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 (38 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 05:30:12 PM  

shtychkn: 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.


The 'organic' label covers that to some extent.
 
2014-01-25 05:31:26 PM  
Why don't the proponents of this realize that is it unconstitutional for states to require this?
 
2014-01-25 05:32:43 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.


There is no terminator plants out there.  Why do people insist on spreading this out and out lie?
 
2014-01-25 05:33:02 PM  

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


You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers. The grainery doesn't track the biological profile of each harvest, farmers grow what they're going to grow, and dump it all in one big pile. So now you have to develop a system- with significant physical components, and thus construction costs, as well as labor, to track exactly what corn is in every shipment from the farmer. Then you have to figure out exactly what's being put in each rail car to the company making the food. You have to calculate prices differently for different types of corn, so you're adding a new layer of speculation on top of things.

And there are just a billion other costs throughout the system.

A requirement like that does drive up costs, and potentially significantly so, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
 
2014-01-25 05:40:00 PM  
people id your eating Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts  or Cauliflower your already eating genetically altered food as they all started out as the same plant.

Human have been doing this since before written history , the only difference is now we can do it far quicker.
 
2014-01-25 05:45:19 PM  
Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?

Yes, I do eat food.  Even the kind with dihydrogen monoxide in it.
 
2014-01-25 05:49:25 PM  

Snarfangel: 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.


The Psilocybin Potatoe. Kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
 
2014-01-25 05:49:26 PM  

sprgrss: 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.

There is no terminator plants out there.  Why do people insist on spreading this out and out lie?


When you have no facts or truth on your side, what choice do you have?
 
2014-01-25 05:49:34 PM  

grimlock1972: people id your eating Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts  or Cauliflower your already eating genetically altered food as they all started out as the same plant.

Human have been doing this since before written history , the only difference is now we can do it far quicker.


Yes, we can, but the "we" part is sorta behind in the race to adapt.
H2O  ,  H2SO4 is there "really" a difference? They seem close enough to confuse the public with.
 
2014-01-25 05:49:45 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.


Terminator plants still produce pollen. Stray pollen is what people freak out over.
 
2014-01-25 05:51:53 PM  
Unless you're eating food purely from the wild, you are eating genetically altered food.  We have been breeding food sources, be it animal or plant, to be more effective as food sources since looooooong before Gregor Mendel discovered the apparatus of heredity.  Directly altering the genetics is just more hands-on the actual mechanism than ever before.
 
2014-01-25 05:53:40 PM  
The vast majority of our crops are genetically modified organisms and have been for centuries.  That thing with Gregor Mendel and the peas?  Yep that's insidious and unnatural genetic modification.  So yeah it turns out that every one will eat genetically modified organisms.  Now that we've established that the question becomes how much modification is too much.

I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others.
 
2014-01-25 05:56:23 PM  

angry bunny: I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others


The world could use a few zombies, just for kicks.
 
2014-01-25 06:00:04 PM  

AlanSmithee: angry bunny: I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others

The world could use a few zombies, just for kicks.


And, targets.
I never seem to find enough time to get to the range in 26 minutes.
 
2014-01-25 06:02:42 PM  

angry bunny: The vast majority of our crops are genetically modified organisms and have been for centuries.  That thing with Gregor Mendel and the peas?  Yep that's insidious and unnatural genetic modification.  So yeah it turns out that every one will eat genetically modified organisms.  Now that we've established that the question becomes how much modification is too much.

I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others.


Ninja'd you in Gregor Mendel invocation.
 
2014-01-25 06:05:24 PM  

Ambivalence: 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.

Terminator plants still produce pollen. Stray pollen is what people freak out over.


Which is just as rational as my dad freaking out about "Death Panels" or "FEMA camps"
 
2014-01-25 06:07:29 PM  

MadCat221: angry bunny: The vast majority of our crops are genetically modified organisms and have been for centuries.  That thing with Gregor Mendel and the peas?  Yep that's insidious and unnatural genetic modification.  So yeah it turns out that every one will eat genetically modified organisms.  Now that we've established that the question becomes how much modification is too much.

I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others.

