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  
•       •       •

2882 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2014 at 5:20 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report