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 47
    More: Interesting, Grocery Manufacturers Association, GMOs, genetically modified food, cash crops  
•       •       •

916 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:31 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-25 03:22:54 PM  
12 votes:
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 10:54:27 AM  
5 votes:
fark monsanto
2014-01-25 04:10:25 PM  
3 votes:
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).
2014-01-25 03:43:13 PM  
3 votes:
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 01:39:55 PM  
3 votes:

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
2014-01-25 12:51:58 PM  
3 votes:
Just about everything we eat is genetically modified.

Do you really think that supermarket style tomatoes exist in nature?
2014-01-25 05:33:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:31:44 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:10:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:40:17 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:39:46 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:38:26 PM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-01-25 03:36:10 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:30:04 PM  
2 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-25 02:12:46 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:04:04 PM  
2 votes:
How heavy do they think the labels will be?
2014-01-25 11:04:08 AM  
2 votes:
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 07:42:17 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:51:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:30:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:23:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:16:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:15:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:12:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:10:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:08:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:00:06 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:55:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:50:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:46:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:39:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:37:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:24:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:14:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:14:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:08:14 PM  
1 votes:
It depends.
What are they manipulating?  Foods that are altered to be toxic to bugs, no way I'm eating that.
2014-01-25 04:05:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:03:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:53:57 PM  
1 votes:
Sure.  I've always wanted two heads.
2014-01-25 03:50:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:50:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:37:42 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:35:19 PM  
1 votes:
We already do
2014-01-25 03:35:10 PM  
1 votes:
OMG / GMO

/run, scurry, Monsanto wants to hear from you
2014-01-25 03:12:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:13:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:10:57 PM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report