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 43
    More: Stupid, GMOs, food industry, American food, National Council of La Raza, exceptions, Environmental Working Group  
•       •       •

2887 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2014 at 5:20 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-02-07 05:43:09 AM  
4 votes:
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 12:39:34 AM  
4 votes:

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 05:39:32 AM  
3 votes:

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 05:29:05 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2014-02-06 11:50:55 PM  
3 votes:
No.
2014-02-07 05:17:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:36:25 AM  
2 votes:
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 07:03:29 AM  
2 votes:
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 06:45:37 AM  
2 votes:

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 06:07:00 AM  
2 votes:
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 05:38:01 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:23:44 AM  
2 votes:
"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 05:30:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:22:52 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:10:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:38:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:11:23 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:00:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:43:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:03:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:42:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:13:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:07:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:21:38 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:42:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:17:10 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:11:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:54:36 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:44:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:28:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:27:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:18:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:08:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:32:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:10:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:03:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:01:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 05:53:40 AM  
1 votes:
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 05:49:14 AM  
1 votes:
Stopwhining about GMO,dumbasses. There are plenty of real problems with the same farking industry.
2014-02-07 05:41:40 AM  
1 votes:
...So we just presume you're using GMO's, waste byproducts, and dangerous chemicals unless you say otherwise?

/Works for me.
2014-02-07 05:37:01 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:35:07 AM  
1 votes:
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 03:41:03 AM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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