80% of Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food Containing DNA

[ananda]

Now to prove you'll twist your own words to get out of the requirements of standing by them.

1) there are no multi generational studies of Computer use (But you'll excuse that and still use computers won't you ?)
2) there's no multi generational studies of phone use (but you'll excuse that and still use phones won't you?)
3) there's no multi generational studies of automotive use (buy you'll excuse that and still use modern transportation)

Should I go on, or can we all watch you make changes to this "If there are no studies that span generations of humans, then there is no reason for me to believe that it is safe" ?

Nope, you're just twisting my words.

Computers, phones, automobiles are external changes and do not directly "reprogram the human race", or "involve changing the basic nature of humans (internal)"

 

[Steve Petersen]

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).

One can only hope that the gene pool would be improved if they did.

 

[pgp_protector]

Nope, you're just twisting my words.

Computers, phones, automobiles are external changes and do not directly "reprogram the human race", or "involve changing the basic nature of humans (internal)"

There's no studies proving that.

 

[pgp_protector]

I distinguish between hybridization (joining same/similar species to produce a variation of the species), and direct genetic modification (inserting, deleting, or combining genes from vastly different species).

The Scripture you gave didn't give that option, why are you ignoring the scripture you posted now?

"Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up." Mt 15:13

 

[ananda]

The Scripture you gave didn't give that option, why are you ignoring the scripture you posted now?

I'm not ignoring it, I merely have a different interpretation of that scripture than you have.

Anything that can naturally breed together and produce offspring through the natural method of procreation is not prohibited. Like bananas of various types, even if the natural process is hastened (such as through hybridization), or dogs of various breeds.

Anything that cannot naturally breed together and produce offspring is prohibited. Like cows and humans, or rice and humans, or dogs and cats, or goats and spiders.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm not ignoring it, I merely have a different interpretation of that scripture than you have.

Anything that can naturally breed together and produce offspring through the natural method of procreation is not prohibited. Like bananas of various types, even if the natural process is hastened (such as through hybridization), or dogs of various breeds.

Anything that cannot naturally breed together and produce offspring is prohibited. Like cows and humans, or rice and humans, or dogs and cats, or goats and spiders.

Bananas don't breed, they're clones, and without man, wouldn't even be around.

 

[ananda]

Bananas don't breed, they're clones, and without man, wouldn't even be around.

Separate issue altogether.

 

[pgp_protector]

Separate issue altogether.

So you say that if it can naturally bread together it's not an issue, when informed that bananas don't bread, it's a separate issue now

 

[ananda]

So you say that if it can naturally bread together it's not an issue, when informed that bananas don't bread, it's a separate issue now

The hampered ability (e.g. fewness of viable seeds) to procreate is a totally separate issue from the natural ability (e.g. naturally compatible vs incompatible seeds) to procreate.

 

[pgp_protector]

The hampered ability (e.g. fewness of viable seeds) to procreate is a totally separate issue from the natural ability (e.g. naturally compatible vs incompatible seeds) to procreate.

They're not hampered, they are sterile. They can't procreate at all.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

They're not hampered, they are sterile. They can't procreate at all.

Arguably...this is not purely true, in a sense. Seedless/hybridized varieties of banana do exist naturally and procreate via suckers ability to grow when separated from the parent - they are capable (even seeded cultivars) of asexual reproduction.

In wild species of banana, the "cloned" seedling fair far better than seed-derived seedlings. So the majority of bananas in any given area tend to be derived from a single parent source even without human intervention.

So, to his point, that the plants are not able to reproduce via seeds is not really a problem for the verses, since it is a natural occurrence anyway. (In my opinion...not that I really care anyway. lol)

 

[Caretaker]

Learn more about GMO's at nongmoproject.org/learn-more (put www in front of the preceeding for the link).

GMO's have many problems, a few of which I've listed below.

1) The "splicing" process used to "insert" genes is not as precise as some try to pretend. One of the ways it is accomplished is with a "gene gun" that essentially smashes particles together. More than one gene is transferred in this process. One very serious side effect can be the triggering of life threatening allergic reactions to foods which never before triggered such a reaction.

2) Perhaps GMO crops wouldn't be so bad if they were required to not be able to produce pollen that would carry the modified traits across property boundaries and contaminate other people's crops and plants who do not want the modified genes. Today gene "trespass" is, unfortunately, very common. In fact it is the rule instead of the exception.

3) All companies that create GMO products should be required by law to provide samples of their product to all laboratories that request them at the GMO producer's cost for unrestricted testing. Today virtually all GMO companies PROHIBIT third party testing.

4) All GMO products should be required to pass independent third party laboratory tests. Today all "testing" is done by the GMO producer.

5) GMO products should not be allowed if they result in environmental modification. For example, the GMO industry itself admits that the naturally occurring BT insecticide that they have engineered some of their crops to produce will lose its effectiveness in the environment within a few decades because of the massive amounts of it that is being produced by their GMO crops. This will pose large problems for organic growers who rely on the effectiveness of applied BT. Further, the inclusion of BT that is produced by these crops in the food supply is in and of itself a massive experiment. Never before did people ever eat BT in any meaningful quantity.

6. Everyone should have the ability to decide whether or not they want to eat GMO products. But the producers of GMO products have spent megabucks on ensuring politicians will not require GMO labelling. The FDA's own scientists strongly recommended that GMO products be labelled, but that recommendation was over-ridden by an FDA appointee who came from the GMO industry. If there is no danger in GMO products, why are the producers so afraid of giving people a choice?

