Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NPR)   Food industry: Customers, we hear you. You hate GMOs. Rather than force a bunch of new regulations, we'll start labeling foods that use them with a few exceptions, the main one being that we'll only do it when we want. We good now?   (npr.org) divider line 151
    More: Stupid, GMOs, food industry, American food, National Council of La Raza, exceptions, Environmental Working Group  
•       •       •

2893 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2014 at 5:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-06 11:50:55 PM  
No.
 
2014-02-07 12:23:44 AM  
"Help" as defined by the groups is not only a voluntary federal labeling standard, but also a bill that would bar all states from trying to mandate labels at all.

We'll start labeling them as long as you promise never to force us to start labeling them.  Sounds legit.
 
2014-02-07 12:26:48 AM  
Seems legit

/I mean, why would they lie?
//invisible hand and all
 
2014-02-07 12:39:34 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Seems legit

/I mean, why would they lie?
//invisible hand and all


Any food that has corn, soy, or sugar that isn't listed as cane sugar, assume it has GMO ingredients unless it says Organic or non-GMO on the label.  Because the GMOs are cheaper to produce.  Also, I'd just flat out assume most organic soy or corn probably also contains some of the GMO genes, because pollens a promiscuous substance, and I'd be willing to be it has cross pollinated into the organic varieties by accident.

Some interests have latched on to GMO as a vehicle for anti-corporate control of food (good IMHO), anti-monoculture (again, good), and anti-Monsanto (also good imho).

And Fark Monsanto. Fark them fark them fark them.

Rather than using this technology to improve nutrition profiles and improve resistance to disease, or speed up plant breeding, they've taken the route of making them resistant to herbicides and engineering pesticides (albeit ones that are also approved for Organic use, and shown to be harmless to people) into the food.

I'm pissed because it is a good technology, and it's being abused by these companies, leaving a lot of good research languishing because they people freak out about GMO food.
 
2014-02-07 03:27:01 AM  
Come on, who doesn't like caulisheep?
theroadnotprocessed.com
 
2014-02-07 03:41:03 AM  
well that sounds like a bunch of shiat.  I guess its a hell of a lot cheaper to buy some congress critters into passing a law saying places can't pass laws than to convince voters your side is correct.

An optional ad that is consistent across products and has some FDA over sight isn't an awful idea, if the FDA and congress had any balls they'd tell these people they are keeping that but get farked on the banning states from passing their own legislation idea.
 
2014-02-07 05:29:05 AM  
anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.
 
2014-02-07 05:35:07 AM  
GMO food doesn't scare me, all the preservatives, coloring, salt, corn syrup and other added chemicals do though.
In fact GMO food is the next step in human innovation. Cheaper, more plentiful fresh food can only be a good thing for billions of humans.I say this as I dip french fries in ketchup and wash them down with surgary carmel colored soda.
 
2014-02-07 05:37:01 AM  

meat0918: Rather than using this technology to improve nutrition profiles and improve resistance to disease, or speed up plant breeding, they've taken the route of making them resistant to herbicides and engineering pesticides (albeit ones that are also approved for Organic use, and shown to be harmless to people) into the food.


I'm not a big fan of the pesticide resistant stuff, but Monsanto has been working to make fruit/veggies through regular selective/cross breeding, albeit on a scale/rate that your average farmer couldn't dream of:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/
 
2014-02-07 05:38:01 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.


Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.  There is also an argument to be made that what GMO's have delivered (a reduction in the cost of labor associated with farming) is not necessarily a good thing in times of high unemployment.
 
2014-02-07 05:39:32 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.


Hoe about unknown unknowns? We used to think asbestos was an awesome building material. So much so we put it EVERYWHERE. We had Tobacco executive straight-up lie to Congress (and everyone else) for years in order to make a buck off the premature deaths of millions.

And now they say "trust us"? Fark you for being so damned gullible.
 
2014-02-07 05:41:40 AM  
...So we just presume you're using GMO's, waste byproducts, and dangerous chemicals unless you say otherwise?

/Works for me.
 
2014-02-07 05:43:09 AM  
Or maybe we start focusing on something that actually matters, instead of being spoiled rotten, boring little shiats? There's no science to validate the anti GMO bullshiat.
 
2014-02-07 05:44:37 AM  
Oh, a GMO thread.

Time to break out the alcohol.

Take one shot when people don't understand what GMO i- wait. Nevermind. You farks will die of alcohol poisoning and your moms will blame me.

Take one nineth a shot when someone whargarbls about Frankenfoods and killer tomatoes.
One shot when someone realizes that most ANTI-GMO is actually Anti-corporatism or Anti-Monsanto.
One shot when someone talks about GMOs causing human mutation.
One shot when someone claims there's no regulation.
Down the whole bottle if Pocket Ninja appears in the thread.
And finally, take a shot when the post is made by a generally anti-science FARKer.
 
2014-02-07 05:48:23 AM  

ltr77: Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.


That's an argument against growing organics, not GMOs.
 
2014-02-07 05:49:14 AM  
Stopwhining about GMO,dumbasses. There are plenty of real problems with the same farking industry.
 
2014-02-07 05:53:40 AM  
AlanSmithee:

That's an argument against growing organics, not GMOs.

Sounds like you are either anti-science or an ill informed consumer.  GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses.  https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf They actually reduce yields.
 
2014-02-07 06:01:39 AM  
Anyone want to explain this GMO thing without talking shiat against the other side? As a person that hasn't really looked into to GMOs I left this thread learning almost nothing. No one laid out a good case for either side, just a bunch of shiat talk so far. Step your game up Farkers, I'm too lazy to wiki anything right now. This isn't some kind of abortion, weed, tax, gun, war, privacy, global warming,gay rights, civil rights, nuclear, free speech, states rights, religious, health care, etc debate, the GMO topic is much more obscure to the average person.
 
2014-02-07 06:03:14 AM  

ltr77: Sounds like you are either anti-science or an ill informed consumer.  GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses.  https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf They actually reduce yields.


I think the only anti-science one here is you, Sir.

GMO crops increase yields by both reducing losses and the amount of chemicals needed to support their growth.

At any rate, I think I'll trust MIT before I trust MotherJones.
 
2014-02-07 06:07:00 AM  
Consumers irrationally hate GMOs. While there is ample reason for heavily regulating GMO and stringently reviewing each and every instance of products enter the environment and the foodchain for potential harm, there is nothing wrong in the concept per se.
 
2014-02-07 06:08:00 AM  
For both sides, GM foods seem to act as a symbol: you're pro-agribusiness or anti-science. But science is exactly what we need more of when it comes to GM foods, which is why I was happy to see the venerable journal  Nature devote a special series of articles to the GM food controversy. You can download most of them for free , and they're well worth reading. The upshot: while GM crops haven't yet realized their initial promise and have been dominated by agribusiness, there is reason to continue to use and develop them to help meet the enormous challenge of sustainably feeding a growing planet.

Time Magazine: Modifying the Endless Debate Over Genetically Modified Crops
 
2014-02-07 06:10:28 AM  

fusillade762: We'll start labeling them as long as you promise never to force us to start labeling them. Sounds legit.


It's actually happened in multiple industries.  You know MPAA ratings?  That's done voluntarily by movie makers in order to avoid having governments step in.  Same with game ratings.

ltr77: Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.


Huh?  Many GMO crops actually require LESS chemical use - you have to use more herbicides, apply more pesticides, etc...

Prophet of Loss: Hoe about unknown unknowns? We used to think asbestos was an awesome building material.


I once did a report on asbestos.  Turns out they actually knew that it was bad news and safety regulations regarding it were spreading.  Then WWII happened and 'MAXIMUM PRODUCTION AT ALL COSTS!!!!' happened, safety regulations were actually dropped then not restored to the same level after the war.  The main risk is actually to the workers handling it, confined to walls and such it's safe.  The expensive remediation projects of today are a bit like calling HAZMAT over a broken flourescent tube.

The problem with avoiding unknowns is that the additional expense adds up.  GMO foods can do a lot of good.  One thing to remember that all GMOs are not the same.  You have 'golden rice', which produces vitamin A.  You have 'roundup-ready' plants that won't die when exposed to roundup.  There are ones that produce natural pesticides so farmers don't have to spray to control them, and due to the nature of said pesticides it's actually lower levels and less toxic to humans.

I'd argue that a 'GM/Non-GM' label is basically valueless from a health standpoint.  Organic foods, as a class, are not demonstratably tastier*, healthier, or safer than quality non-organic.  But they are more expensive.

*Individual exceptions do exist, of course.
 
2014-02-07 06:11:48 AM  

ltr77: Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.  There is also an argument to be made that what GMO's have delivered (a reduction in the cost of labor associated with farming) is not necessarily a good thing in times of high unemployment.


Increase in "chemicals" is not an argument. You have to identify specific problems with increased chemicals. Though this will be hard since most GMOs are designed to work with less "chemicals"

Also, the yield is greater. The article that was published which claimed a lower yield was a gross misrepresentation of the original journal article:
 http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/FILELIB.NSF/0/3FCACF5C93CFA9A18525743A006 C7 630/$file/Gordon_Fact_Sheet.pdf
 
2014-02-07 06:12:41 AM  

ltr77: GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses


Er, minimizing losses increases average yield, which is the important metric. To be sure, maximum yield under optimal conditions is important too, but average yields is much more a 'real world' consideration.
 
2014-02-07 06:13:16 AM  

hardinparamedic: ltr77: Sounds like you are either anti-science or an ill informed consumer.  GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses.  https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf They actually reduce yields.

I think the only anti-science one here is you, Sir.

GMO crops increase yields by both reducing losses and the amount of chemicals needed to support their growth.

At any rate, I think I'll trust MIT before I trust MotherJones.


Maybe you should read the report.  It isn't Motherjones who did the research or published the study.  It is a URL that has motherjones in the title.    From your own link "For insect-resistant maize in the United States and herbi-cide-tolerant soybeans in the United States and Argentina, average yield effects are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative (7-9)" It looks like they cite the same study you just disregarded.
 
2014-02-07 06:14:09 AM  

Cashew: Come on, who doesn't like caulisheep?


I feel like an Australian vegitarian, cause I got the weirdest boner.
 
2014-02-07 06:19:14 AM  
*Shrug*
Don't care either way.
 
2014-02-07 06:22:47 AM  
The reason anti-GMO initiatives failed in CA and WA is because those two states produce a shiat ton of food. Just saying.
 
2014-02-07 06:25:19 AM  

relaxitsjustme: The reason anti-GMO initiatives failed in CA and WA is because those two states produce a shiat ton of food. Just saying.


images.sodahead.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

cloudfront.mediamatters.org
 
2014-02-07 06:27:26 AM  

ltr77: AlanSmithee:

That's an argument against growing organics, not GMOs.

