80% of Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food Containing DNA

[Audacious]

Over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA” - The Washington Post

Americans are actually this scientifically illiterate. It's scary just how ludicrous the anti-vaccine, anti-GMO crowd is in regards to current science, and how ignorant your typical American is on science.

 

[loveofourlord]

really shows that most people that answer these polls that then get used to push agenda's really can be useless...reminds me of people like the food babe, if it sounds complicated it must be bad.

 

[DaisyDay]

Did the people polled really listen to and understand the question?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I think they should label food that has foods containing DNA and GMO foods , even though it wont stop that many people from eating this. I think the only people, that wont eat foods containing DNA and GMO are the people who care about what they put in their bodies. The ones that are really into organic food wont dare touch foods containing DNA and GMO, unless this is organic. Also I think they should have that right.

 

[Audacious]

Did the people polled really listen to and understand the question?

It was a pretty straightforward question: "Do you support or oppose mandatory labels on foods containing DNA?" I don't see how it could be misunderstood, honestly.

I think they should label food that has foods containing DNA and GMO foods , even though it wont stop that many people from eating this. I think the only people, that wont eat foods containing DNA and GMO are the people who care about what they put in their bodies. The ones that are really into organic food wont dare touch foods containing DNA and GMO, unless this is organic. Also I think they should have that right.

The problem is, all food contains DNA. It's a basic part of how food works -- it's all taken from living organisms. It's like saying "all food should be labeled as food".

As far as GMOs, the scientific consensus is that they are at least as safe as "organic" foods, and arguably safer; typical cross-breeding methods change 16,000 to 40,000 genes, whereas GMOs change 1-4 genes, meaning that random mutation is much less of a dangerous factor. There are so many things that are good about GMOs, and improve food safety when compared to non-engineered organisms, that not eating them is actually kind of stupid.

Look at golden rice: it's rice marketed to people in third-world countries that contains vitamin A, and it has saved thousands, if not millions of children from going blind or dying from severe vitamin A deficiency.

Sources:
WHO | Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods
The Truth About GMOs: Are They Safe? What Do We Know?

 

[kellhus]

I think they should label food that has foods containing DNA

...Are you serious? If so, would you mind listing a few foods that don't have DNA in them?

 

[TerranceL]

I had to read the title a few times because that just didn't make any sense.

I would get a big giggle out of seeing that label in the store.

It'd be like going to the butcher shop and seeing "warning this product contains chicken" on a bag of chicken leg and thighs.

Which reminds me, it's lunch time. Laters!

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Labelling DNA containing foods is...laughable. That would be a ridiculously ubiquitous label. It would have to be on essentially EVERYTHING - except sugar, etc.

Anything taken directly from a living thing will contain DNA - any meat, dairy, plant-based product will have DNA present.


As for GMO...I wouldn't actually mind that label. And, in specific, I think it should actually say what ingredients are GMO ingredients if not all are. As a whole, GMO products are generally just fine. Some, though, I think we need to consider just how safe they truly are:
Monsanto GM Soy Is Scarier Than You Think | Mother Jones

But again, it would depend on a case-by-case, honestly. But since we are constantly coming out with new and "improved" GMO lines, it is a given that some will not be up to snuff, if you will. Just the way it works. I don't think we need to throw the whole lot out for a few, separated individual lines being less valuable, of course.

 

[Supreme]

Hilarious. Imagine if they actually did bring out these labels- and people who know nothing of science actively avoided all food with a label on it (ie, everything).

 

[Mystman]

As for GMO...I wouldn't actually mind that label.

The problem with GMO labelling is that it propagates the absurd notion that GMOs are a distinct class of products, that are probably less healthy than "normal" products.

Actually even the name "GMO" is misleading. Yes, Monsanto corn is genetically modified. But in a way so is organic corn. The genes of organic corn have just been modified using inferior, wildly inaccurate techniques like crossbreeding, radiation induced mutations, etc. And even if humans haven't consciously tried to improve a particular variety of corn, random mutations and sexual reproduction ensure that not a single item of food on the planet is genetically identical to it's ancestors.

Now, modern methods for modifying organisms are so powerful and accurate that we can also pause to think whether we should make some of the changes. For example, making it so that eating corn will instantly kill you is probably a bad idea sorry. But the very fact that we can make these kinds of decisions, instead of blindly mashing together some organisms and hoping that the end result is ok, shows how superior "GMO" techniques are.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

The problem with GMO labelling is that it propagates the absurd notion that GMOs are a distinct class of products, that are probably less healthy than "normal" products.

Actually even the name "GMO" is misleading. Yes, Monsanto corn is genetically modified. But in a way so is organic corn. The genes of organic corn have just been modified using inferior, wildly inaccurate techniques like crossbreeding, radiation induced mutations, etc. And even if humans haven't consciously tried to improve a particular variety of corn, random mutations and sexual reproduction ensure that not a single item of food on the planet is genetically identical to it's ancestors.

Now, modern methods for modifying organisms are so powerful and accurate that we can also pause to think whether we should make some of the changes. For example, making it so that eating corn will instantly kill you is probably a bad idea sorry. But the very fact that we can make these kinds of decisions, instead of blindly mashing together some organisms and hoping that the end result is ok, shows how superior "GMO" techniques are.