Ninja'd you in Gregor Mendel invocation.


I have been defeated good sir.  Please remove my head promptly and remember: There can be only one.
 
2014-01-25 06:12:22 PM  

alowishus: Ambivalence: 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.

Terminator plants still produce pollen. Stray pollen is what people freak out over.

Which is just as rational as my dad freaking out about "Death Panels" or "FEMA camps"


Just the concept and "possibility" of asexual reproduction has always offended the Fundies.
 
2014-01-25 06:12:25 PM  

Ambivalence: Terminator plants still produce pollen. Stray pollen is what people freak out over.



I get upset over stray pollen.
That shiat makes me sneeze
 
2014-01-25 06:16:24 PM  
Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?

Headline makes one tense.
 
2014-01-25 06:32:57 PM  
There is a difference between selection and transponsons.....So yea I will not eat the latter shiat.  No thank you ADM, Monsanto, et al.....
 
2014-01-25 06:35:27 PM  
GMO wank is one of the more irritating topics to me. There are millions of Americans who just don't care what the stuff they ingest does to them on a cellular level. Then there are those who do care. Obviously foods should be labeled and yes it should be mandatory. People want biodiversity but not if said genes are being altered to be harmful or kill. Who cares if the labels are too complicated for an average person to understand? That's what t3h 1nternet (and dr oz, lol) is for.
 
2014-01-25 06:35:37 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.


This. Don't really give a fark much.
 
2014-01-25 06:40:44 PM  

LordOfThePings: Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?

Headline makes one tense.


saw that
 
2014-01-25 06:41:42 PM  

AlanSmithee: Yes, that is correct. Monsanto has never sued (and say they never will) for simple cases of contamination.


When did they say that? Because I'm not getting that from their statement after they won the big lawsuit. And the court itself said that they didn't address the entire problem of what to do about accidental contamination or hybridization. They only addressed the case of this one farmer.

And then Monsanto made kind of a weasely statement: "The court's ruling today ensures that longstanding principles of patent law apply to breakthrough 21st century technologies that are central to meeting the growing demands of our planet and its people," said David F. Snively, Monsanto's top lawyer. "The ruling also provides assurance to all inventors throughout the public and private sectors that they can and should continue to invest in innovation that feeds people, improves lives, creates jobs, and allows America to keep its competitive edge."

It kind of sounds .like they are reserving the right to sue anyone they damn well please, because patents. And why wouldn't they? If their extremely valuable patented seed escapes, just like it's doing right now, their patent will be worthless. What's the point of having a patent if the shiat is just going to blow and hybridize all over the place?

And they already have the Supreme Court on their side: The Chief Justice quickly broke in to ask Mark Walters (arguing for Bowman): "Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" When Walters suggested that Monsanto could protect itself adequately by contract, the Chief Justice commented, dismissively, that "the patent system is based, I think, on the recognition that contractual protection is inadequate to encourage invention."

Plus Monsanto is a huge corporation and they will fark everybody they can. That's what they do.  But we should trust them because their horrible reputation is only partially deserved.
 
2014-01-25 06:45:29 PM  

Gawdzila: 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.


Pretty much that. Hell, Whole Foods has massive misinformation banners about how GMO stuff will harm you.
 
2014-01-25 06:49:23 PM  

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


But I thought bananas were God's chosen food and an atheist nightmare!

/Yes, yes, even the guy who said that disavows it now.
 
2014-01-25 06:56:05 PM  
www.justsaypictures.com
 
2014-01-25 07:10:45 PM  

cryinoutloud: AlanSmithee: Yes, that is correct. Monsanto has never sued (and say they never will) for simple cases of contamination.

When did they say that? Because I'm not getting that from their statement after they won the big lawsuit. And the court itself said that they didn't address the entire problem of what to do about accidental contamination or hybridization. They only addressed the case of this one farmer.