Generally speaking, the issue here is not one of GMO producers representing the scientifically advanced and those in opposition to GMO's representing those resisting scientific advancement. Instead it is the GMO producers who are attempting to manipulate science for short term gain at the expense of the environment and all humanity.

 

[Audacious]

Learn more about GMO's at nongmoproject.org/learn-more (put www in front of the preceeding for the link).

GMO's have several problems.

1) The "splicing" process used to "insert" genes is not as precise as some try to pretend. One of the ways it is accomplished is with a "gene gun" that essentially smashes particles together. More than one gene is transferred in this process. One very serious side effect can be the triggering of life threatening allergic reactions to foods which never before triggered such a reaction.

2) Perhaps GMO crops wouldn't be so bad if they were required to not be able to produce pollen that would carry the modified traits across property boundaries and contaminate other people's crops and plants who do not want the modified genes. Today gene "trespass" is, unfortunately, very common. In fact it is the rule instead of the exception.

3) All companies that create GMO products should be required by law to provide samples of their product to all laboratories that request them at the GMO producer's cost for unrestricted testing. Today virtually all GMO companies PROHIBIT third party testing.

4) All GMO products should be required to pass independent third party laboratory tests. Today all "testing" is done by the GMO producer.

5) GMO products should not be allowed if they result in environmental modification. For example, the GMO industry itself admits that the naturally occurring BT insecticide that they have engineered some of their crops to produce will lose its effectiveness in the environment within a few decades because of the massive amounts of it that is being produced by their GMO crops. This will pose large problems for organic growers who rely on the effectiveness of applied BT. Further, the inclusion of BT that is produced by these crops in the food supply is in and of itself a massive experiment. Never before did people ever eat BT in any meaningful quantity.

Generally speaking, the issue here is not one of GMO producers representing the scientifically advanced and those in opposition to GMO's representing those resisting scientific advancement. Instead it is the GMO producers who are attempting to manipulate science for short term gain at the expense of the environment and all humanity.

You need to cite a reliable source, rather than the "Non-GMO Project". As in, PhD biologists, scientific organizations e.g. the National Academy of Sciences, peer-reviewed journals, et cetera.

I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since I've heard point #5 before; just that you need to cite your empirical claims. Proving your points is an extremely important part of any discussion.

 

[Caretaker]

Being a new poster I'm not allowed to post links. The one I used I had to manipulate to get it past the link detector. So, it's difficult for me to provide the references you're seeking.

You will find, however, that the articles at the link I cited have excellent references.

Also note that I edited my post by adding point 6 after you captured my post at the start of your reply.

 

[keith99]

Again, where are the studies that shows their effects on multiple generations of humans? None you can point to, so it hasn't been studied sufficiently in my eyes.

And by your standard it is impossible to satisfy you.

 

[Caretaker]

And by your standard it is impossible to satisfy you.

My understanding is the longest time any GMO industry study spans is three months, and studies outside of the GMO industry are so strenuously and effectively opposed by the GMO industry that they are all but non-existent. The GMO industry has so far been very effective in their attempt to ban independent third party studies.

Again, if GMO's are so great, why does the GMO industry work so hard to make third party independent studies impossible?

 

[ananda]

And by your standard it is impossible to satisfy you.

It would take a long time, but not impossible. How else, can you see Frankenfoods effects on generations of humans and other animals without testing across generations? Or, do you not care to see generational effects?

Humans have eaten non-GMO foods successfully for millenia. Could we not wait perhaps for another mere century to wait for the results of GMO foods?

 

[keith99]

Arguably...this is not purely true, in a sense. Seedless/hybridized varieties of banana do exist naturally and procreate via suckers ability to grow when separated from the parent - they are capable (even seeded cultivars) of asexual reproduction.

In wild species of banana, the "cloned" seedling fair far better than seed-derived seedlings. So the majority of bananas in any given area tend to be derived from a single parent source even without human intervention.

So, to his point, that the plants are not able to reproduce via seeds is not really a problem for the verses, since it is a natural occurrence anyway. (In my opinion...not that I really care anyway. lol)

How about more traditional fruits, like apples, oranges, plums and the like?

Some of the trees are truly Frankenstein's monster, having separate genetic material from 3 different trees, almost always at least 2! One for the rootstock and another for the tree above ground and the fruit. But sometimes a third small graft to control tree size. In apples the main above ground graft can be for a variety that is pollen sterile, a tree whose genetic line would soon vanish without mankind propping it up. Some apple trees could be called 100s of years old as they are clones of clones. Totally unnatural.

Of course people are used to or ignorant of this so it is fine.

Actually I'm more than fine with it. I also have no problems with GMO, in fact I find blanket concerns there to be idiotic. It is not the technique one should be concerned about, but what is selected for, either by GMO or by more traditional techniques. I'm opposed to man eating apple trees no matter how they get created.

 

[keith99]

It would take a long time, but not impossible. How else, can you see Frankenfoods effects on generations of humans and other animals without testing across generations? Or, do you not care to see generational effects?

Humans have eaten non-GMO successfully foods for millenia. Could we not wait perhaps for another mere century to wait for the results of GMO foods?

NO it is impossible. You will be long dead, thus YOU can never be satisfied.

 

[ananda]

NO it is impossible. You will be long dead, thus YOU can never be satisfied.

I will be satisfied if I know that my future offspring can make decisions based on carefully studied generational results.

Why in such a rush to approve GMO foods anyways? To "feed more"? According to some, aren't there already more than enough people in the world now?