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  
•       •       •

915 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:31 PM (29 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 04:10:40 PM
It's simple

We label all foods as being genetically modified

Then everyone is happy
 
2014-01-25 04:10:43 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?


Yup, for all intents and purpose, it's the same thing. Except that the GMO method poses less risk, as only one or two genes are transferred, as opposed to the dozens that you'de get by traditional methods (which, btw, very much include methods like mutagenesis via irradiation or exposure to toxic chemicals.)
 
2014-01-25 04:11:03 PM
Sorry, I only eat non-genetically modified pussy.

/I know, I'm old school.
 
2014-01-25 04:11:06 PM

Ambivalence: There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified.


THIS.


blastoh: 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.


I never really got that impression.  Most of the people I know who have a problem with GMO stuff seem to believe that it is actually bad for you.
 
2014-01-25 04:12:16 PM

rev. dave: It depends.
What are they manipulating?  Foods that are altered to be toxic to bugs, no way I'm eating that.


Most any plant manufactures pesticides.
 
2014-01-25 04:13:40 PM

AlanSmithee: 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?

Yup, for all intents and purpose, it's the same thing. Except that the GMO method poses less risk, as only one or two genes are transferred, as opposed to the dozens that you'de get by traditional methods (which, btw, very much include methods like mutagenesis via irradiation or exposure to toxic chemicals.)


And black is the new white.
Do go on, but, I have seen this before, but you never know,,,
 
2014-01-25 04:14:07 PM
I own a company that distributes free seeds to individuals and organizations. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has asked me to please not include GMO seed in filling their request. My friends who have online catalogs have the same experience.

GMO seeds are not available to the public, they can only be purchased by contract between an authorized seller and a registered buyer. Any seed which is not sown can be returned to seller. It cannot be resold or gifted. That is in the contract. If I were to knowingly accept a donation of modified seed and distribute it I would go to jail, so would the person that gave me the seed.

Many seed catalogs and their urls will have a blurb or a link touting that their seed is not GMO seed, that they don't sell it. This is the same as margarine trumpeting that it is cholesterol free. In both cases it is not possible for the highlighted item to actually be there, Catalogs selling to the public cannot keep GMO seed in their inventory, the public is not allowed to have it. Comparatively, margarine is an over-produced vegetable fat--there is no cholesterol in vegetables. That being said, I have made the Safe Seed Pledge because it is a form of verification of ideology, it's a reference.
 
2014-01-25 04:14:44 PM

HairyNevus: 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)


Cites, please? The only cases I know of is when the farmer deliberately planted the seeds.
 
2014-01-25 04:15:03 PM

snocone: 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?


Absolutely agree!
 
2014-01-25 04:16:56 PM

snocone: And black is the new white


You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?
 
2014-01-25 04:18:13 PM
It was horrible, genes dying face down in the mud,, rising agian, OMG, doubled!
The Colchicine Wars.
You weren't there, you can't know.
 
2014-01-25 04:19:27 PM

AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?


I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.
 
2014-01-25 04:22:01 PM
I won't eat GMO foods because they aggravate my electromagnetic hypersensitivity disorder and my fibromyalgia.
 
2014-01-25 04:22:26 PM

snocone: 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?


My understanding is that in the famous Monsanto case, the farmer was deliberately trying to gather the GMO plants by applying pesticides, he wasn't being sued for accidentally getting seeds blown onto his property. So the basis for Monsanto being outrageously evil is a myth being spread by people who don't care about the truth as far as I know.
 
2014-01-25 04:22:59 PM

snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.


I'm floored by your counter-argument. Apopleptic, even.
 
2014-01-25 04:24:32 PM

itcamefromschenectady: My understanding is that in the famous Monsanto case, the farmer was deliberately trying to gather the GMO plants by applying pesticides, he wasn't being sued for accidentally getting seeds blown onto his property. So the basis for Monsanto being outrageously evil is a myth being spread by people who don't care about the truth as far as I know


Yes, that is correct. Monsanto has never sued (and say they never will) for simple cases of contamination.
 
2014-01-25 04:25:45 PM

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


There are no terminator seeds being sold.
 
2014-01-25 04:29:23 PM
I'm holding out for glow in the dark tomatoes.
 
2014-01-25 04:31:11 PM

AlanSmithee: snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.

I'm floored by your counter-argument. Apopleptic, even.


There are pills for that.
 
2014-01-25 04:31:44 PM
And meanwhile, the anti-GMO douchetwats are doing their best to block the intro of Golden Rice, which will save millions of children from blindness and death.
http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/

I swear, the anti-GMO fart-brains are worse than the anti-vaxxers.
 
2014-01-25 04:31:52 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I'm holding out for glow in the dark tomatoes.


Glow in the dark MJ would be trippy.
 
2014-01-25 04:33:41 PM

Sgygus: Sure.  I've always wanted two heads.


I eat and will continue to eat GMOs.
And I'm a male so I already have two heads.
 
2014-01-25 04:34:10 PM
Free Market.