From the Monsanto site:
Can a farmer be sued when a small amount of GM crop seed blows into a neighbor's fields? Do you sue this farmer? Does he or she have to prove he or she is innocent?
It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in farmers' fields as a result of inadvertent means. We have no motivation to conduct business in this manner, nor have we ever attempted to conduct business in this manner -- and we surely would not prevail in the courts if we did.
If a suspected instance of a farmer violating our technology agreements or patent rights is reported to us, we do not automatically assume a farmer has intentionally acted in an unethical or criminal manner. The burden of proof is not on the farmer. Instead, the burden of proof is on Monsanto to investigate the legitimacy of these claims and to resolve the issue as quickly and fairly as possible, which usually does not lead to litigation.
It is patently false that Monsanto sues farmers for the accidental presence of our technology in their crops.
 
2014-01-25 07:29:24 PM  

cold_weather_tex: 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.


The problem is that providing information is only useful if people know what to do with it or if it comes in some sort of informative context.  If they don't, or it doesn't, people make assumptions instead.  Assumptions like "Hmm, they're warning me that this food is genetically modified.  That sounds scary, maybe it's bad for me".

The people who support the GMO label stuff know full well that the purpose is to dissuade rather than inform, which is what really bothers me about it.  Not only are they wrong about GMO stuff, but they're trying to get everyone on their side by taking advantage of ignorance and a fear of evil "weird science" instead of actually seeking to persuade with factual information.

As it is said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
 
2014-01-25 07:40:28 PM  
Pretty sure I'd eat human flesh seasoned with heroin if were cheaper than ground beef.


And if such was the case, I'd prefer not to be told.
 
2014-01-25 07:42:17 PM  
Feh.  I voted against a similar silly bill in CA a few years ago.  There is zero evidence that genetically modified foods are any better or worse than other foods.  There is therefore no reason to label them.  It adds cost without doing a bit of good for anybody.  Plus, what would anybody do with that info?  If food makers had to label gm foods then damn near everything on the shelves would be labeled.  I suppose that would work out fine since then all except the most stupid would realize that 90% of what they have been eating is gm and it hasn't harmed them a bit, however, it still would be an added cost for no good reason.
 
2014-01-25 07:50:13 PM  
We're already eating genetically modified "food".  We just don't have the option of knowing so.  If I had the choice I would not.  However, they will likely find ways to get around it even if they ever are required to label.  Like the transfat thing.  They get to label it transfat FREE if it's 1/2 a gram or less per serving.  Not too many things that qualify as a serving as listed on the label.  So you're eating much more.  Plus that and high fructose corn syrup are in just about all processed foods of any type, because they extend shelf life.  if there is hydrogenated, or
interesterified (how's that for a meaningless made up word)  anything oil on the label, it has transfat.    Absolutely if the word hydrogenated appears on the label.  Interesterification (?!?!)  does not produce hydrogenation, but most of the time the initial ingredient is hydrogenated oil.  So they get to use that stupid made up word instead of telling you that you're eating further modified hydrogenated oil.

So you'll get something similar with the GMO "food".  You'll still be eating it, with no idea for 50 - 100 years what effect it will have.    On the bright side, maybe all the stomach and other cancers it causes will reverse all the obesity the HFCS and hydrogenated oils have caused over the past 50-60 years.

 
2014-01-25 07:57:38 PM  

StainedGlassRuby: We're already eating genetically modified "food".  We just don't have the option of knowing so.  If I had the choice I would not.  However, they will likely find ways to get around it even if they ever are required to label.  Like the transfat thing.  They get to label it transfat FREE if it's 1/2 a gram or less per serving.  Not too many things that qualify as a serving as listed on the label.  So you're eating much more.  Plus that and high fructose corn syrup are in just about all processed foods of any type, because they extend shelf life.  if there is hydrogenated, or
interesterified (how's that for a meaningless made up word)  anything oil on the label, it has transfat.    Absolutely if the word hydrogenated appears on the label.  Interesterification (?!?!)  does not produce hydrogenation, but most of the time the initial ingredient is hydrogenated oil.  So they get to use that stupid made up word instead of telling you that you're eating further modified hydrogenated oil.

So you'll get something similar with the GMO "food".  You'll still be eating it, with no idea for 50 - 100 years what effect it will have.    On the bright side, maybe all the stomach and other cancers it causes will reverse all the obesity the HFCS and hydrogenated oils have caused over the past 50-60 years.