Sounds like you are either anti-science or an ill informed consumer.  GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses.  https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf They actually reduce yields.


The paper contained indicates lower yield risk, not lower yields.
 
2014-02-07 06:28:29 AM  
So are GMO haters also Vegan Anti-Vaxers? Cause it kinda seems like they would be. Since the ones screaming the loudest likely have no farking idea what they're talking about or even ehy.
 
2014-02-07 06:29:07 AM  

abhorrent1: So are GMO haters also Vegan Anti-Vaxers? Cause it kinda seems like they would be. Since the ones screaming the loudest likely have no farking idea what they're talking about or even why.


dammit

/too early
 
2014-02-07 06:32:45 AM  

abhorrent1: So are GMO haters also Vegan Anti-Vaxers? Cause it kinda seems like they would be. Since the ones screaming the loudest likely have no farking idea what they're talking about or even ehy.


GMO haters are the Left's version of Truthers.
 
2014-02-07 06:39:40 AM  

AlanSmithee: abhorrent1: So are GMO haters also Vegan Anti-Vaxers? Cause it kinda seems like they would be. Since the ones screaming the loudest likely have no farking idea what they're talking about or even ehy.

GMO haters are the Left's version of Truthers.


Did you mean birthers? 9/11 conspiracies are prominent from almost all sides, liberals and left wingers included.
 
2014-02-07 06:45:15 AM  
Sorry, birthers.

TheJoe03: Did you mean birthers? 9/11 conspiracies are prominent from almost all sides, liberals and left wingers included.

 
2014-02-07 06:45:37 AM  

TheJoe03: Anyone want to explain this GMO thing without talking shiat against the other side? As a person that hasn't really looked into to GMOs I left this thread learning almost nothing. No one laid out a good case for either side, just a bunch of shiat talk so far. Step your game up Farkers, I'm too lazy to wiki anything right now. This isn't some kind of abortion, weed, tax, gun, war, privacy, global warming,gay rights, civil rights, nuclear, free speech, states rights, religious, health care, etc debate, the GMO topic is much more obscure to the average person.


Much like nearly all of the topics you listed, the whole GMO "issue" has one side--ignorant twits and ignorant folks who think they mean well--that is asinine and objectively wrong and one side that has at least a mild understanding of the topic and isn't affluent, anti-non-white people, and anti-science. So... not really. But if you want a short-ish summary, here you go.

BACKGROUND: This planet is not intrinsically welcoming to humans--potable water is something we have to, for the most part, generate for ourselves and all (removing outliers, if there are any) food humans grow has been heavily modified through decades or millenia of human manipulation and breeding. If you ever eat plants or plant-derived products, you can thank all the farmers since the beginning of agriculture.

PRO-GMO: Since we have the capability of altering the genetic material of living organisms (successfully, at least in plants and some animals), we can modify genes of plants to make them survive in harsher environments, require less intervention, produce additional essential human nutrients, etc. It's a bit of technology. There have been--and always will be, so long as competent scientists have any involvement--concerns about genetically modified plants cross-breeding with wild plants or, themselves, changing over time to any kind of detrimental effect, but, in the time GMO crops have been around (well over a decade) no such problem has actually been observed (which is good, although, obviously, should still be monitored).

ANTI-GMO: Whole Foods has big signs saying that GMOs are bad, therefore they must be. Technology is scary and new to me and therefore bad. ...some of the less ignorant among the anti-GMO crowd may, rightly, be concerned with the aforementioned possibility of wild plants crossing with GMOs to some sort of detrimental effect, but the solution to that problem isn't to not buy/ban GMOs (I might have a meteor strike me in the head and kill me if I go outside, but I'm still going to go outside and live my life), it's simply to continue monitoring our use of GMOs and/or promote additional screening or research.

...anti-GMO people are also heavily overlapping with people who think that "organic" produce is "better" (in any way) than traditionally grown food. And/or that "organic" means pesticides weren't used (for anyone unaware or willfully ignorant: that's not what "organic" food means--they were almost certainly sprayed with pesticides, and the pesticides used are not intrinsically better or safer for humans... although, iirc, they do tend to be less environmentally persistent, which is a nice thing).

MONSANTO: Generally has farking abhorrent business practices. They produce and sell seeds for crops that are resistant to their herbicide(s?), promoting the heavy use of their product to kill off any/all invading plants, etc. It's more complicated, but not really relevant to a discussion purely about GMOs.
 
2014-02-07 06:47:04 AM  

AlanSmithee: abhorrent1: So are GMO haters also Vegan Anti-Vaxers? Cause it kinda seems like they would be. Since the ones screaming the loudest likely have no farking idea what they're talking about or even ehy.

GMO haters are the Left's version of Truthers.


bluraymedia.ign.com

"It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Capitalist works."
 
2014-02-07 06:55:16 AM  
I never did understand the mindset that "natural" is somehow superior or more desirable than something artificially created simply because it's "natural."
 
2014-02-07 07:03:29 AM  
If GMO's are so safe why does the pro-GMO crowd insist on keeping their existence secret? If they are safe, what difference does it make it if needs to be properly labeled? How is it any differen than other labeling laws like requiring caloric and fat contents?

Let the consumer decide. If a consumer doesn't want to buy high sugar content crap, they can look at the label. If a person doesn't want to buy GMO's they can just check out the label.

If GMO's are in fact bad for you, history will show that Americans won't care and will buy it whether it's labeled or not as long as it's cheap and tastes good. Labeling laws have nothing to reduce the sales of overly processed junk food.
 
2014-02-07 07:06:14 AM  

max_pooper: If GMO's are so safe why does the pro-GMO crowd insist on keeping their existence secret?


Troll or retarded?
 
2014-02-07 07:08:20 AM  

CowardlyLion: MONSANTO: Generally has farking abhorrent business practices. They produce and sell seeds for crops that are resistant to their herbicide(s?), promoting the heavy use of their product to kill off any/all invading plants, etc. It's more complicated, but not really relevant to a discussion purely about GMOs.


This is really what started the hatred of Monsanto and rightfully so. There's nothing wrong with genetically modifying food if you improve it. However when you use that power to contrive business and create a monopoly, that's about the time you're deserving of the vitriol.
 
2014-02-07 07:18:28 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.


So you have no problem whatsoever with, and I quote:  "before new GMO products go on the market, companies be required to submit safety data to be reviewed and approved by the FDA. Currently, that practice is optional."

I've got a car I'd like to sell you.  The brakes work fine.  Trust me.

You'll have to:  I've paid Congress to make it illegal to ask a mechanic for a second opinion.

You're not anti-science are you?  Good.

Buy the car.

And put your kids in it.

I've got some child seats to go with the car.

They've been tested by my same in-house lab.

They work fine too.
 
2014-02-07 07:20:29 AM  

Enlightened Liberal: I never did understand the mindset that "natural" is somehow superior or more desirable than something artificially created simply because it's "natural."


I think it's more along the lines of thought that nature didn't put such and such in there on its own, man did. That being said, I'm sure that crowd will all agree selective breeding is perfectly all right because nature is doing all the work (man merely helps in cross pollination), but genetically introducing something that wasn't in the plant/animal to begin with, or introducing a substance/gene that would never appear naturally (pigs with a glowy jellyfish gene anyone?) is what they'll rail on about. Especially if one of these "experiments" should somehow find its way into the wild and (uhh huh huh) start spreading its genes around.
 
2014-02-07 07:22:54 AM  

meat0918: Any food that has corn, soy, or sugar that isn't listed as cane sugar, assume it has GMO ingredients unless it says Organic or non-GMO on the label.


Does organic have an FDA definition now?

Can't I just throw organic on anything?
 
2014-02-07 07:23:23 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

Hoe about unknown unknowns? We used to think asbestos was an awesome building material. So much so we put it EVERYWHERE. We had Tobacco executive straight-up lie to Congress (and everyone else) for years in order to make a buck off the premature deaths of millions.

And now they say "trust us"? Fark you for being so damned gullible.


I concur, mostly, but actually, we knew perfectly well asbestos was dangerous.  The ROMANS knew asbestos (rock wool, they called it) was dangerous; the slaves they made mine the stuff got brown lung.  I give the old-school head of Johns-Manville props; back in the day, pre-WWII, he would stand ankle-deep in the stuff on his factory floor, right alongside his workers.

And, yes, he died of asbestosis.
 
2014-02-07 07:24:13 AM  

AlanSmithee: ltr77: Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.

That's an argument against growing organics, not GMOs.


Do some more reading.

You'll look less ignorant.

Of course, with that handle, you're probably not taking ownership of the crap you spew anyway.
 
2014-02-07 07:26:44 AM  

PunkTiger: I think it's more along the lines of thought that nature didn't put such and such in there on its own, man did. That being said, I'm sure that crowd will all agree selective breeding is perfectly all right because nature is doing all the work (man merely helps in cross pollination), but genetically introducing something that wasn't in the plant/animal to begin with, or introducing a substance/gene that would never appear naturally (pigs with a glowy jellyfish gene anyone?) is what they'll rail on about


These people are obviously unaware of lateral gene transfer. Yes, genes do jump accross species/genus/family/order/etc... all naturally.
Science, biatch.
 
2014-02-07 07:26:58 AM  

max_pooper: Let the consumer decide.


Jesus, I hate the phrase "Let the consumer decide!!!!!" Especially in the GMO argument. Consumers are morons.

My problem is that it is hard to explain to >95% of the US population the biochemistry underlying these modifications. The anti-GMO crowd uses scare tactics that aren't rooted in any kind of reality. As soon as you try to rationally explain the safety behind using bacteria and viruses as vectors for cloning and introducing genes into other organisms, their brains shut down, with visions of the monkey from "Outbreak" popping into their heads. The people running this anti-GMO sham of a movement have zero understanding of biochemistry and molecular biology.

It's the same argument used with creationism: "Let the children decide!!!!"

The problem in both cases is that the vast majority of consumers and children are idiots and need grown-ups to make educated decisions on their behalf. Decisions based on science and fact, not oversimplifications based on fiction.
 
2014-02-07 07:27:07 AM  

PunGent: Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

So you have no problem whatsoever with, and I quote:  "before new GMO products go on the market, companies be required to submit safety data to be reviewed and approved by the FDA. Currently, that practice is optional."

I've got a car I'd like to sell you.  The brakes work fine.  Trust me.

You'll have to:  I've paid Congress to make it illegal to ask a mechanic for a second opinion.

You're not anti-science are you?  Good.

Buy the car.

And put your kids in it.

I've got some child seats to go with the car.

They've been tested by my same in-house lab.

They work fine too.


