 12:51:58 PM
Just about everything we eat is genetically modified.

Do you really think that supermarket style tomatoes exist in nature?
 
2014-01-25 01:39:55 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Just about everything we eat is genetically modified.

Do you really think that supermarket style tomatoes exist in nature?


You're probably looking for an argument about whether selective breeding is genetic engineering, but in the usual sense of the phrase, per Wikipedia, there are no genetically modified tomatoes on the market. A lot are being grown for research though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-25 02:12:46 PM
Pretty much any domesticated plant or animal is genetically modified.  If you live in the US you are already eating GM food, even if you mean modified by something other than artificial selection.
 
2014-01-25 03:12:52 PM

vpb: Pretty much any domesticated plant or animal is genetically modified.  If you live in the US you are already eating GM food, even if you mean modified by something other than artificial selection.


but but Monsanto! Evil!
 
2014-01-25 03:22:54 PM
Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.
 
2014-01-25 03:30:04 PM

Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.


That.
 
2014-01-25 03:35:10 PM
OMG / GMO

/run, scurry, Monsanto wants to hear from you
 
2014-01-25 03:35:19 PM
We already do
 
2014-01-25 03:36:00 PM
I think in Free-Market America that it's anti-business for companies to have to list if their ingredients are GMO. Who's to say what GMO does or doesn't do to people over the long run, so why should it have to be labeled prematurely? In essence you're creating a blacklist of products, and we all know how bad blacklists have been in our history.

Keep your big government nose out of poor farmers pocketbooks. Thanks Obama!
 
2014-01-25 03:36:10 PM
If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.
 
2014-01-25 03:36:59 PM
Ruby Red grapefruit are a product of x-ray caused mutations. At least with full on GM you know what changes were made.
 
2014-01-25 03:37:42 PM
The lovely thing about people who scream and yell about Monsanto can't back up their claims without citations to poorly written, extremely biased sites with URLs like Monsanto Is Going To Kill You Dot Com.

New York Times did a lovely write-up about a Hawaiian politician who actually searched out answers.  It's a great read.

Monsanto hate is two levels away bad-science wise from anti-vaxxers.
 
2014-01-25 03:38:26 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-25 03:38:36 PM
We're already eating GMOs they don't have to be labeled now, so I'm not sure what's with the question subby. I suppose having them labeled would allow people to make a choice.

Cheerios recently dropped GMOs but only in the original flavor.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/02/cheerios-gmo s- cereals/4295739/
 
2014-01-25 03:39:45 PM
No GMO for me.
 
2014-01-25 03:39:46 PM
Of course I eat genetically modified food.  So does everyone who eats food except for the true locovores who grow their own food from known seeds and only trade with others who do the same.
 
2014-01-25 03:39:54 PM

Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.


People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically.  People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.
 
2014-01-25 03:40:17 PM
The right wing has AGW denialists, the left wing has GMO denialists.

There is no reasonable evidence that indicates that GMOs are harmful in a biological sense.  Even the horror stories of Monsanto's business practices are pretty over-stated.
 
2014-01-25 03:40:51 PM
No - I do not eat GMO (honestly) I eat paleo (and the majority of the food I eat is local, organic) - does that make me better than others? no. just answering subby's weird question.
 
2014-01-25 03:43:13 PM
The science is very solid on the safety of GMOs. The few scare studies that the science-illiterate  paranoids like to quote are either non-existent, or don't support their claims, or are of Wakefield caliber.
Labeling is expensive --not the label per se, but the infrastructure required separate and to keep track of what ingredients may or may not be GMO. All that to pander to dumb chicken-little douchebags.
There's a town in Ontario that has a by-law saying new houses cannot have the number 4 in the address, coz 4 scares the superstitious immigrants of Chinese origin. Putting GMO labels is stupider than that by-law by a factor of 100.
 
2014-01-25 03:43:24 PM

Ambivalence: That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination.


I dunno, that seems like a prudent failsafe to me. It seems like a really bad idea to introduce a GM for plant into the ecosystem without it having a built in kill switch to keep it from reproducing unchecked, especially since plants swap DNA much more readily than animals. Sure, it makes farmers dependent on Monsanto for new seeds, but after seeing so many issues with invasive species like kudzu getting out of control after being introduced as a beneficial species, I'd rather err on the side of caution and add the terminator genes into GM crops until we have more experience with how they interact with other species and the overall environment.
 