Give people the information on what they are purchasing and let the Free Market play out.
 
2014-01-25 04:37:37 PM

shtychkn: Free Market.


Give people the information on what they are purchasing and let the Free Market play out.


Too costly for info that is only of use to smug hippies. I don't want my food bill to increase just to appease knuckleheads.
 
2014-01-25 04:39:02 PM

AlanSmithee: And meanwhile, the anti-GMO douchetwats are doing their best to block the intro of Golden Rice, which will save millions of children from blindness and death.
http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/

I swear, the anti-GMO fart-brains are worse than the anti-vaxxers.


Golden Rice is a miraculous thing.
 
2014-01-25 04:40:02 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: 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/


and Whole Foods with their no GMO is just a marketing stunt.

labeling no GMO is a win for the greenies as mentioned above and emotion over science. it's the damn anti vaxers all over again.
 
2014-01-25 04:41:57 PM

rev. dave: It depends.
What are they manipulating?  Foods that are altered to be toxic to bugs, no way I'm eating that.



Too late. You already have. You've been eating it for years.
Bt-producing corn has been grown commercially since the late '90s, and is grown in over a dozen countries.
 
2014-01-25 04:46:10 PM
If the language is like the following:

Any ag. product contained within this food, whose seed, or seed parent was genetically altered within a laboratory environment with gene splicing or gene replacement techniques, with exception for non-laboratory cross-polination or selective breeding, it shall be considered genetically altered.

It's not that I don't trust genetically-altered food, I'm probably eating it as I type, it's that there is not nearly enough transparency with what they are doing. Add to it that they should not be allowed to patent food, genetically modified or not, it makes for a negative scenario in every aspect from a consumer perspective. Then there's the whole lawsuit abomination regarding Monsanto...

FYI: I used to do computer support for a group who got funding from Monsanto. Bit disappointed and/or disgusted, that I got paid indirectly, or directly, from Monsanto. I take penance on Sundays...
 
2014-01-25 04:46:13 PM

snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.



Gamma radiation, x-rays, and mutagenic chemicals have been used to product new strains of edible and ornamental plants since the late 1930s.
 
2014-01-25 04:46:59 PM

GonzoNihilist: 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.


Caution /= fear.

Eat as much GMO food as you want...it'll help the agribiz portion of my investment portfolio.

I'll stay in the control group at least another few years and see how that works out for you.
 
2014-01-25 04:47:12 PM

MrBallou: 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.


I would have to know more about the mind-altering hallucinogen.
 
2014-01-25 04:48:40 PM

cold_weather_tex: Any ag. product contained within this food, whose seed, or seed parent was genetically altered within a laboratory environment with gene splicing or gene replacement techniques, with exception for non-laboratory cross-polination or selective breeding, it shall be considered genetically altered.



Most hybridization also takes place in a laboratory setting. The controlled environment makes it easier to get the desired result
 
2014-01-25 04:50:56 PM

PunGent: Caution /= fear.


Caution has been the order of the day for all new foods, with even more stringent requirements for GMOs.
At this point, it's plain old unmerited fear that is motivating the dingbats.
 
2014-01-25 04:51:04 PM

ZipSplat: 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.


There was a time that you could say this about Cigarettes, alcohol, and artificial sugars.  Take a wild guess what happened?


Even the horror stories of Monsanto's business practices are pretty over-stated.

Some are, some aren't.  They have a pretty slimy business practice going, but it's not illegal as such.
 
2014-01-25 04:55:09 PM

Kahabut: There was a time that you could say this about Cigarettes, alcohol, and artificial sugars.  Take a wild guess what happened?


What happened: Scientists studied these and determined that cigarettes and alcohol are bad, though industry tried to spin those studies away.
 
2014-01-25 04:55:47 PM

AlanSmithee: 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.


I hope that you are hooked up with Obamacare... Cancer is more tolerable when you can afford the drugs. Google is your friend: nih.gov/gmos, cancer.
 
2014-01-25 04:55:57 PM

give me doughnuts: snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.


Gamma radiation, x-rays, and mutagenic chemicals have been used to product new strains of edible and ornamental plants since the late 1930s.


Point? Supposed to be examples of selective breeding?
Granted, sticks have been poked into the Dark for a few years.
Forgive me if my lifetime of experience watching the half life of "science fact" become ever shorter advises caution and does not favor lies, misrepresentation, half truthyness, corporate greed, bluster and bully tactics.
 
2014-01-25 05:00:06 PM
Of course I would eat it. Humans are omnivores. We have a wondrous digestive system. It's like a Mr Fusion for your body. It doesn't really give a shiat if that carrot's dna is slightly different. Literally everything we eat is drastically genetically different from what it was at the dawn of civilization.(well, except for perhaps wild game and wild seafood). Every grain and plant humans cultivate, every livestock species. All selectively bred for traits we prefer for thousands of years.