A more apt analogy would be;

I've got a car to sell you, these three mechanics have all verified that it is safe.  I replaced the wheel lug nuts with some non OEM ones.  They were more expensive but because these ones were easier to install it was more than worth it.  A lot of parts on this car are aftermarket parts that I have installed over the years that I have owned it and BTW these particular aftermarket parts are vastly superior to the OEM parts. What? you don't like the Lugs?  Because I used an air wrench to install them instead of a hand tool?  Are you stupid?
 
2014-02-07 07:27:19 AM  

MayoSlather: CowardlyLion: MONSANTO: Generally has farking abhorrent business practices. They produce and sell seeds for crops that are resistant to their herbicide(s?), promoting the heavy use of their product to kill off any/all invading plants, etc. It's more complicated, but not really relevant to a discussion purely about GMOs.

This is really what started the hatred of Monsanto and rightfully so. There's nothing wrong with genetically modifying food if you improve it. However when you use that power to contrive business and create a monopoly, that's about the time you're deserving of the vitriol.


Bingo

The message is lost in the noise.

As a species, Homo Sapien has been "GMOing"  for thousands of years by influencing the evolutionary process. There is little difference in what happens today. It's just on a bigger scale.

The up side is increased yields to feed a hungry world. It's a matter of opinion that the down side out weighs it. The danger of mono culture, increased reliance on pesticides, and the horror of a single monolithic corporation controlling food production for a start.
 
2014-02-07 07:28:14 AM  

hardinparamedic: ltr77: Sounds like you are either anti-science or an ill informed consumer.  GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses.  https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf They actually reduce yields.

I think the only anti-science one here is you, Sir.

GMO crops increase yields by both reducing losses and the amount of chemicals needed to support their growth.

At any rate, I think I'll trust MIT before I trust MotherJones.


Dude, you need to vet your sources more carefully.

From your "MIT" link:  "GMO crops have been found to increase yields, with a 10 percent change to a genetically modified herbicide tolerant crop yielding a roughly 1.7 percent increase in productivity (USDA)"

Note there's no specific citation for that USDA statistic, AND the original article we're discussing points out that submitting safety data is OPTIONAL anyway.

Think regulatory capture.

I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

It's almost like they've got something to hide :)
 
2014-02-07 07:31:34 AM  

AlanSmithee: Sorry, birthers.
TheJoe03: Did you mean birthers? 9/11 conspiracies are prominent from almost all sides, liberals and left wingers included.


And you fail  again.  The original Birther, Berg, is a pro-Hillary Democrat.

You suck at this.
 
2014-02-07 07:34:40 AM  

PunGent: AlanSmithee: ltr77: Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.

That's an argument against growing organics, not GMOs.

Do some more reading.

You'll look less ignorant.

Of course, with that handle, you're probably not taking ownership of the crap you spew anyway.


Are you telling me I should 'study it out'?
 
2014-02-07 07:36:10 AM  
I'll eat it if you guys won't. This all sounds like another "the commies are putting fluoride in the water to control our testicles" yarn.
 
2014-02-07 07:36:25 AM  
I view it this way. I'm a vegetarian. That means I don't eat meat. If I ask someone who wants me to buy their food if they used chicken to make it and they won't tell me yes or no, I don't trust them.

I'm not interested in your opinions about how you eat chicken. I don't care that chicken isn't harmful to the people that eat it. I don't eat chicken and all I'm asking is if there is chicken in the food I pay for and all you have to do is say yes or say no.

I'm not interested in labels that say GMO is good, or labels that say GMO is bad. I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone to eat the way I prefer to eat.

I just want to know is if something is the food I eat.

If you don't want to tell me if it is, I do not trust you. I become more suspicious that you believe you stand to financially gain by lying to me rather than telling me the truth.
 
2014-02-07 07:37:10 AM  

PunGent: AlanSmithee: Sorry, birthers.
TheJoe03: Did you mean birthers? 9/11 conspiracies are prominent from almost all sides, liberals and left wingers included.

And you fail  again.  The original Birther, Berg, is a pro-Hillary Democrat.

You suck at this.


So one? One guy?
 
2014-02-07 07:41:54 AM  
PunGent:
I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

Who is suggesting making it illegal to label stuff properly?
 
2014-02-07 07:44:42 AM  

jgbrowning: I just want to know is if something is the food I eat.


The cost of implementing labels is very, very high. (And no, it's not the penny that the actual label costs, it's the whole red tape and revamped infrastructure needed to achieve this).
I don't want food prices to go up due to the fearmongering iof scientifically-illiterate douchebags. The GMO label makes as much sense as demanding labels for food grown by a farmer with 13 letters in his name, coz 13 is bad news, man.
 
2014-02-07 07:46:01 AM  

notto: PunGent:
I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

Who is suggesting making it illegal to label stuff properly?


The reptalien overlords.
 
2014-02-07 07:46:49 AM  
CSB: When I was a kid in the early 80s, there was a cartoon on called The Galaxy Rangers, and besides being completely badass, it also taught me the dangers of genetically modified food.

In one of the episodes the Rangers had to deal with a madman who had designed a virus intended to kill a certain species of 'space cow' that everybody ate, and when I say 'everybody' i mean it. There were entire planets where they raised and harvested them. I even remember it's name, "Bovine 9". The bad guy was going to eradicate the universe's meat supply, and it was genius because one simple virus would be able to take out all of it because there was only the one species.

It's not exactly the same thing of course, but... eventually I could see it being there. And this was the 1980s.
 
2014-02-07 07:49:31 AM  

AlanSmithee: jgbrowning: I just want to know is if something is the food I eat.

The cost of implementing labels is very, very high. (And no, it's not the penny that the actual label costs, it's the whole red tape and revamped infrastructure needed to achieve this).


What is the cost of implementing a label? How much would this cost increase consumer prices?
 
2014-02-07 07:49:43 AM  

jgbrowning: I view it this way. I'm a vegetarian. That means I don't eat meat. If I ask someone who wants me to buy their food if they used chicken to make it and they won't tell me yes or no, I don't trust them.


A better analogy would be you asking what color the chicken was and not trusting them if they won't tell you or if the color of chicken isn't on the label.
 
2014-02-07 07:52:54 AM  

notto: jgbrowning: I view it this way. I'm a vegetarian. That means I don't eat meat. If I ask someone who wants me to buy their food if they used chicken to make it and they won't tell me yes or no, I don't trust them.

A better analogy would be you asking what color the chicken was and not trusting them if they won't tell you or if the color of chicken isn't on the label.


If I asked if the chicken was red or white and they said, "I don't know" I wouldn't have a problem with that answer. I don't expect everyone to care about the things I'm interested in knowing.

However, if they did know and then said, "I'm not going to tell you because you don't need to know" I would have a problem with that answer.
 
2014-02-07 07:53:42 AM  

abhorrent1: So are GMO haters also Vegan Anti-Vaxers? Cause it kinda seems like they would be. Since the ones screaming the loudest likely have no farking idea what they're talking about or even ehy.


Vaccinations are made with eggs so some vegans avoid them for that reason. A sad number are just in the anti-vax camp because the believe in all that crap.

Now the funny thing is, GMO plants can be used to produce vaccines, and there are vegans who would happily try to block such things because GMOs are so gosh darn scary.

Fortunately, not all vegans are on the anti-science bandwagon.

http://skepticalvegan.com/2011/10/29/food-labeling/
 
2014-02-07 07:54:36 AM  
jgbrowning:

However, if they did know and then said, "I'm not going to tell you because you don't need to know" I would have a problem with that answer.

So, I shouldn't trust chicken that does not have the color on the label?  I think you are making my point for me.  Thanks.
 
2014-02-07 07:56:33 AM  

kidgenius: I'm not a big fan of the pesticide resistant stuff, but Monsanto has been working to make fruit/veggies through regular selective/cross breeding, albeit on a scale/rate that your average farmer couldn't dream of:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/


Good. Now let's see them make a store-bound tomato that has any taste whatsoever.
 
2014-02-07 07:56:38 AM  

notto: jgbrowning:

However, if they did know and then said, "I'm not going to tell you because you don't need to know" I would have a problem with that answer.

So, I shouldn't trust chicken that does not have the color on the label?  I think you are making my point for me.  Thanks.


No, I didn't say that you shouldn't trust chicken that doesn't have color on the label, I said I'm interested in knowing, and if you know but are unwilling to tell me, I tend to not trust you.

Even though the color of the chicken doesn't matter.

Since it doesn't matter, I assume that telling me doesn't matter.

Not telling me something that doesn't matter, matters.

To me.

Not you.
 
2014-02-07 07:57:59 AM  
I wish the anti-GMO crowd would starve to death.
 
2014-02-07 07:59:16 AM  
Well if it's such a selling point, there will be tons of food products who will label as non-GMO, and they'll take huge chunks of market share.

Non-organic farmers aren't forced to label "non-organic" right, yet there's tons of organic food on the market place labeled as such.
 
2014-02-07 08:00:43 AM  

www.maniacworld.com

 
2014-02-07 08:11:50 AM  
Not a fan of GMOs because of the twisted agenda behind many of them. And I'm referring to what is known as "round-up ready" GMOs, which basically have led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides (although the initial claim was that they would decrease overall pesticide use), thus an increase in the poisoning of humans and the environment.

I'm less concerned that a genetically modified food is inherently dangerous (possible, depending on the genes added) and more concerned that they seem to lead to patented food (something that is bullcrap) and increased use of poisons. If there were to be agenda free GMO production (non-patented) and actual REAL benefit (increased nutrition, no harm to biodiversity, definitely tested and safe from toxins not usually present in the original food) then I'm all behind that. Not saying there isn't. But the vast majority of GMOs (Corn,  soy, beets) have been a massive disappointment. I hope the best scientists of the world are working to do something better and more awesome.

/anti-Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, etc
//chemical poison spray consumption is too damn high
///not strictly relevant, but so is antibiotic use on animals
 
2014-02-07 08:15:04 AM  

jgbrowning: AlanSmithee: jgbrowning: I just want to know is if something is the food I eat.

The cost of implementing labels is very, very high. (And no, it's not the penny that the actual label costs, it's the whole red tape and revamped infrastructure needed to achieve this).

What is the cost of implementing a label? How much would this cost increase consumer prices?


This is a post from Farker cptJeff from another thread:
"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. "
http://www.fark.com/comments/8115774/88917116#c88917116">http://www. fark.com/comments/8115774/88917116#c88917116
 
2014-02-07 08:16:32 AM  
Ah, yes.  They/you believe global warming science but don't believe GMO science.
 
2014-02-07 08:17:10 AM  
I think the biggest thing holding us back on labeling gmo is that our public is so stupid. Once we start labeling it all the right wing droolers will stop buying it. Because to them gmo is a scary word, and they know a thing or two about being scared by everything. I'm not saying all gmo is good, but it isn't automatically the devil either...

I think it is crazy we can't even label it here, but I at least understand it a bit.
 
2014-02-07 08:26:21 AM  
If GMOs are so great, why are its creators so deathly afraid of labeling their food as such?

