GMO Labeling

[SpiritDragon]

How do you feel about labeling genetically modified organisms in the food supply and what are your main reasons?

[MarginOfError]

I think it is unnecessary because there is absolutely zero reproducible evidence that there is any harm in consuming genetically modified foods.  We've been doing it for centuries.  I don't see any reason to get concerned about it now.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think it is unnecessary because there is absolutely zero reproducible evidence that there is any harm in consuming genetically modified foods.  We've been doing it for centuries.  I don't see any reason to get concerned about it now.

 

See. MoE and I can agree.

[SpiritDragon]

  We've been doing it for centuries.  

 

I'm just curious, you don't see any difference between selective breeding of plant species and laboratory DNA transfer in otherwise incompatible species? The latter only existing since the mid 1970's.

 

 

I think it is unnecessary because there is absolutely zero reproducible evidence that there is any harm in consuming genetically modified foods.  

 

Even if the food itself is safe, is there no concern about the increased pesticide/herbicide usage which these crops are created for. Does it not follow that a round-up ready field can end up with a lot more toxic residue getting into the food supply.

 

Should we consider environmental factors like super-weeds that are unnaturally tough as an adaptation to increased herbicide exposure, or bees dying en masse? Should people have a choice to make ecological decisions like this when they purchase food?

 

See. MoE and I can agree.

 

Miracles do exist 

[Wingnut]

See. MoE and I can agree.

 

MOE may need to update his signature...

[talisyn]

My objection to GMOs is their parent companies business practices, including going on to non-customer's farms and stealing samples of the plants to test for patented genes from cross-pollination and then suing the poor farmers. The actual gene tampering to increase yields are a good thing, IMHO .

 

 

edit: I apologize for errors, apparently my wireless keyboard's batteries are dying.

[kapikui]

My objection to GMOs is their parent companies business practices, including going on to non-customer's farms and stealing samples of the plants to test for patented genes from cross-pollination and then suing the poor farmers. The actual gene tampering to increase yields are a good thing, IMHO .

 

I tend to agree.  Monsanto is a vile organization and is better shut down for their business practices, but the GMO's themselves are a boon.  I liked this article on it.  If you're anti-GMO, you're objectively pro-starvation of the poor.

[jerome1232]

I tend to agree.  Monsanto is a vile organization and is better shut down for their business practices, but the GMO's themselves are a boon.  I liked this article on it.  If you're anti-GMO, you're objectively pro-starvation of the poor.

Thank you for that blog link.

[MarginOfError]

See. MoE and I can agree.

I just changed my mind.  Ban GMOs.

[MarginOfError]

I'm just curious, you don't see any difference between selective breeding of plant species and laboratory DNA transfer in otherwise incompatible species? The latter only existing since the mid 1970's.

 

 

 

Even if the food itself is safe, is there no concern about the increased pesticide/herbicide usage which these crops are created for. Does it not follow that a round-up ready field can end up with a lot more toxic residue getting into the food supply.

 

Should we consider environmental factors like super-weeds that are unnaturally tough as an adaptation to increased herbicide exposure, or bees dying en masse? Should people have a choice to make ecological decisions like this when they purchase food?

 

 

Miracles do exist 

 

The short answer: No.

 

I actually read an article by an environmentalist that used to be adamantly opposed to GMOs.  He was opposed on principle of "what is natural."  Then he did research and concluded that GMOs ought to be advocated as a matter of environmental policy.  I'll have to go look that up sometime.

[Dravin]

Even if the food itself is safe, is there no concern about the increased pesticide/herbicide usage which these crops are created for. Does it not follow that a round-up ready field can end up with a lot more toxic residue getting into the food supply.

 

 

Some thoughts:

 

1) You seem to be equating GMO with a specific subset of GMO. Is your intent to use GMO as a shorthand for this specific subset (pesticide resistance)? Because I see no conceptual reason for ringspot resistant papya or salinity resistant wheat to result in more toxic residue getting into the food supply.

 

2) Depending on both what the labeled use of Monsanto's product is, and the on the farm implementation, it may or may not make 'gut-level' sense that it results in greater pesticide use. I'm not overly familiar with how the system is intended to be used, or how it actually gets implemented on the farm.

 

3) Those are excellent questions... for a properly conducted scientific study. 

[Martain]

For personal reasons and via personal study I would very much like to see GMO labeling.

 

For the same reasons I advocate 100% truth in advertising and truthful labeling of all ingredients in a product, I likewise advocate GMO labeling.

 

I prefer being given the Agency to choose for myself, and alow others the same privaledge, whether I eat such foods or not.

[SpiritDragon]

Some thoughts:

 

1) You seem to be equating GMO with a specific subset of GMO. Is your intent to use GMO as a shorthand for this specific subset (pesticide resistance)? Because I see no conceptual reason for ringspot resistant papya or salinity resistant wheat to result in more toxic residue getting into the food supply.

 

My intent is to discuss other's thoughts on GMO labeling. My thoughts being that if GMO labeling were to take place it should certainly only refer to those products made in a lab with novel gene sequencing. I could care less to find out that a specific breeding process brought me broccoli, cabbage, and kale from the same plant, or that by retaining only certain seeds from plants with certain properties that others of their kind don't exhibit (or at least not as strongly) we found a way to have wheat that withstands harsher climates with a shorter growing season. I do wonder if people should have a right to know if the food they are eating has been manipulated on the genetic level in a lab.

 

Simply put if we were talking about humans I wouldn't be worried about selectively bread Aryans or interracial offspring, but I would like to know if I was going to eat my neighbour if they had fish genes spliced into their genetic code so they could breathe underwater. Or even more succinctly I believe the answer to your question is YES, I am only concerned with biotech-man-made-novel foods as a potential candidate for labeling.