The flip side to that though is releasing genetically modified strains of plants into the wild, where they could impact the natural ecosystem. That kind of sucks. And selling farmers sterile seeds or whatever to prevent it sucks too, forcing farming to be dependent on Big Seed Companies. Remember when a prudent farmer could save enough seed to plant the next years crops? Do we really need to destroy that in the name of Monsanto profits or whatever? Civilization might need the ability to farm without the benefit of some seed manufacturer at some point.
 
2014-01-25 05:00:19 PM

HairyNevus: 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).


When and where did this happen?
 
2014-01-25 05:08:19 PM

neongoats: The flip side to that though is releasing genetically modified strains of plants into the wild, where they could impact the natural ecosystem. That kind of sucks. And selling farmers sterile seeds or whatever to prevent it sucks too, forcing farming to be dependent on Big Seed Companies. Remember when a prudent farmer could save enough seed to plant the next years crops? Do we really need to destroy that in the name of Monsanto profits or whatever? Civilization might need the ability to farm without the benefit of some seed manufacturer at some point


We've been throwing genetically modifed plants and animals to the wild for thousands of years.
They don't sell terminator seeds. However, they sell hybrids, (and have for a long time), which also forces the farmer to buy seeds every year. Additionally, it is often the case that it is more cost-effective to buy new seeds instead of collecting a large batch from the present crop.
 
2014-01-25 05:10:52 PM

snocone: give me doughnuts: snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.


Gamma radiation, x-rays, and mutagenic chemicals have been used to product new strains of edible and ornamental plants since the late 1930s.

Point? Supposed to be examples of selective breeding?
Granted, sticks have been poked into the Dark for a few years.
Forgive me if my lifetime of experience watching the half life of "science fact" become ever shorter advises caution and does not favor lies, misrepresentation, half truthyness, corporate greed, bluster and bully tactics.


Point: Farming the "old fashioned way" has included chemical and radiation-induced GMOs for most of the past century. Hybridization and cross-breeding are methods of altering the genotype of an organism that humans have employed since we invented agriculture.

Genetic engineering is just a less haphazard method of doing the same thing.
 
2014-01-25 05:12:24 PM

alowishus: HairyNevus: 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).

When and where did this happen?


It happened on the set of the fake moon landing.
 
2014-01-25 05:13:12 PM

alowishus: HairyNevus: 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).

When and where did this happen?



Even NPR has busted that myth.
 
2014-01-25 05:14:42 PM
I'm eating GMO food as I'm typing this.

/mmm..., GMO is tasty
//have a bite, foodie
 
2014-01-25 05:15:43 PM

Gway: Google is your friend: nih.gov/gmos, cancer


I couldn't find anything, except for the pubmed articles, of which only the Wakefieldish studies are anti-GMO.
 
2014-01-25 05:16:39 PM

netgamer7k: I'm eating GMO food as I'm typing this.

/mmm..., GMO is tasty
//have a bite, foodie


My GMO food has double-gluten!
 
2014-01-25 05:18:23 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.


Because labeling does nothing except allow people to have a knee-jerk reaction against the food.  Knowing a food is or isn't GMO falls under the "true but useless" knowledge - it gives you just enough information to make an emotional reaction but not even close to enough information to make a logical one.

It would be like adding a "contains chemicals" label to every food on the planet.  It's certainly true - all food is made of chemicals - but it tells you absolutely nothing that could be used to make a rational decision.  Not all chemicals are equal, nor are all genetic modifications.  In theory, some modifications could be harmful (for example, intentionally splicing a toxin-producing gene could make a normally non-toxic food dangerous).  Some modifications could be beneficial (for example, knocking out a toxin-producing gene naturally found in the organism, or increasing the nutritional value of the food).  Others could be a total wash from a food quality perspective (for example, allowing the plant to grow in soil not normally conducive to it).
 
2014-01-25 05:19:14 PM
Unless you eat wild plants and animal exclusively, you're eating generically-altered food since mankind has been genetically altering plants and animals for a good 7,000 years.
 
2014-01-25 05:23:54 PM

AlanSmithee: Kahabut: There was a time that you could say this about Cigarettes, alcohol, and artificial sugars.  Take a wild guess what happened?

What happened: Scientists studied these and determined that cigarettes and alcohol are bad, though industry tried to spin those studies away.


And to extend the analogy, scientists have repeatedly studied GMO foods and found that- surprise- they have exactly the same effects as normal food! They even found that, because your stomach acid breaks them down into random chemicals anyway, minor tweaks to the DNA of the plant are completely irrelevant!

We already know what the long term effects of eating GMO food are. They're nothing.
 
2014-01-25 05:23:58 PM

AlanSmithee: shtychkn: Free Market.


Give people the information on what they are purchasing and let the Free Market play out.

Too costly for info that is only of use to smug hippies. I don't want my food bill to increase just to appease knuckleheads.



Simple,

IF producers don't want to show that they don't have GMOs, them make them put the label "Contains GMOs".   Companies that have shown they don't use GMOs can advertise that they don't.

This shouldn't raise the cost except for companies that want to sell to "smug hippies" who care about GMOs.
 
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