I understand how it works, and I agree "GMO" is a very misleading title. But I still wouldn't mind it.
Do I care, honestly? No. Because I know what the benefits are risks inherent in either method of food production ("GMO" or "Organic"). Do I think it would actually be a bad thing, though? Nope.

 

[Oafman]

Labelling DNA containing foods is...laughable. That would be a ridiculously ubiquitous label. It would have to be on essentially EVERYTHING - except sugar, etc.

Would sugar contain some DNA from the plant which produced it? I'm not sure. Salt surely doesn't contain any DNA, but I doubt we can really call it food.

Although, even though pure salt wouldn't contain DNA, the salt that we buy probably does. Because traces of insect and plant would inevitably get into the transport and packaging processes.Even airborne pollen contains DNA.

In the US the FDA has limits for certain foods on how much horrible stuff is allowed to be present. Fig paste is only considered defective if it "Contains 13 or more insect heads per 100 grams of fig paste in each of 2 or more subsamples". So 12 insect heads per 100 grams is just fine. Tomato juice must have less than "Average of 10 or more fly eggs per 100 grams OR 5 or more fly eggs and 1 or more maggots per 100 grams OR 2 or more maggots per 100 grams, in a minimum of 12 subsamples". Mmmm.

I'm reluctant to mock the 80% too much, because often, questions like this get squeezed into the middle of an otherwise sensible survey, and people are not tuned in to expect anything out of the ordinary. I haven't read the methodology in this case but such things do go on.

But having said that, yeah it is pretty dumb...

 

[Audacious]

I understand how it works, and I agree "GMO" is a very misleading title. But I still wouldn't mind it.
Do I care, honestly? No. Because I know what the benefits are risks inherent in either method of food production ("GMO" or "Organic"). Do I think it would actually be a bad thing, though? Nope.

Honestly, I'm for it, because then people would realize that GMOs, when they're already on the market, are essentially harmless.

Over 80% of supermarket foods contain GMOs; it would immediately dispel a lot of the stupid myths about them.

 

[pgp_protector]

I think they should label food that has foods containing DNA and GMO foods , even though it wont stop that many people from eating this. I think the only people, that wont eat foods containing DNA and GMO are the people who care about what they put in their bodies. The ones that are really into organic food wont dare touch foods containing DNA and GMO, unless this is organic. Also I think they should have that right.

This is why Aliens don't visit us.

Let me guess, you think Food should be Chemical free also?

 

[pgp_protector]

LOL

I Love their warning !!!

WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children.

 

[ananda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Would sugar contain some DNA from the plant which produced it? I'm not sure. Salt surely doesn't contain any DNA, but I doubt we can really call it food.

Although, even though pure salt wouldn't contain DNA, the salt that we buy probably does. Because traces of insect and plant would inevitably get into the transport and packaging processes.Even airborne pollen contains DNA.

yeah, really. If pure and completely refined (which is, honestly, essentialy impossible), sugar would contain no DNA. Salt the same.
Though, I can't see how we could remove all DNA from either salt or sugar...or anything. Like you said, there will always be pollen, dust (skin tissue primarily, sorry to be gross...if that is), insect parts, something with DNA present.

In the US the FDA has limits for certain foods on how much horrible stuff is allowed to be present. Fig paste is only considered defective if it "Contains 13 or more insect heads per 100 grams of fig paste in each of 2 or more subsamples". So 12 insect heads per 100 grams is just fine. Tomato juice must have less than "Average of 10 or more fly eggs per 100 grams OR 5 or more fly eggs and 1 or more maggots per 100 grams OR 2 or more maggots per 100 grams, in a minimum of 12 subsamples". Mmmm.

Gross? Yes. But only realistic. you can't manufacture or make anything 100% pure. And even moreso when we are dealing with food items - which generally attract insects, rodents, etc.

I'm reluctant to mock the 80% too much, because often, questions like this get squeezed into the middle of an otherwise sensible survey, and people are not tuned in to expect anything out of the ordinary. I haven't read the methodology in this case but such things do go on.

But having said that, yeah it is pretty dumb...

Yeah, I ain't mocking them. Because, you're right, things get slipped into surveys like that. And it can lead to misleading results.

That said...come one? Really? 80% think we should label DNA in food? Are we really THAT scientifically illiterate as a nation?

 

[keith99]

...Are you serious? If so, would you mind listing a few foods that don't have DNA in them?

I can think of a few. Dextrose and just sugar come to mind.

In short highly refined products that are generally listed as being bad for you.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I can think of a few. Dextrose and just sugar come to mind.

In short highly refined products that are generally listed as being bad for you.

Even then, you would, most typically, require a "may contain DNA" warning still. As mentioned above, some DNA-containing particulates are inevitably going to occur - be they pollen, dust, insect parts, hairs, etc etc etc that get introduced during production.

 

[loveofourlord]

One thing about labeling GMO is that there are decades of testing this regularly and making sure this stuff is safe, just to point out, any GMO that is given to humans, has been tested on livestock for decades, and if tehre were problems they have spotted it long before it reaches humans, it's just anti science fear mongering. Are some companies maybe unsavory? Perhaps, but that doesn't relate to their products, what about things like golden rice? That could save many children from going blind in China and such countries that are GMO but designed to be healthier and protect children.