2014-01-25 03:43:35 PM
Wait till they make a THC producing tomato.
 
2014-01-25 03:45:26 PM
Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?
 
2014-01-25 03:45:57 PM

Doc Daneeka: Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically.  People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.


Psssst.  That's exactly what the GM plants are doing.  Because

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-01-25 03:48:56 PM
I propose that we force companies to label their non GMO food in 3 inch tall red letters, so I can avoid inferior product.
 
2014-01-25 03:50:00 PM
It is easy to know if you are eating GMO foods.  If you live in America, the answer is YES.  You can also test it yourself:
http://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/product/gmo-investigator-kit
 
2014-01-25 03:50:48 PM

Trocadero: If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.


Because for the manufacturers, putting a label "may be GMO" scares off consumers, or may scare off the customers. So they take out any ingredients which may qualify. And consumers get worse/dearer foods as a result.

The Greenies love it bc they don't have to win the rational debate, they only have to win the emotional one
 
2014-01-25 03:53:49 PM

xanadian: Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

That.


Indeed. Well stated.
 
2014-01-25 03:53:57 PM
Sure.  I've always wanted two heads.
 
2014-01-25 03:54:46 PM
It's not the labeling cost per se, it's that the way some of these laws are being written, they give scuzzy tort lawyers a big payday without actually making any difference to food safety.
 
2014-01-25 03:55:55 PM
GMs taste like crap and they are associated with aging and blue hair.

Some of them are great for swatting flys, however.
 
2014-01-25 03:56:57 PM

grokca: How heavy do they think the labels will be?


Same as a henweigh ;-)
 
2014-01-25 03:57:30 PM
The only question I have is, is soylent green GMO?

You know there is a "real" Soylent??
 
2014-01-25 03:58:27 PM

Kensey: It's not the labeling cost per se, it's that the way some of these laws are being written, they give scuzzy tort lawyers a big payday without actually making any difference to food safety.


As god and the GOP/DFL intended.
A consensus!
 
2014-01-25 03:58:58 PM
Eatable corn has always been genetically modified.
 
2014-01-25 04:00:08 PM

ZipSplat: The right wing has AGW denialists, the left wing has GMO denialists.


This
 
2014-01-25 04:00:23 PM

snuffy: fark monsanto


I honestly thing a lot of the opposition to GMO's has less to do with with the nature of the food, and more to do with the business methods that go into producing the food.
 
2014-01-25 04:00:40 PM
I always found it ironic that the same people who rail against religion and call on the virtues of logic and science are the ones that seem to be so skeered of gmo foods.
 
2014-01-25 04:03:24 PM

domo_kun_sai: Eatable corn has always been genetically modified.


No!
Selectively bred, yes.
GMO is newspeak.
 
2014-01-25 04:03:49 PM

snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?


puh-tey-toh

tuh-mey-toh


But we all agree,
mon-san-toh   is evil . . . .

Life forms wander to all living lands, and should not be claimed by the owner of the land they wander from.
 
2014-01-25 04:05:08 PM
Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?


www.horseclicks.com


"Nay."
 
2014-01-25 04:05:53 PM

Trocadero: If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.


It's a big deal because of public perception, which is not necessarily scientifically-literate.

Imagine if producers of bottled water were compelled to put on a big red label "This product contains dihydrogen monoxide."
 
2014-01-25 04:07:46 PM

yoyopro: snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?

puh-tey-toh

tuh-mey-toh


But we all agree,
mon-san-toh   is evil . . . .

Life forms wander to all living lands, and should not be claimed by the owner of the land they wander from.


Can we all agree that lying about it is the smoke to a fire?
 
2014-01-25 04:08:14 PM
It depends.
What are they manipulating?  Foods that are altered to be toxic to bugs, no way I'm eating that.
 
2014-01-25 04:10:25 PM
Genetically modified foods are probably the only reason humans still have enough food to support the current population. Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution made this possible, and it started with him crossing as many varieties of wheat every which way possible in the ultimate act of "throw enough shiat against the wall, some of it will stick". The advances that have allowed us to read complete DNA  make-ups of plants, and reliably alter their genes is like going from Ford's original production line, to their current one in about one-third time.

Monsanto (and Cargill and Pioneer and Dow...) all suck because of other business practices, like suing farmers whose crops got their "proprietary" DNA strain via cross-contaminated. Or even patent the DNA of a plant and then sue the farmers who have been farming it for years (happens more in South America).
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report