THIS (not)
 
2014-01-25 08:03:36 PM  
I already eat GMOs. The only thing that makes me want to stop eating GMOs altogether is that GMO producing companies refuse to stand by their products.

Spending billions of dollars to prevent legislation that would require you to add THREE WHOLE LETTERS to your food label does not make you look like something anybody should trust.
 
2014-01-25 08:08:39 PM  

AlanSmithee: All that to pander to dumb chicken-little douchebags.


What the mindset of the average anti-labeling company might look like regarding their own customers.

/go ahead, keep snapping at the hands keeping you in business
 
2014-01-25 08:09:34 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I already eat GMOs. The only thing that makes me want to stop eating GMOs altogether is that GMO producing companies refuse to stand by their products.

Spending billions of dollars to prevent legislation that would require you to add THREE WHOLE LETTERS to your food label does not make you look like something anybody should trust.


Read the thread before flaunting your ignorance...


cptjeff:

You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers. The grainery doesn't track the biological profile of each harvest, farmers grow what they're going to grow, and dump it all in one big pile. So now you have to develop a system- with significant physical components, and thus construction costs, as well as labor, to track exactly what corn is in every shipment from the farmer. Then you have to figure out exactly what's being put in each rail car to the company making the food. You have to calculate prices differently for different types of corn, so you're adding a new layer of speculation on top of things.

And there are just a billion other costs throughout the system.

A requirement like that does drive up costs, and potentially significantly so, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
 
2014-01-25 08:10:20 PM  

grimlock1972: people id your eating Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts  or Cauliflower your already eating genetically altered food as they all started out as the same plant.

Human have been doing this since before written history , the only difference is now we can do it far quicker.


Same deal with changing the climate. The biosphere has been altering the climate for millions of years. Now, we can do it much faster.
 
2014-01-25 08:12:41 PM  

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

You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers. The grainery doesn't track the biological profile of each harvest, farmers grow what they're going to grow, and dump it all in one big pile. So now you have to develop a system- with significant physical components, and thus construction costs, as well as labor, to track exactly what corn is in every shipment from the farmer. Then you have to figure out exactly what's being put in each rail car to the company making the food. You have to calculate prices differently for different types of corn, so you're adding a new layer of speculation on top of things.

And there are just a billion other costs throughout the system.

A requirement like that does drive up costs, and potentially significantly so, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.


Ahh, but you didn't  really read what I posted.

You don't want to track, then label "has GMOs"  no need to track.  Prices stay the same for those that aren't "smug hippies"


You want to label "No GMOs", then track and "smug hippies" pay more for it.
 
2014-01-25 08:16:30 PM  
ITT people don't get the difference between what Mendel observed and scientists splicing fish genes into food.
 
2014-01-25 08:19:17 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.


Or veggies that produce their own Roundup at toxic levels.
 
2014-01-25 08:30:46 PM  
I could not care less, we have been eating genetically modified food for hundreds of years. Now we just do it without the trial and error and wasted time.
 
2014-01-25 08:39:20 PM  
I really don't farking care. That being said, people have the right to be silly ninnies, so go ahead and label everything. Label the GMOs, label the specific pesticides used, label the farmer's dick length, I DON'T CARE.
 
2014-01-25 08:55:45 PM  

cryptozoophiliac: grimlock1972: people id your eating Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts  or Cauliflower your already eating genetically altered food as they all started out as the same plant.

Human have been doing this since before written history , the only difference is now we can do it far quicker.

Same deal with changing the climate. The biosphere has been altering the climate for millions of years. Now, we can do it much faster.


No argument from me on that.
 
2014-01-25 08:56:31 PM  
I always love the Monsanto topic because they've been vilified so dramatically for...nothing.

I also love when vegans tell me that they're GMO free. (note: the latest number was something like 93-97% of all soy beans are genetically modified, so it's pretty much a certainty that you can't get GMO free soy beans).