/the main goal of GMO isn't better food anyway, it's being able to own the patent on the seeds
//and if some of their pollen gets in your crops, hey, you owe them money
 
2014-02-07 08:41:58 AM  
These are the same asshole who are polluting drinking water with dihydrogen monoxide.
 
2014-02-07 08:42:12 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.


How is it anti-capitalist to know what you're being sold? For the 'free hand' of the market to work, the market should have as much information as possible. Buying off government to prevent people from knowing what's in their food so they can make choices about it is what is anti-capitalist. Unless you think capitalism means 'what ever rich business owners want, we should all do'.
 
2014-02-07 08:48:10 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: If GMOs are so great, why are its creators so deathly afraid of labeling their food as such?


ambercat: Buying off government to prevent people from knowing what's in their food so they can make choices about it


You guys should read the thread a bit more. The labels are costly and provide no real value.
 
2014-02-07 09:04:47 AM  
My only problem with GMO foods is the idea that you can copyright/patent a living organism.

Copyright & patent law is farked up enough in this country without some asshole going around patenting staple food crops.
 
2014-02-07 09:08:03 AM  

AlanSmithee: jgbrowning: AlanSmithee: jgbrowning: I just want to know is if something is the food I eat.

The cost of implementing labels is very, very high. (And no, it's not the penny that the actual label costs, it's the whole red tape and revamped infrastructure needed to achieve this).

What is the cost of implementing a label? How much would this cost increase consumer prices?

This is a post from Farker cptJeff from another thread:
"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. "
http://www.fark.com/comments/8115774/88917116#c88917116">http://www. fark.com/comments/8115774/88917116#c88917116


I can understand how it could be difficult if you wanted to try and separate our existing chain into non-GMO and GMO. The cost-effective solution would be to simply label everything in that supply chain as GMO since there is no way to distinguish the end product and that would let those who want to produce non-GMO material bear the costs of using an alternative supply chain.
 
2014-02-07 09:10:27 AM  

chewd: My only problem with GMO foods is the idea that you can copyright/patent a living organism.

Copyright & patent law is farked up enough in this country without some asshole going around patenting staple food crops.


That's an issue with any new variety of plant, GMO or not.
And patents expire.
 
2014-02-07 09:16:40 AM  

AlanSmithee: And patents expire.


If only that were true.
 
2014-02-07 09:18:06 AM  

chewd: AlanSmithee: And patents expire.

If only that were true.


What? There's 'forever' patents?
 
2014-02-07 09:21:38 AM  
Let me see if I get this.
Food industry thinks labeling GMO is too expensive and will make food cost more. But tens of millions of dollars spent lobbying against labeling is not too expensive and does not impact food cost?

/ they must use very expensive labels
// I can desktop publish those for you for cheap if you would like.
 
2014-02-07 09:22:46 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: If GMOs are so great, why are its creators so deathly afraid of labeling their food as such?

/the main goal of GMO isn't better food anyway, it's being able to own the patent on the seeds
//and if some of their pollen gets in your crops, hey, you owe them money


Most of the GMO I've heard of is sterile.  For 2 reasons:
1 - People would flip about "invasive species"
2 - People would be able to breed their own precious, precious GMO food.
 
2014-02-07 09:26:00 AM  

Toggles: Let me see if I get this.
Food industry thinks labeling GMO is too expensive and will make food cost more. But tens of millions of dollars spent lobbying against labeling is not too expensive and does not impact food cost?

/ they must use very expensive labels
// I can desktop publish those for you for cheap if you would like.


Again, it is not the cost of the actual label, just like the cost of a pill is not the cost to manufacture the pill.
 
2014-02-07 09:26:03 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: If GMOs are so great, why are its creators so deathly afraid of labeling their food as such?

/the main goal of GMO isn't better food anyway, it's being able to own the patent on the seeds
//and if some of their pollen gets in your crops, hey, you owe them money


Since you're either an idiot, a troll, or an ignorant parrot, I'll break this down for you. By labeling food 'contains GMO' you are implying it is harmful. Because if it wasn't harmful, why would it need to be labeled? It's like saying 'contains Iodine.' Your body needs iodine to survive, but if you put 'iodine' in big red letters people are going to assume it's bad for you, because if it wasn't why would it need a label?

People are ignorant and biased, forcing companies to put unnecessary labels on food is preying upon that ignorance and bias.
 
2014-02-07 09:29:32 AM  

Toggles: Let me see if I get this.
Food industry thinks labeling GMO is too expensive and will make food cost more. But tens of millions of dollars spent lobbying against labeling is not too expensive and does not impact food cost?

/ they must use very expensive labels
// I can desktop publish those for you for cheap if you would like.


The labeling cost is much more than tens of millions of dollars. All for no consumer benefit, except to place the paranoids.
 
2014-02-07 09:47:03 AM  
I would also rather have food exposed to chemical pseticides than one that is GMO to not need it... so much healthier
 
2014-02-07 09:56:38 AM  

jgbrowning: I can understand how it could be difficult if you wanted to try and separate our existing chain into non-GMO and GMO. The cost-effective solution would be to simply label everything in that supply chain as GMO since there is no way to distinguish the end product and that would let those who want to produce non-GMO material bear the costs of using an alternative supply chain


they do it in the EU.

Not that tough.

AlanSmithee: The labeling cost is much more than tens of millions of dollars.


BS.
 
2014-02-07 09:59:17 AM  
Why resort to labelling because some dimwitted idiots piss their pants in fear over progress? You may as well have signs in front of buildings warnign of the deadly radiation produced by electric light bulbs that may kill all who enter.
 
2014-02-07 10:05:49 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

Hoe about unknown unknowns? We used to think asbestos was an awesome building material. So much so we put it EVERYWHERE. We had Tobacco executive straight-up lie to Congress (and everyone else) for years in order to make a buck off the premature deaths of millions.

And now they say "trust us"? Fark you for being so damned gullible.


Seriously? You sound gullible.
 
2014-02-07 10:07:48 AM  

GodComplex: By labeling food 'contains GMO' you are implying it is harmful. Because if it wasn't harmful, why would it need to be labeled? It's like saying 'contains Iodine.' Your body needs iodine to survive, but if you put 'iodine' in big red letters people are going to assume it's bad for you, because if it wasn't why would it need a label?

People are ignorant and biased, forcing companies to put unnecessary labels on food is preying upon that ignorance and bias.


I guess I have a different view. Every food product in the US has an ingredient label. All of these ingredients are non-harmful, at least in moderate amounts and as far as we know to date. Since being GMO doesn't alter the non-harmful-effect of an ingredient, indicating that an ingredient is GMO isn't any different than indicating an ingredient is organic. Labeling GMO ingredients would allow people to seek out GMO products specifically because they believe they are beneficial, in many ways similar to how others to seek out organic products because they believe they are beneficial.

Not labeling prevents individuals from exercising their preferences regarding a specific area, regardless if the preferences are scientifically-based or purely opinion-oriented such as someone preferring to buy American-farmed produce over non-American farmed produce. There is no health-based reason for a purchasing customer to know what country a product came from, but we've decided it has value in that it allows customers to exercise their varied opinions regarding choice preferences.
 
2014-02-07 10:11:09 AM  

TheJoe03: Anyone want to explain this GMO thing without talking shiat against the other side? As a person that hasn't really looked into to GMOs I left this thread learning almost nothing. No one laid out a good case for either side, just a bunch of shiat talk so far. Step your game up Farkers, I'm too lazy to wiki anything right now. This isn't some kind of abortion, weed, tax, gun, war, privacy, global warming,gay rights, civil rights, nuclear, free speech, states rights, religious, health care, etc debate, the GMO topic is much more obscure to the average person.


Well here is a reason to be against GMO food, how about we the people not give up control of our food to corporations. Farmers have been doing a good job of breeding crops long before Monsanto ever came to be. The world is not short on food, we just happen to toss out half the food we produce into the garbage. We the people gave up control of our money and our foods.
 
2014-02-07 10:13:17 AM  

liam76: meat0918: Any food that has corn, soy, or sugar that isn't listed as cane sugar, assume it has GMO ingredients unless it says Organic or non-GMO on the label.

Does organic have an FDA definition now?

Can't I just throw organic on anything?


USDA definition.

My dad was going to try and get organic certified for his garlic, but the price premium he would get for organic garlic wasn't worth the hassle of getting the label, so he's just selling good old garlic.
 
2014-02-07 10:23:46 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.


I just want studies they didn't buy and a way to maintain biodiversity.

The studies? They should be peer reviewed studies that they don't pay for. Corporations are run for a profit by people. People are stupid and greedy on average.

Biodiversity? Well, look at bananas. They have a fungus that's going to kill the monoculture of banana trees, again. That alone should show the wisdom of maintaining diversity.
 
2014-02-07 10:25:37 AM  

inglixthemad: The studies? They should be peer reviewed studies that they don't pay for



There are hundreds of independent studies.
 
2014-02-07 10:31:12 AM  

jgbrowning: GodComplex: By labeling food 'contains GMO' you are implying it is harmful. Because if it wasn't harmful, why would it need to be labeled? It's like saying 'contains Iodine.' Your body needs iodine to survive, but if you put 'iodine' in big red letters people are going to assume it's bad for you, because if it wasn't why would it need a label?

People are ignorant and biased, forcing companies to put unnecessary labels on food is preying upon that ignorance and bias.

I guess I have a different view. Every food product in the US has an ingredient label. All of these ingredients are non-harmful, at least in moderate amounts and as far as we know to date. Since being GMO doesn't alter the non-harmful-effect of an ingredient, indicating that an ingredient is GMO isn't any different than indicating an ingredient is organic. Labeling GMO ingredients would allow people to seek out GMO products specifically because they believe they are beneficial, in many ways similar to how others to seek out organic products because they believe they are beneficial.

Not labeling prevents individuals from exercising their preferences regarding a specific area, regardless if the preferences are scientifically-based or purely opinion-oriented such as someone preferring to buy American-farmed produce over non-American farmed produce. There is no health-based reason for a purchasing customer to know what country a product came from, but we've decided it has value in that it allows customers to exercise their varied opinions regarding choice preferences.


In practice however, labeling them GMO reduces choice because in places like Japan. "You won't ever find a label that says, 'This is GMO,'" Akatsuka said. "You can only find labels that say, 'This is not GMO' because of the fact that companies are very, very aware that having a GMO label would effectively stigmatize their product."

And I would argue the evidence that China has a history of selling non-food as food, as well as killing pets with their food, stands in stark contrast to your claim that there is "no health-based reason for a purchasing customer to know what country a product came from".

Has GM food killed anyone?  No.

What bothers me the most is I personally know people that accept the science behind climate change, accept the science that vaccines work, accept evolution, but the science behind GMO, even when their staunchest ally in the fight on GMO says "The science says they're are safe."?

