GMO labels now!

[Desk trauma]

Natural doesn't mean it can't harm us, nor does it mean it is safe.

Just remember, asbestos is natural.

 

[pgp_protector]

Just remember, asbestos is natural.

How about some nice natural flowers?

They're not even artificially genetically modified.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

This sort of reminds me of the error I see alot, this concept of, if we give a plant X it will get into the food we eat, well the question isn't that simple. Can the chemicals that people are worried about even entering the food source part of the plant? If you give a plant the ability to produce say pesticides in it's stem or leaves, but not in the seed/fruit what ever part we eat then you can add what ever you want, it's not going to effect the food

these thigns arn't so black and white like alot of the anti GMO groups seem to imply.

People act like it is going to modify OUR genes. Well.. I hate to break ti to people. but you have a 1 in a billion chance for your cells to mutate and become become cancerous naturally through its own devices, by the way your body is making about 100 billion new cells every day. The fact we aren't developing cancer cells already naturally is a miracle in itself.

 

[KitKatMatt]

What is the definition of GMO for labeling purposes?

Clearly, we genetically modify food simply when we breed for certain traits. But there is also genetic modification where we manipulate the genes of an organism personally.

So which ones will be labeled? How is this label system going to work?

I don't know a whole lot about the pro/anti-GMO arguments. I do think it's important to study the implications of genetic modification, especially with something you're going to eat, but I'm no expert on the topic so I don't know exactly where we are on this.

 

[bill5]

The fact we aren't developing cancer cells already naturally is a miracle in itself.

Pardon a quick sidetrack, but that's not a fact at all. We do, but our immune system wipes them out as quickly as they appear (normally).

 

[loveofourlord]

Pardon a quick sidetrack, but that's not a fact at all. We do, but our immune system wipes them out as quickly as they appear (normally).

To an extent, but a big chunk of cancer is due to genetics of this sort so ultimatly fail.

 

[Audacious]

What if the adverse problems are being hidden, and attributed to causes other than GMOs? We won't know for sure without long-term studies.

The problem is that if we used your standard of evidence, you wouldn't be able to use electricity, or planes, or modern medical care.

We don't know the effect of Lipitor through multiple generations yet. Or Prozac. Or Abilify. But they're all great, life-saving medications. Why should we apply your standard of evidence to way less dangerous things, like GMO foods?

 

[ananda]

The problem is that if we used your standard of evidence, you wouldn't be able to use electricity, or planes, or modern medical care.

These are all external things that do not directly threaten to change us on an internal level (DNA, RNA, genes, etc.).

We don't know the effect of Lipitor through multiple generations yet. Or Prozac. Or Abilify. But they're all great, life-saving medications. Why should we apply your standard of evidence to way less dangerous things, like GMO foods?

Because GMO organisms can potentially multiply via pollination through the air which can easily cross-contaminate non-GMO fields, causing worldwide transformations of crops and would eventually affect even people who do not want GMOs in their food supply.

The drugs you mentioned do not multiply in this fashion, and people who do not want to be affected by the drugs can easily avoid them.

 

[ananda]

What if the anti GMO crowd are actually working for Organic Only Agricultural companies and just trying to make money by scaremongering?

It's possible. I'm not.

If, 50 years down the road, it's proven that GMOs are harmful, would it be easy or hard to close Pandora's GMO box and return to a non-GMO planet?

 

[Aureus]

It's possible. I'm not.

If, 50 years down the road, it's proven that GMOs are harmful, would it be easy or hard to close Pandora's GMO box and return to a non-GMO planet?

You've yet to suggest any kind of mechanism that would cause GMOs to have a terrible hidden harm that would only be discovered via multi-generational studies that haven't in essence been done via the way we've been feeding livestock GMO food for decades now.

The concern you could go after and at least attempt to sound reasonable is not human harm, but harm to the environment via monoculture or potential monoculture ( not that we weren't already doing that via normal farming ) or other biodiversity concerns. Yet those concerns remain the same concerns as we have with older methods of farming/breeding of crops.

 

[Audacious]

These are all external things that do not directly threaten to change us on an internal level (DNA, RNA, genes, etc.).

Because GMO organisms can potentially multiply via pollination through the air which can easily cross-contaminate non-GMO fields, causing worldwide transformations of crops and would eventually affect even people who do not want GMOs in their food supply.

The drugs you mentioned do not multiply in this fashion, and people who do not want to be affected by the drugs can easily avoid them.

That actually doesn't happen.

Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted : The Salt : NPR
Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked | Popular Science

 

[ananda]

You've yet to suggest any kind of mechanism that would cause GMOs to have a terrible hidden harm that would only be discovered via multi-generational studies that haven't in essence been done via the way we've been feeding livestock GMO food for decades now.

The concern you could go after and at least attempt to sound reasonable is not human harm, but harm to the environment via monoculture or potential monoculture ( not that we weren't already doing that via normal farming ) or other biodiversity concerns. Yet those concerns remain the same concerns as we have with older methods of farming/breeding of crops.

Foreign genes haphazardly introduced into naturally incompatible organisms is the mechanism of concern to me. Not to mention that science, in its current state, does not understand with complete knowledge as to what any specific gene does in its entirety!

 

[Audacious]

Foreign genes haphazardly introduced into naturally incompatible organisms is the mechanism of concern to me. Not to mention that science, in its current state, does not understand with complete knowledge as to what any specific gene does in its entirety!