There's a movement now, some anti-GMO group, that is offering to allow you to put their label on your product after you've followed a ridiculously long process of identifying where each and every seed you use comes from, even allowing them to perform genetic analysis on them (and yes, you have to pay for all this). Here's the fun part: the group is run by companies that are already advertising that they have no GM products.

Think about that for a moment: imagine a group getting together and spreading the word that using gas from Mexico can cause your car to randomly burst into flames. This group is based in the US, and most likely sells gas that game from Mexico. However, they decide that they'll design a logo that you can put on your gas pump if they can be allowed to analyze your gas (for a fee) and determine none of your gas is from Mexico. However, notice that they're not testing on themselves, just others, and never mind the fact that it's a myth, they'll just keep spreading the word.

Pretty much what's happening!  http://www.nongmoproject.org/
 
2014-01-25 09:47:03 PM  

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

You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers. The grainery doesn't track the biological profile of each harvest, farmers grow what they're going to grow, and dump it all in one big pile. So now you have to develop a system- with significant physical components, and thus construction costs, as well as labor, to track exactly what corn is in every shipment from the farmer. Then you have to figure out exactly what's being put in each rail car to the company making the food. You have to calculate prices differently for different types of corn, so you're adding a new layer of speculation on top of things.

And there are just a billion other costs throughout the system.

A requirement like that does drive up costs, and potentially significantly so, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

Ahh, but you didn't  really read what I posted.

You don't want to track, then label "has GMOs"  no need to track.  Prices stay the same for those that aren't "smug hippies"


You want to label "No GMOs", then track and "smug hippies" pay more for it.


Trouble is, what will likely happen is since so much of the US food supply contains GMOs, distributors won't want to deal with non-GMO certification tracking at all.  It's just extra overhead with no benefit for them.  So they are more likely to turn away products marked "GMO-free" because of the extra burden it imposes on them to maintain records that they were kept that way.  So the hippies just won't be able to get what they want.  As much as I think they're making an issue of nothing on GMOs, I want them to be able to buy all the hippie organic stuff they can afford, because let's not forget that originally "organic" was about not using pesticides and I think it's good to keep that kind of agriculture around.

And again, all this extra cost and hassle is for no demonstrated benefit to the end consumer.
 
2014-01-25 10:35:23 PM  

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


You might want to quit eating organic food then.  The toxins expressed by GMOs are replicating an organic pesticide's output.  People like you crack me up.  BT expressing GMOs generally emit 1 or 2 of the cry proteins that actual BT (an organic pesticide, been around for nearly 100 years) which shiats out about 18 of them, and you think the GMOs are dangerous.  But you'd eat up corn slathered in actual BT which left behind 18 toxic items.

None of which are actually toxic to you, or bees, or fish, or most insects.
 
2014-01-25 10:38:15 PM  

Kensey: Trouble is, what will likely happen is since so much of the US food supply contains GMOs, distributors won't want to deal with non-GMO certification tracking at all.  It's just extra overhead with no benefit for them.  So they are more likely to turn away products marked "GMO-free" because of the extra burden it imposes on them to maintain records that they were kept that way.  So the hippies just won't be able to get what they want.  As much as I think they're making an issue of nothing on GMOs, I want them to be able to buy all the hippie organic stuff they can afford, because let's not forget that originally "organic" was about not using pesticides and I think it's good to keep that kind of agriculture around.

And again, all this extra cost and hassle is for no demonstrated benefit to the end consumer.


Again, if they don't want to deal with the extra tracking, they add "Contains GMOs" to the label and there you go, no more costs.

There are only more costs IF a product wants to be recognized as not containing GMOs.  And that cost is paid for by people who don't want GMOs.
 
2014-01-25 10:40:49 PM  
there so many chemicals and preservatives and weird crap in our food already, i am not even concerned about genetically modified food.  there's pesticides on our vegetables and hormones in our meat, and who knows what else.  unless you're
actually growing all your own food in your backyard, then you should be complaining about all of it, not just genetically altered food
 
2014-01-25 11:42:42 PM  

MrBallou: Snarfangel: 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.

The Psilocybin Potatoe. Kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?


While it is definitely of general interest, I thought the conversation pertained to putting Round Up into the genome of edibles... ... ?
 
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