NOPE!!!

GMO BAD! SMASH IT!
 
2014-02-07 10:42:12 AM  

GodComplex: Tyrone Slothrop: If GMOs are so great, why are its creators so deathly afraid of labeling their food as such?

/the main goal of GMO isn't better food anyway, it's being able to own the patent on the seeds
//and if some of their pollen gets in your crops, hey, you owe them money

Since you're either an idiot, a troll, or an ignorant parrot, I'll break this down for you. By labeling food 'contains GMO' you are implying it is harmful. Because if it wasn't harmful, why would it need to be labeled? It's like saying 'contains Iodine.' Your body needs iodine to survive, but if you put 'iodine' in big red letters people are going to assume it's bad for you, because if it wasn't why would it need a label?

People are ignorant and biased, forcing companies to put unnecessary labels on food is preying upon that ignorance and bias.


Iodized salt is labeled as such
 
2014-02-07 11:03:05 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: If GMOs are so great, why are its creators so deathly afraid of labeling their food as such?

/the main goal of GMO isn't better food anyway, it's being able to own the patent on the seeds
//and if some of their pollen gets in your crops, hey, you owe them money


GMOs lower the price of making food (while not making any less safe or nutritious or anything else).  This results in both lower prices for the consumer and higher profits for the food company.  But some people hate science and want "all natural" stuff (for no actual logical reason).  Being forced to label food that has GMOs in it would eliminate the price advantage to do so because the anti-science people wouldn't buy it.
 
2014-02-07 11:03:54 AM  

meat0918: In practice however, labeling them GMO reduces choice because in places like Japan. "You won't ever find a label that says, 'This is GMO,'" Akatsuka said. "You can only find labels that say, 'This is not GMO' because of the fact that companies are very, very aware that having a GMO label would effectively stigmatize their product."

And I would argue the evidence that China has a history of selling non-food as food, as well as killing pets with their food, stands in stark contrast to your claim that there is "no health-based reason for a purchasing customer to know what country a product came from".


It's good to see that the Japanese people have the ability to chose to purchase what they desire thanks to labeling.

American-grow foods have killed more Americans (and American pets) than Chinese-grown foods (although it seems like the Chinese are trying to catch up). Regardless, all countries-of-origin are required to be labeled, even if they've never killed an American with their product. Food-supply safety is a separate issue (and a rather frightening one, IMO) than country-of-origin labeling and one that affects all foods, regardless origin.

And with that, I'll bow out of the conversation. I think I've made my view clear. I believe I should be able to purchase food based upon my personal opinion of GMO (like I'm able to purchase food based upon my personal opinion of being a vegetarian), and believe that others should be provided that choice as well.

It was nice talking with you all. Thanks for being civil.
 
2014-02-07 11:12:07 AM  

Cashew: Come on, who doesn't like caulisheep?
[theroadnotprocessed.com image 300x251]


SHUTUPANDTAKEMYMONEY.JPG
 
2014-02-07 11:13:36 AM  

jgbrowning: meat0918: In practice however, labeling them GMO reduces choice because in places like Japan. "You won't ever find a label that says, 'This is GMO,'" Akatsuka said. "You can only find labels that say, 'This is not GMO' because of the fact that companies are very, very aware that having a GMO label would effectively stigmatize their product."

And I would argue the evidence that China has a history of selling non-food as food, as well as killing pets with their food, stands in stark contrast to your claim that there is "no health-based reason for a purchasing customer to know what country a product came from".

It's good to see that the Japanese people have the ability to chose to purchase what they desire thanks to labeling.

American-grow foods have killed more Americans (and American pets) than Chinese-grown foods (although it seems like the Chinese are trying to catch up). Regardless, all countries-of-origin are required to be labeled, even if they've never killed an American with their product. Food-supply safety is a separate issue (and a rather frightening one, IMO) than country-of-origin labeling and one that affects all foods, regardless origin.

And with that, I'll bow out of the conversation. I think I've made my view clear. I believe I should be able to purchase food based upon my personal opinion of GMO (like I'm able to purchase food based upon my personal opinion of being a vegetarian), and believe that others should be provided that choice as well.

It was nice talking with you all. Thanks for being civil.


You can buy food labeled "no GMOs" in the United States as well as in Japan.

Also, considering that the vast amount of food eaten in the United States is also grown here, and that China imports very little food to the United States, the statement "American-grow foods have killed more Americans (and American pets) than Chinese-grown foods (although it seems like the Chinese are trying to catch up)." is completely meaningless.
 
2014-02-07 11:19:51 AM  
GMO's have been around since the 1700's. Ever hear of a guy named Mendel?
 
2014-02-07 11:33:49 AM  

jgbrowning: I can understand how it could be difficult if you wanted to try and separate our existing chain into non-GMO and GMO. The cost-effective solution would be to simply label everything in that supply chain as GMO since there is no way to distinguish the end product and that would let those who want to produce non-GMO material bear the costs of using an alternative supply chain.


That would be the likely result, and is something a lot of companies would want to avoid, even if they do not purposefully use GMO.  When the public sees "Contains GMO" on 99% of their food, including almost all fresh produce, even more will freak out than are currently upset about the situation.

Without significant expense, most of the farmers would not even be able to guarantee their products had not been contaminated with GMO seeds, even if they've never purposefully used any.  There have already been cases showing that (and Mosanto's responsive to that).  It is almost impossible to avoid that possibility, and incorrect required food labels tend to have costly consequences, so the safest route is to label everything GMO.  Then it doesn't tell you anything more than the voluntary 'no-GMO' sort of label would, but does get to feed a ton of outrage, and still not point out what actually is using significant amounts of GMO.  Corn bought directly from the company modifying it wouldn't be any more obvious than corn from the local small time farmer who simply hasn't paid for extensive containment methods and seed from a seed bank with similarly expensive guarantees on every source.  Even if you are trying to avoid GMO, that situation is unlikely to be of much help.

A voluntary non-GMO label would have the same effective end result.  In either case, only companies willing to pay for the additional expense over the products entire supply chain would be able to have enough certainty of that condition to apply a legal label to their product, and would gain the associated marketing benefit from their expenditures in a legally defined label.  In addition, the non-labeled foods are more indicative of what they, for the most part, actually are: unknown.
 
2014-02-07 11:38:37 AM  
Nope, you need to do it ALL the time. Just slap those three little letters on the ingredients label after every ingredient they describe. Ta-Daaa!
 
2014-02-07 11:40:54 AM  

drxym: Consumers irrationally hate GMOs.


When you have to turn to blaming the customer...
 
2014-02-07 11:43:26 AM  

Lando Lincoln: GMO's have been around since the 1700's. Ever hear of a guy named Mendel?


Oh look, it's this false equivalence again.
 
2014-02-07 11:56:29 AM  
meat0918

Any food that has corn, soy, or sugar that isn't listed as cane sugar, assume it has GMO ingredients unless it says Organic or non-GMO on the label. Because the GMOs are cheaper to produce. Also, I'd just flat out assume most organic soy or corn probably also contains some of the GMO genes, because pollens a promiscuous substance, and I'd be willing to be it has cross pollinated into the organic varieties by accident.

Some interests have latched on to GMO as a vehicle for anti-corporate control of food (good IMHO), anti-monoculture (again, good), and anti-Monsanto (also good imho).

And Fark Monsanto. Fark them fark them fark them.

Rather than using this technology to improve nutrition profiles and improve resistance to disease, or speed up plant breeding, they've taken the route of making them resistant to herbicides and engineering pesticides (albeit ones that are also approved for Organic use, and shown to be harmless to people) into the food.

I'm pissed because it is a good technology, and it's being abused by these companies, leaving a lot of good research languishing because they people freak out about GMO food.


I do so like a good response from someone who actually thinks. Excellent post.

I recall when the GMO fuss started up, decades back and I also recall how it was supposed to help produce more food faster and cheaper for the then booming global population. It already had been noticed that there was a diminished availability of prime farm land as realtors and developers bought up prime acreage and paved it over.

The battle for the Rainforest had just begun, but anyone with a brain could see that poverty ridden people were not going to be able to use more expensive farming techniques just to conserve it. They wanted to be able to eat and slash and burn was about the cheapest way.

Somewhere about the same time, science-fiction movies popped up with genetic monsters as their horror themes and various programs spread their attention gathering webs by concentrating on the possible horror of unregulated genetic mutations.

Monsanto didn't help at all by promptly finding a way to have single yield crops developed, meaning farmers using their seeds could no longer save some from their crops, to cut down on the cost of buying next years seed. Most of the yield in seed would not sprout due to a genetic modification. They had to buy new seed.

Then the company moved quietly to essentially nearly monopolize the agricultural industry. He who controls the food, controls the wealth.

With the assistance of crossbreeding, genetics and newer, better farming machinery, technically we should have had an abundance of cheap food by now. Starvation rates would had dropped globally. Famine would have been cut in half. A person going shopping would spend less than half what they do today on the basic groceries. Loss from crop damage due to weather could be markedly diminished. There was speculation on engineering the slow growth hardwood trees to grow faster to make up for their diminishing availability and soaring cost of their wood.

Sometime in the 70s, before the oil crash, there was (1) a beef crisis, which lasted a year but tripled the cost of meat, which has never come down, which affected all of the secondary meats, like chicken and pork. (2) Something drove the cost of tomatoes and green bell peppers along with lettuce to record highs. (3) Apple growers demanded higher rates, claiming it cost nearly as much to harvest their crops as to grow them and the cost of the fruit tripled. (4) The diet and health craze drove the cost of seafood to historic highs in record time.

Then, the oil crisis hit and, pretty much, everything went to hell. In the process, GMO became associated with science-fiction like horrors and a process which could possibly produce more food cheaply, including making it more nourishing, has been determinedly delayed.

Actually, I've read more about the problems with Kudzu than any wildly out of control GMO crops. People have screwed up the environment of Florida with imported plants, animals and fish beyond repair more than anything GMO related. People sucking down millions of gallons of water for their huge cities have created droughts which created crop failures and their stupidity has enabled an enormous spread of disease.

Genetic modification has contributed nothing as harmful as the things folks have done to themselves.
 
2014-02-07 12:10:55 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Lando Lincoln: GMO's have been around since the 1700's. Ever hear of a guy named Mendel?

Oh look, it's this false equivalence again.


Don't use the farking term if you don't actually mean "genetically modified organism."

Use "rDNA modified" or something like that.
 
2014-02-07 12:11:39 PM  
Like the  NSA if food manufacturers say they've stopped, how will you know?

/show your work
 
2014-02-07 12:15:52 PM  
All the anti-GMO ramblings just seem to reenforce that the U.S. continues to blow in teaching science.
 