We don't know every mechanism of solar radiation and how it deals with earth's atmosphere and electromagnetic field. Therefore, our children should not be allowed outside.

 

[ananda]

That actually doesn't happen.

Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted : The Salt : NPR
Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked | Popular Science

Your links actually support my contention, that GMO genes do spread.

"GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen ... GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination ... contamination to a very low level ... Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants ... could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic material all the time by way of pollen, which carries plant DNA—including any genetically engineered snippets."

 

[ananda]

We don't know every mechanism of solar radiation and how it deals with earth's atmosphere and electromagnetic field. Therefore, our children should not be allowed outside.

This is external, natural influence, and uncontrollable to a large extent by humanity.

GMOs are an internal unnatural influence, and can be controlled.

 

[Audacious]

This is external, natural influence, and uncontrollable to a large extent by humanity.

GMOs are an internal unnatural influence, and can be controlled.

You're operating under the pretense that natural and unnatural things are extremely different, somehow, but they really aren't. Humans are a part of nature, and we can only use the tools which physics and nature make available to us. We can't operate without materials, or predictable results, or physical constants, and we operate on the same basis as every other living thing does.

Unnatural things aren't inherently more dangerous or more safe than natural ones. It's an idea based off of ideology rather than fact.

As far as cross-contamination, it happens on a very low level and causes no harm to people or plants. It's not dangerous or a major cause for concern. Your own quote shows that.

 

[ananda]

You're operating under the pretense that natural and unnatural things are extremely different, somehow, but they really aren't. Humans are a part of nature, and we can only use the tools which physics and nature make available to us. We can't operate without materials, or predictable results, or physical constants, and we operate on the same basis as every other living thing does.

Unnatural things aren't inherently more dangerous or more safe than natural ones. It's an idea based off of ideology rather than fact.

Just because something can be done, does not mean that it should be done. Yes, on some level, there is an ideological reason: IMO the Bible prohibits such unnatural manipulation of DNA. On another level, it goes into "do unto others": Do not impose GMOs on those who are against GMOs, and GMO supporters are supporting the unreverseable spread of GMOs into the entire ecosystem leaving non-GMO supporters without recourse in the end.

As far as cross-contamination, it happens on a very low level and causes no harm to people or plants. It's not dangerous or a major cause for concern. Your own quote shows that.

Low does not equal none. Low numbers multiplied over time will grow exponentially.

 

[Aureus]

Foreign genes haphazardly introduced into naturally incompatible organisms is the mechanism of concern to me. Not to mention that science, in its current state, does not understand with complete knowledge as to what any specific gene does in its entirety!

This does not suggest a mechanism for how those genes, inserted into the DNA of plant matter would have any effect on humans at all. You are eating untold amounts of genes foreign and alien to you every time you eat any plant or animal matter.

 

[loveofourlord]

Just because something can be done, does not mean that it should be done. Yes, on some level, there is an ideological reason: IMO the Bible prohibits such unnatural manipulation of DNA. On another level, it goes into "do unto others": Do not impose GMOs on those who are against GMOs, and GMO supporters are supporting the unreverseable spread of GMOs into the entire ecosystem leaving non-GMO supporters without recourse in the end.

Low does not equal none. Low numbers multiplied over time will grow exponentially.

So the truth comes out, it's not concern for health, but yet another person that fears technology and thinks the bible forbids it. These things are tested for years before they are put into the wild, checked to make sure they are safe, experiment after experiment is done. And on your comment about we don't know what genes do, they arn't sticking anything into a animal they don't know what it does. They may not know what every single plant gene on the planet does, but they don't stick anything into a plant that they don't know it's source.

All this stuff is just nonsense ultimatly And ultimatly won't matter, as some of the new GMO's they are working on can't survive or cross polinate outside of controlled conditions, they are still in the testing phases and experimental phases, but they will allow for alot of these concerns to not matter.

 

[ananda]

This does not suggest a mechanism for how those genes, inserted into the DNA of plant matter would have any effect on humans at all. You are eating untold amounts of genes foreign and alien to you every time you eat any plant or animal matter.

So the truth , it's not concern for health, but yet another person that fears technology and thinks the bible forbids it. These things are tested for years before they are put into the wild, checked to make sure they are safe, experiment after experiment is done. And on your comment about we don't know what genes do, they arn't sticking anything into a animal they don't know what it does. They may not know what every single plant gene on the planet does, but they don't stick anything into a plant that they don't know it's source.

All this stuff is just nonsense ultimatly And ultimatly won't matter, as some of the new GMO's they are working on can't survive or cross polinate outside of controlled conditions, they are still in the testing phases and experimental phases, but they will allow for alot of these concerns to not matter.

Jane Goodall and Steven Druker Expose US Government Fraud over GMOs - Sustainable Pulse

"In an acclaimed new book being launched Wednesday in London, American public interest attorney Steven Druker reveals how the US government and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs and the scientific research that casts doubt on their safety ... The book is the result of more than 15 years of intensive research and investigation by Druker, who came to prominence for initiating a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods. Those files revealed that GM foods first achieved commercialisation in 1992 only because the FDA:

• Covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their dangers.
• Lied about the facts.
• And then violated federal food safety law by permitting these foods to be marketed without having been proven safe through standard testing.
​

... Steven Druker’s investigation into the history of fraud and deceit that ushered in the era of GMOs deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply”.


'nuff said.