2014-02-07 12:16:00 PM  

Rik01: Monsanto didn't help at all by promptly finding a way to have single yield crops developed, meaning farmers using their seeds could no longer save some from their crops, to cut down on the cost of buying next years seed. Most of the yield in seed would not sprout due to a genetic modification. They had to buy new seed.


Fark wanted to snip most of the quote, but if you are talking about "terminator" seeds, they never entered the market.

Since the introduction of hybrid seed, which happened in the 1920s or so, farmers haven't been saving as much seed.  You can save it, but it won't breed true.  It's not a new issue.

Given the choice of having to plant extra crop or selling less of the crop so he can save seeds, processing them for storage and then storing them, or selling the whole crop and buying new every year, it seems most farmers, as well a gardeners, would rather just buy new seed each year.   It's a pretty simple formula for the farmer.  Is the extra expense in order to save seed worth it.  If it is to the farmer, he'll save the seed.  If not, he'll buy it.

My grandfather was the last farmer I knew that saved seed, his wheat seed, and the last time he did that, mice got into it, and it was bad.  Not Australian plague of mice bad, but bad enough.  Boy was my mother pissed, because the seed was stored about 300 yards from our house out in the pole barn.

I am of the opinion that if you are labeling GMOs because they are "unnatural" we should damn well be labeling hybrids as well, because they're about as naturally occurring as GMOs.
 
2014-02-07 12:20:31 PM  

liam76: they do it in the EU.


The EU started enforcing those regulartions while GM products were almost non-existent in their food supply chain.  The EU defrays the cost by supporting the testing and labeling with tax moneys, and charges to GM producers.  They also provide a fund to compensate non-GM producers for any supply line contaminations.  So, the cost is largely hidden and redirected, to keep the prices of GM and non-GM products closer.  Though, some measures still put this at close to 20% of the base crop's production cost, at the EU's requisite GM % levels.  Their cost is also lesser, because they have approved very few GM products, and have very little of it in their market.  Even then, they still cannot regulate it without extensive testing on imports and the final products.  Controls on the supply chain still fail.

About 70% of our supermarket products contain at least one GMO - and even more probably contain one without realizing it.  The US produces about 50% of the world's GM crops.  All of Europe produces 0.08% of them.  Once we've had harvests with 80-90% of a certain crop showing modified genes, you cannot really segregate it again in a way to be sure your crop has eliminated that influence.  It would cost to try, cost in lesser yeild, and then someone would have to pay every time it fails and the crop turns out to be contaminated.  At that point, the cheapest way to produce a product meeting non-GM standards would be to import it from a country which has minimalized GMO planting, and pays part or all of the associated cost increases.

Comparing costs between the two situations is almost entirely pointless.
 
2014-02-07 12:29:19 PM  
GMOs: the left's Global Warming. Anti-science is non-partisan.
 
2014-02-07 12:30:21 PM  
groups representing farmers, seed companies and other food producers

lol, who could that be with big pockets and a litigious nature?
 
2014-02-07 12:47:43 PM  

That Guy Jeff: GMOs: the left's Global Warming. Anti-science is non-partisan.


I'm pretty left in most issues and I think anti-GMO people are nuts.
 
2014-02-07 12:59:07 PM  

Egoy3k: That Guy Jeff: GMOs: the left's Global Warming. Anti-science is non-partisan.

I'm pretty left in most issues and I think anti-GMO people are nuts.


And plenty of right wing peeps think the anti-global warming stuff is nuts. Yay science!
 
2014-02-07 01:00:12 PM  
Yawn... too early for this - but the gist: Most of the rational discussion of the GMOs can be summed up in one Skeptoid episode.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112

That said, I even posted on the discussion because there are - to me anyway - a couple of things that weren't entirely accurate in the episode. His science is solid, he provides sources, etc etc...

When defending GMOs though, there is no need to defend Monsanto or their business/litigious practices. The biggest case on the subject is largely misunderstood. It's a shame such a  landmark case involved someone who wanted to "beat the system" and basically get GMOs for nothing. The discussion over how, when, why etc, to litigate because of cross pollination, when seeds move, or a million other little things isn't settled. THAT is not a science argument, that's a legal/public policy argument. I don't like seeing the two conflated.

You can get to the core of it by talking about a particularly large apple tree, or if you want to give yourself migraines, 2 of them. Sometimes they overlap property bounds, sometimes the fruit moves, sometimes their roots do things, etc. You can discuss pretty much all law (save perhaps criminal) by discussing such theoretical landholders and their hypothetical trees. DO NOT paint those issues as simple. Anyone who has gone to law school would be able to tell you how vastly complicated such simple seeming examples can actually be and how little consensus there may be depending on where you are.

Sometimes it feels like when people run out of science and such, or are told straight up not to do things like post pictures of Spragues-Dawley rats or other animals that get lots of unsightly tumors because of their breed, or other stuff that's off subject, that they switch to legal arguments, IP discussions, and lawsuits. This isn't a good idea. The discussion goes from being about science and things we can study empirically to a parade of horribles that is really a matter of subjective elements.

There's no magical forum force that can keep discussions on the rails outside of insane mods, but still... if you're going to post some pro/anti screeds - try to set your goalposts and not move them when convenient.

/shrug
 
2014-02-07 01:29:51 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Stopwhining about GMO,dumbasses. There are plenty of real problems with the same farking industry.


Yeah, well, I'm tired of Big Food buying all the politicians that are supposed to be representing me, so I'll continue my guerrilla campaign, thank you very much. The more fronts they have to defend on, the more pain they feel.
 
2014-02-07 01:37:22 PM  

ErinPac: liam76: they do it in the EU.

The EU started enforcing those regulartions while GM products were almost non-existent in their food supply chain.  The EU defrays the cost by supporting the testing and labeling with tax moneys, and charges to GM producers.  They also provide a fund to compensate non-GM producers for any supply line contaminations.  So, the cost is largely hidden and redirected, to keep the prices of GM and non-GM products closer.  Though, some measures still put this at close to 20% of the base crop's production cost, at the EU's requisite GM % levels.  Their cost is also lesser, because they have approved very few GM products, and have very little of it in their market.  Even then, they still cannot regulate it without extensive testing on imports and the final products.  Controls on the supply chain still fail.

About 70% of our supermarket products contain at least one GMO - and even more probably contain one without realizing it.  The US produces about 50% of the world's GM crops.  All of Europe produces 0.08% of them.  Once we've had harvests with 80-90% of a certain crop showing modified genes, you cannot really segregate it again in a way to be sure your crop has eliminated that influence.  It would cost to try, cost in lesser yeild, and then someone would have to pay every time it fails and the crop turns out to be contaminated.  At that point, the cheapest way to produce a product meeting non-GM standards would be to import it from a country which has minimalized GMO planting, and pays part or all of the associated cost increases.

Comparing costs between the two situations is almost entirely pointless.


Food already has lables. Adding a GM stamp to existing lables int he next year or so is a very trivial cost.


Unless farmers don't know what they are planting, the cost of testing is also negligable.

I am not some nut terrified, or even worried, about GMO's. I have a problem with the food industry in general making it difficult to know what, exactly, is in our food. And trying to stop people who do.
 
2014-02-07 01:39:23 PM  

liam76: ErinPac: liam76: they do it in the EU.

The EU started enforcing those regulartions while GM products were almost non-existent in their food supply chain.  The EU defrays the cost by supporting the testing and labeling with tax moneys, and charges to GM producers.  They also provide a fund to compensate non-GM producers for any supply line contaminations.  So, the cost is largely hidden and redirected, to keep the prices of GM and non-GM products closer.  Though, some measures still put this at close to 20% of the base crop's production cost, at the EU's requisite GM % levels.  Their cost is also lesser, because they have approved very few GM products, and have very little of it in their market.  Even then, they still cannot regulate it without extensive testing on imports and the final products.  Controls on the supply chain still fail.

About 70% of our supermarket products contain at least one GMO - and even more probably contain one without realizing it.  The US produces about 50% of the world's GM crops.  All of Europe produces 0.08% of them.  Once we've had harvests with 80-90% of a certain crop showing modified genes, you cannot really segregate it again in a way to be sure your crop has eliminated that influence.  It would cost to try, cost in lesser yeild, and then someone would have to pay every time it fails and the crop turns out to be contaminated.  At that point, the cheapest way to produce a product meeting non-GM standards would be to import it from a country which has minimalized GMO planting, and pays part or all of the associated cost increases.

Comparing costs between the two situations is almost entirely pointless.

Food already has lables. Adding a GM stamp to existing lables int he next year or so is a very trivial cost.


Unless farmers don't know what they are planting, the cost of testing is also negligable.

I am not some nut terrified, or even worried, about GMO's. I have a problem with the food industry in general making it difficult ...


Ok, but I want testing of it all, Organic included, because pollen is a whore.
 
2014-02-07 02:11:23 PM  
FTA: "The results of the enormous misinformation put out there, particularly in California and Washington, really compelled us and 28 other groups to step forward and say, 'Enough is enough. We need some help,' " , president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, another group in the coalition, said during the teleconference."

Translated: "We had to spend so much money bulsh*tting the public by lying through our f*cking teeth in the effort to overturn ballot initiatives in Washington and California that our shareholders stepped forward and said "Enough is enough! Stop doing that sh*t, it's eating into our profits and purchases of solid gold yachts!" Chuck Connor, president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, another group in the coalition, said during the teleconference."

I really don't give a rat's ass if the genetically modified ingredients will either give you cancer or increase your dick size by 10% with every serving, if it's in the bag and it's going in my body it should be on the label. Period.
 
2014-02-07 02:38:27 PM  
Translation:
1) We'll slap whatever label on our stuff you want us to, just as long as we're sure it won't reduce sales.
2) If we can slap some meaningless nonsense (e.g. "All Natural!") on our product and charge twice as much for the same crap that doesn't have that label on it, you can be damn sure we'll do it.
3) If we see someone else labeling their stuff with something that makes it sell better and/or lets us charge more for it, we'll slap that right on the packaging whether or not we conform to whatever standard it is we're ignoring when we do it.
4) Addendum to #3: And then we'll form a standards group and get our big-company buddies to join it, trademark the label, set definitions for it that make it effectively meaningless, and then set a fee for its use that's so high that none of the small "competitors" we laugh at can afford to slap it on THEIR products.
 
2014-02-07 03:05:33 PM  

ltr77: There is also an argument to be made that what GMO's have delivered (a reduction in the cost of labor associated with farming) is not necessarily a good thing in times of high unemployment.


Aren't agricultural jobs the ones that nobody (white and American) is willing to do to begin with?
 
2014-02-07 03:10:03 PM  

Ruiizu: Not a fan of GMOs because of the twisted agenda behind many of them. And I'm referring to what is known as "round-up ready" GMOs, which basically have led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides (although the initial claim was that they would decrease overall pesticide use), thus an increase in the poisoning of humans and the environment.


Round-up is a herbicide. Not a pesticide. Round-up ready crops are not killed by the mechanism that Round-up uses to kill weeds. They do nothing for pests.
 
2014-02-07 03:22:23 PM  
I'm in favor of total consumer disclosure. For any product on the market, but especially for substances that go into our bodies, we have a right to know exactly what it is that we would be purchasing.

That being said, not every detail of a product is important enough that it needs to be displays front and center on the packaging.  Why clutter up every sugarless gum wrapper with a warning that it contains phenylalanine, when only 0.01% of the public is phenylketonuric?  Put a little QR code on there instead so concerned consumers can look up the information they want.

The debate should not be over whether GMO produce should be disclosed, but rather how it must be disclosed.
 
2014-02-07 03:28:05 PM  

AlanSmithee: This is a post from Farker cptJeff from another thread:
"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.


Then let's make it easy. Farmer Joe grows GMO corn. Every ton he grows is inventoried, weighed, counted and tagged with harvest date, location, etc. The paperwork that travels with this corn can come on a different color paper for GMO products, or a stamp the farmer can put on the paperwork. That paperwork stays with the corn all the way to the end user, who then labels their product "May Contain GMO Ingredients", the same as breakfast cereal is now labeled "May Contain Wheat" or "Processed on machines that also handle Wheat" for those with allergies. "Tracking" is as simple as handing a copy of the piece of paper to the next person in the chain.


The computer you're typing on has paperwork tracking back from your receipt all the way to the store's inventory list through the trucking company to the ship it was brought over on to the factory it was assembled in and to every single supplier of every single part that is in it. Not that difficult.
For every one of those 200 farmers there is a receipt, an inventory and a count. Farm, distribution center, raiilcar, factory, done. The person you quoted has quoted another person's bullsh*t who has tried to make the whole process seem more difficult than it actually would be, and you fell for it.
 
2014-02-07 03:29:23 PM  

hardinparamedic: Ruiizu: Not a fan of GMOs because of the twisted agenda behind many of them. And I'm referring to what is known as "round-up ready" GMOs, which basically have led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides (although the initial claim was that they would decrease overall pesticide use), thus an increase in the poisoning of humans and the environment.

Round-up is a herbicide. Not a pesticide. Round-up ready crops are not killed by the mechanism that Round-up uses to kill weeds. They do nothing for pests.


It's a common conflation, and in my experience, one of the hardest things to overcome for people.  They really think round up has been engineered into the plants.

It's not BT, which has been engineered into corn and cotton,

As an aside, I actually saw an ad for a seminar "Today's gluten isn't your grandmother's gluten".  I was unaware the molecules making up gluten had been found to have changed.

Even the placesI know selling "ancient" wheat strains tell people with celiac to not eat it, or at least eat at their own risk, since is still has gluten!
 
2014-02-07 03:32:04 PM  

rewind2846: AlanSmithee: This is a post from Farker cptJeff from another thread:
"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.

Then let's make it easy. Farmer Joe grows GMO corn. Every ton he grows is inventoried, weighed, counted and tagged with harvest date, location, etc. The paperwork that travels with this corn can come on a different color paper for GMO products, or a stamp the farmer can put on the paperwork. That paperwork stays with the corn all the way to the end user, who then labels their product "May Contain GMO Ingredients", the same as breakfast cereal is now labeled "May Contain Wheat" or "Processed on machines that also handle Wheat" for those with allergies. "Tracking" is as simple as handing a copy of the piece of paper to the next person in the chain.


The computer you're typing on has paperwork tracking back from your receipt all the way to the store's inventory list through the trucking company to the ship it was brought over on to the factory it was assembled in and to every single supplier of every single part that is in it. Not that difficult.
For every one of those 200 farmers there is a receipt, an inventory and a count. Farm, distribution center, raiilcar, factory, done. The person you quoted has quoted another person's bullsh*t who has tried to make the whole process seem more difficult than it actually would be, and you fell for it.


Except genes travel, so add in a testing step for every load of corn, GMO or otherwise.  Organic farmers aren't exactly jumping to get their crops tested, and in some cases are discouraged and avoid it because if they find GMO, they'll lose their organic certification.
 
2014-02-07 03:56:19 PM  

rewind2846: FTA: "The results of the enormous misinformation put out there, particularly in California and Washington, really compelled us and 28 other groups to step forward and say, 'Enough is enough. We need some help,' " , president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, another group in the coalition, said during the teleconference."

Translated: "We had to spend so much money bulsh*tting the public by lying through our f*cking teeth in the effort to overturn ballot initiatives in Washington and California that our shareholders stepped forward and said "Enough is enough! Stop doing that sh*t, it's eating into our profits and purchases of solid gold yachts!" Chuck Connor, president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, another group in the coalition, said during the teleconference."

I really don't give a rat's ass if the genetically modified ingredients will either give you cancer or increase your dick size by 10% with every serving, if it's in the bag and it's going in my body it should be on the label. Period.


Yeah all those farmer co-ops are really raking in the money.  You can't even swing a dead cat in Dubai without hitting some nouveau riche American farmer.
 
2014-02-07 04:22:52 PM  
If you are a luddite and only want to eat non GMO food because you are stupid and afraid of the boogeyman, then convince someone it is worth there while to label it so.
 
2014-02-07 04:55:19 PM  

meat0918: Except genes travel, so add in a testing step for every load of corn, GMO or otherwise. Organic farmers aren't exactly jumping to get their crops tested, and in some cases are discouraged and avoid it because if they find GMO, they'll lose their organic certification.


All the more reason for labeling. If the legal meaning of "organic" is "no genetic modification other than (insert types here)", then if I'm not actually getting "organic" food should I not know about it? Paying for something I'm not getting, especially if I'm paying extra for it, is not a good thing.
Maybe the pressure from these other food manufacturers will push the agricorps to get their sh*t together and not let their products taint the entire food supply in a way consumers haven't been able to

.

Egoy3k:
Yeah all those farmer co-ops are really raking in the money. You can't even swing a dead cat in Dubai without hitting some nouveau riche American farmer.


Yeah... I live here, I had to put up with all the bullsh*t in the commercials the paid-for-by-agricorps put onto the airwaves in the last two months before the vote. Worse than the spots the mormons put out before the vote on Proposition 8 (TEH GHEYS WILL EAT YOUR CHILDRENNNZZZZ!!!), and easily refutable... but unfortunately those facts would take longer than 30 seconds to explain, so the general populace never heard them. There are fewer real "family farms" and co-ops that don't ultimately work for Monsanto or Bayer or Archer-Daniels left than you think.
 
2014-02-07 05:17:00 PM  

rewind2846: All the more reason for labeling. If the legal meaning of "organic" is "no genetic modification other than (insert types here)", then if I'm not actually getting "organic" food should I not know about it? Paying for something I'm not getting, especially if I'm paying extra for it, is not a good thing.
Maybe the pressure from these other food manufacturers will push the agricorps to get their sh*t together and not let their products taint the entire food supply in a way consumers haven't been able to


I'd be more for it if all food ingredients are tested.  ALL OF THEM.  I doubt you'll find the organic community willing to test their corn, soybeans, or beets though, or be able to afford it.

I'm still in the camp that corn is corn, regardless of it being GMO or Organic or Conventionally grown.  And all the food related stuff we derive from corn is still corn derived.  Dextrose is still dextrose. Alcohol is still alcohol.  Maltodextrin, corn syrup, etc.  if it came from corn it's corn based.

And that is a different issue altogether.

I think if we got rid of the sugar tariffs, you'd have more effect on GMO crops than labeling.
 
2014-02-07 05:24:12 PM  

incrdbil: If you are a luddite and only want to eat non GMO food because you are stupid and afraid of the boogeyman, then convince someone it is worth there while to label it so.


Well for one it helps the people maintain control of their food supply or are you one of those folks that believe that corporations put people before profits. Second why would you want to ingest something that is not one hundred percent proven to be beneficial or harmful, but of course the results of the seeds are promising to show higher production and resistance to environmental factors. That does not mean it is safe to ingest over long term use. Do you enjoy being a lab rat and having you be the subject of food testing without your consent or due compensation?
 
2014-02-07 05:30:23 PM  

pmdgrwr: incrdbil: If you are a luddite and only want to eat non GMO food because you are stupid and afraid of the boogeyman, then convince someone it is worth there while to label it so.

Well for one it helps the people maintain control of their food supply or are you one of those folks that believe that corporations put people before profits. Second why would you want to ingest something that is not one hundred percent proven to be beneficial or harmful, but of course the results of the seeds are promising to show higher production and resistance to environmental factors. That does not mean it is safe to ingest over long term use. Do you enjoy being a lab rat and having you be the subject of food testing without your consent or due compensation?


You do realize GMO food has been tested more thoroughly for safety than the old varieties, right?

And they consistently find no health risks.  Is nearly 20 years of use long enough time for evaluation on long term health effects?

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gm o_ research.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

//I hate fear based policy making.
 
2014-02-07 06:26:21 PM  

notto: PunGent:
I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

Who is suggesting making it illegal to label stuff properly?


Couldn't be bothered to read the article?  Read the part about the industry's proposed bill again.

Don't be a shill like Smithee.
 
2014-02-07 06:26:59 PM  

AlanSmithee: notto: PunGent:
I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

Who is suggesting making it illegal to label stuff properly?

The reptalien overlords.


Couldn't read the article?  Too hard for poor widdle you?
 
2014-02-07 06:27:38 PM  

AlanSmithee: PunGent: AlanSmithee: ltr77: Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.

That's an argument against growing organics, not GMOs.

Do some more reading.

You'll look less ignorant.

Of course, with that handle, you're probably not taking ownership of the crap you spew anyway.

Are you telling me I should 'study it out'?


Nope.  Got you color-coded piss yellow for a good reason.
 
2014-02-07 06:29:45 PM  

Egoy3k: PunGent: Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO:  we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know.  meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity.  but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

So you have no problem whatsoever with, and I quote:  "before new GMO products go on the market, companies be required to submit safety data to be reviewed and approved by the FDA. Currently, that practice is optional."

I've got a car I'd like to sell you.  The brakes work fine.  Trust me.

You'll have to:  I've paid Congress to make it illegal to ask a mechanic for a second opinion.

You're not anti-science are you?  Good.

Buy the car.

And put your kids in it.

I've got some child seats to go with the car.

They've been tested by my same in-house lab.

They work fine too.

A more apt analogy would be;

I've got a car to sell you, these three mechanics have all verified that it is safe.  I replaced the wheel lug nuts with some non OEM ones.  They were more expensive but because these ones were easier to install it was more than worth it.  A lot of parts on this car are aftermarket parts that I have installed over the years that I have owned it and BTW these particular aftermarket parts are vastly superior to the OEM parts. What? you don't like the Lugs?  Because I used an air wrench to install them instead of a hand tool?  Are you stupid?


Try again.  The mechanic you wanted to have look at the car?  I've had him followed, had his phone bugged, and am busy trying to discredit him amongst his peers, because when I hired him, he told me those lugs nuts were defective, and it was cheaper to ruin him, than replace the lug nuts.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?cur re ntPage=all
 
2014-02-07 06:37:17 PM  
PunGent:
Couldn't be bothered to read the article?  Read the part about the industry's proposed bill again.

You need to re-read it.  There is nothing being proposed that would make it illegal for any company to label anything.  You are misrepresenting this to try to make a point.  If you have to lie to make your point, maybe your point isn't very strong to begin with.
 
2014-02-07 08:29:25 PM  
I can understand anti-GMO sentiment if you're doing it in protest of corporate bullying from the likes of Monsanto.

But to be anti-GMO because it's "unnatural" or somesuch?  It's as inane as being vegan because "meat is murder".

If you decry eating meat because the way livestock handling is done, then fine, more power to you.  But if you have some notion that humans aren't meant to eat meat, then you are, quite simply, wrong.  Humans have evolved many traits that say otherwise: binocular vision (for judging distance to prey), pointed teeth (not just our canines, but our molars as well, they're not flat like horses' but pointy, all meant for shredding meat in the mouth), and most notably a digestive tract that can process flesh of other animals.

Likewise, we have been eating GM foods ever since we started farming and animal husbandry in antiquity, altering them to better provide food, loooooooong before Gregor Mendel discovered the apparatus for this.  It's called "selective breeding".  We have been altering the food sources we cultivate.  The banana, the favorite fallacious argument used by creationists, is prime proof of this: Do a GIS for "wild banana" and tell me if it's more conducive to eating than what is considered a "banana" today.  That we can now directly manipulate the mechanics of heredity streamlines the process and gets results far more quickly, and is a great boon granted by science.

If you're protesting the business of it, go for it.  If you're arguing against the science of it... you're lumped in with the likes of Creationists as far as I'm concerned.
 
2014-02-07 08:39:58 PM  

ZeroPly: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Stopwhining about GMO,dumbasses. There are plenty of real problems with the same farking industry.

Yeah, well, I'm tired of Big Food buying all the politicians that are supposed to be representing me, so I'll continue my guerrilla campaign, thank you very much. The more fronts they have to defend on, the more pain they feel.



Anti-GMO complaints just give Big Food an opening to paint their detractors FAIRLY as disingenuous anti-science loons, who say nonsense like "frankenfood" and don't really care whether there's any substance to their fearmongering. Not Helping, imo.

/you have a "guerrilla campaign" the way I have an intergalactic empire

PunGent: notto: PunGent:
I hope GMOs are all they're cracked up to be...but supporters aren't doing themselves any favors by making it ILLEGAL to label the stuff properly.

Who is suggesting making it illegal to label stuff properly?

Couldn't be bothered to read the article?  Read the part about the industry's proposed bill again.



There's nothing in that proposal that prohibits accurate labelling. Products that actually include GMO are free to say so, and those that demonstrably do not include GMO are free to say so. They just don't have to. (Except in the unlikely event that there is any substantial difference between the GMO and non-GMO versions of the product, in which case the FDA can require disclosure on the label.)
 
2014-02-07 09:38:58 PM  

AlanSmithee: Tyrone Slothrop: If GMOs are so great, why are its creators so deathly afraid of labeling their food as such?

ambercat: Buying off government to prevent people from knowing what's in their food so they can make choices about it

You guys should read the thread a bit more. The labels are costly and provide no real value.


How are the labels costly? Because they say so? Food is already labeled, and farmers should know what they are growing. How much more is it going to cost to add one more word to the outside of any GMO label? Foods already get labeled as kosher, halal, etc and you have to pay rabbis to label your food as kosher. Yet no one complains about the price of doing that.

Just because it has no real value to you doesn't mean it has no value to other people. I like garlic. Some people don't. Even if I don't care if my hummus has garlic in it, some people will, and they will want hummus to be labeled so they know which one they want to buy and which one they don't. Like how vegetarians or vegans want to know if animal products are in crackers or chips, even if they can't taste them there, whereas other people don't care. If some people would change their buying habits based on whether something was in a product or not THEN A LABEL HAS VALUE, because it allows choice. Why do you want to force everyone to buy the food you want them to? What's wrong with people choosing what they want to eat? If it's going to be so expensive, then surely people will wind up buying the cheap GMO food anyway. So why ban people from being allowed to choose?
 
2014-02-07 09:45:56 PM  
Breeding: the original GMO.
 
2014-02-07 09:58:33 PM  

ambercat:  Foods already get labeled as kosher, halal, etc and you have to pay rabbis to label your food as kosher. Yet no one complains about the price of doing that.


Because it is voluntary and as you admit, it costs more.

Don't want to buy GMO, nobody is forcing you to.  You will just have to pay more to buy products that are voluntarily labeled as GMO.  Just like Kosher labeling.

Sounds like that would work for you, after all, nobody should complain about the added cost of buying non-GMO labeled food, right?
 
2014-02-08 01:13:40 AM  

notto: ambercat:  Foods already get labeled as kosher, halal, etc and you have to pay rabbis to label your food as kosher. Yet no one complains about the price of doing that.

Because it is voluntary and as you admit, it costs more.

Don't want to buy GMO, nobody is forcing you to.  You will just have to pay more to buy products that are voluntarily labeled as GMO.  Just like Kosher labeling.

Sounds like that would work for you, after all, nobody should complain about the added cost of buying non-GMO labeled food, right?


Except GMOs have nothing to do with being blessed by rabbis, so it would be even cheaper. And labeling ingredients is already mandatory, as is country of origin or preparation. GMO labeling should be part of ingredients labeling, just like anything else you put in. It makes no sense to refuse to label one thing when you have to label everything else, state where it was made and break it down for nutritional content as well. Why is nutritional content and portion size there? Because it's something consumers care about, so it is labeled to give them more information. Basically anything else you want to know is on the label. Why should one special thing be exempted? Cost of labeling hasn't been prohibitive for anything else being labeled, so that is a red herring. What valid reason is there?
 
2014-02-08 02:01:58 AM  

ambercat: notto: ambercat:  Foods already get labeled as kosher, halal, etc and you have to pay rabbis to label your food as kosher. Yet no one complains about the price of doing that.

Because it is voluntary and as you admit, it costs more.

Don't want to buy GMO, nobody is forcing you to.  You will just have to pay more to buy products that are voluntarily labeled as GMO.  Just like Kosher labeling.

Sounds like that would work for you, after all, nobody should complain about the added cost of buying non-GMO labeled food, right?

Except GMOs have nothing to do with being blessed by rabbis, so it would be even cheaper. And labeling ingredients is already mandatory, as is country of origin or preparation. GMO labeling should be part of ingredients labeling, just like anything else you put in. It makes no sense to refuse to label one thing when you have to label everything else, state where it was made and break it down for nutritional content as well. Why is nutritional content and portion size there? Because it's something consumers care about, so it is labeled to give them more information. Basically anything else you want to know is on the label. Why should one special thing be exempted? Cost of labeling hasn't been prohibitive for anything else being labeled, so that is a red herring. What valid reason is there?


There isn't "one special thing" being exempted from mandatory labelling. There are a virtually UNLIMITED NUMBER OF THINGS exempted from mandatory labelling.

Was the food handled by a person named Juan? Has the logo on the box gone through multiple revisions? Was the crop harvested on a Tuesday? How many full moons occurred between planting and harvest? Was the land leased? How much water was used to grow the crop? How many genes does this organism have? What is its scientific name? What other common plants are in the same family? Were any animals found in the field during the growing season? What brand tractor was used? Who was the first person to plant this crop? How big was the field? Was the crop brought into contact with stainless steel at any point? What's the astrological sign of the farmer? Etc. Etc. Etc. Oh my God why is this information being withheld from the consumer?!? Is it a conspiracy?!?

If you want to truthfully note on your label that your olives have been grown in the same spot in Tuscany for 500 years and were pressed on the day of a full moon by virginal monks singing Enya songs, then you can. But if you didn't, you don't need to specifically say so. Even if there's a group of people who just really feel strongly that singing Iron Maiden instead would introduce a lot of unknown unknowns into their precious bodily fluids.

Basically, these thingsdon't need to be labeled because, like the question of whether the crop was selectively bred or "genetically modified," there is no good reason to believe that it would make any farking difference to the utility of the product.

But what if it ever does make a difference?

To the extent it DOES make a farking difference in the case of GMOs, the very same proposal that you and TFA are complaining about gives the FDA the authority to require THAT to be labeled.
 
2014-02-08 03:16:03 AM  

hardinparamedic: Ruiizu: Not a fan of GMOs because of the twisted agenda behind many of them. And I'm referring to what is known as "round-up ready" GMOs, which basically have led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides (although the initial claim was that they would decrease overall pesticide use), thus an increase in the poisoning of humans and the environment.

Round-up is a herbicide. Not a pesticide. Round-up ready crops are not killed by the mechanism that Round-up uses to kill weeds. They do nothing for pests.


That's actually beside my point though. Round-up ready crops were advertised as a way to decrease pesticide use; they have had the opposite effect. The fact that they resist herbicides is wholly unrelated to how they were sold to countries and farmers (particularly those in Argentina).

If it wasn't already clear, I just think Monsanto (and their similar ilk) are effectively the living example of what could easily be defined as an "evil corporation" if ever there existed one.

/ultimately a case of false advertising
 
2014-02-08 03:38:27 AM  
Ruiizu: That's actually beside my point though. Round-up ready crops were advertised as a way to decrease pesticide use; they have had the opposite effect. The fact that they resist herbicides is wholly unrelated to how they were sold to countries and farmers (particularly those in Argentina).

NO THEY WERE NOT.

You are thinking of BT-encoded crops.

THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.


www.quickmeme.com
www.blackframefame.com
cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2014-02-08 04:15:22 AM  

hardinparamedic: Ruiizu: That's actually beside my point though. Round-up ready crops were advertised as a way to decrease pesticide use; they have had the opposite effect. The fact that they resist herbicides is wholly unrelated to how they were sold to countries and farmers (particularly those in Argentina).

NO THEY WERE NOT.

You are thinking of BT-encoded crops.

THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]
[www.blackframefame.com image 594x463]
[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x546]


Ok. Point taken. You are correct.

My point, how questionable Monsanto's ethics are, still stands. Because it may be construed as a red herring, I'll avoid delving into the geopolitical effects their products have had on so many countries (especially India).

Also maybe no one cares. o-o Who am I to say?
 
Displayed 151 of 151 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report