 

Good question though, just what GMO's would be labeled. Because if selectively bread crops were to require labeling it is true that there is no such thing as non-gmo and the label would be useless.

 

2) Depending on both what the labeled use of Monsanto's product is, and the on the farm implementation, it may or may not make 'gut-level' sense that it results in greater pesticide use. I'm not overly familiar with how the system is intended to be used, or how it actually gets implemented on the farm.

 

Indeed, I have a bias toward assuming more spraying with round-up/(insert other) ready crops because I live in ag-country and that is what we get here. Plus it makes the most sense for biotech from a money perspective to sell products that are adapted to use chemicals that they also stand to profit from. Call me cynical.

[SpiritDragon]

I just changed my mind.  Ban GMOs.

 

Sometimes I miss that laugh button

[Dravin]

My intent is to discuss other's thoughts on GMO labeling. My thoughts being that if GMO labeling were to take place it should certainly only refer to those products made in a lab with novel gene sequencing. I could care less to find out that a specific breeding process brought me broccoli, cabbage, and kale from the same plant, or that by retaining only certain seeds from plants with certain properties that others of their kind don't exhibit (or at least not as strongly) we found a way to have wheat that withstands harsher climates with a shorter growing season. I do wonder if people should have a right to know if the food they are eating has been manipulated on the genetic level in a lab.

 

Simply put if we were talking about humans I wouldn't be worried about selectively bread Aryans or interracial offspring, but I would like to know if I was going to eat my neighbour if they had fish genes spliced into their genetic code so they could breathe underwater. Or even more succinctly I believe the answer to your question is YES, I am only concerned with biotech-man-made-novel foods as a potential candidate for labeling.

 

Good question though, just what GMO's would be labeled. Because if selectively bread crops were to require labeling it is true that there is no such thing as non-gmo and the label would be useless.

 

 

I'm not talking about in-lab versus out of lab, I'm simply pointing out that there are more ways to modify an organism than, "Make it pesticide resistant." The objection you brought up only applies to a subset of GMO regardless of if we mean GMO to imply 'in-lab' or not. 

 

 

 Indeed, I have a bias toward assuming more spraying with round-up/(insert other) ready crops because I live in ag-country and that is what we get here. Plus it makes the most sense for biotech from a money perspective to sell products that are adapted to use chemicals that they also stand to profit from. Call me cynical.

 

Here is the thing, your objection focuses on farming practices, not the food. You've got yourself an argument for farm practice labeling, or tighter pesticide regulation. Also, a company can benefit from a plant designed for it's pesticide by locking farmers into their product, it does not necessarily follow that the business plan is, "Farmers will dump our pesticide on their crops willy nilly." Indeed, one can argue they don't want such because it increases the likelihood of increased regulation of their product and can cause negative PR.

 

It's fine to be cynical, but if you want to persuade me, show me the data. Otherwise all I see is people trying to argue policy based on boogeymen.

[Iggy]

Spirit Dragon - are you talking GMO or Hybrid?

 

Hybrid seeds vs. GMO seeds  1/16/2013

 

The term “hybrid,” which you’ll often see in seed catalogs, refers to a plant variety developed through a specific, controlled cross of two parent plants. Usually, the parents are naturally compatible varieties within the same species. This hybridization, or the crossing of compatible varieties, happens naturally in the wild; plant breeders basically just steer the process to control the outcome.

Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos-zb0z1301zsor.aspx#ixzz300rVWOtZ

 

Unlike hybrids, which are developed in the field using natural, low-tech methods, GM varieties are created in a lab using highly complex technology, such as gene splicing. These high-tech GM varieties can include genes from several species — a phenomenon that almost never occurs in nature. “With GM varieties, genes are transferred from one kingdom to another, such as bacteria to plants,” Navazio says. A corn variety developed by Monsanto, for instance, includes genetic material from the bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), which kills European corn borers. So far, only commodity crops with GM traits — such as corn, soy, alfalfa and sugar beets — have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for use, primarily in processed foods and animal feeds. The exception is GM sweet corn, which is now available at your grocery store. (For more on foods in your grocery store that contain GM ingredients, see How to Avoid Genetically Modified Food.)

 

The trouble is that nobody knows how these unnatural new organisms will behave over time. The seed companies that develop these varieties claim intellectual property rights so that only they can create and sell the variety. In some cases, companies — such as Monsanto — even refuse to allow scientists to obtain and study their GM seeds. For some crops, such as corn, wind can carry the pollen from GM varieties and contaminate non-GM varieties. And there is no mandatory labeling of GM content in seed, says Kristina Hubbard, advocacy and communications director for the Organic Seed Alliance. (To read about other issues surrounding GM crops, see The Threats From Genetically Modified Foods.)

 

Though few vegetable seeds are GM now, they may be soon. One way to avoid GM seeds is to buy certified organic seed, which, according to the National Organic Program, must not be genetically modified. If a seed catalog doesn’t say a seed has been tested, ask the supplier.

 

In a nutshell: Hybrids are the product of guided natural reproduction, while GMOs are the result of unnatural, high-tech methods used to create untested organisms that would never emerge in nature.

— Vicki Mattern, Contributing Editor

Above: Many processed foods contain GM ingredients, even though the long-term effects of GMOs are unknown.

Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos-zb0z1301zsor.aspx#ixzz300se9aU4

 

The above article is from 2013 - since then the gmo foods have been dumped onto the human population for human consumption. 

 

Additional if you really want to know what gmo's are and why they are so bad - go to the link below. 

This is a long read - scroll down and click on GMO Health Dangers -http://www.responsibletechnology.org/   

 

You can also go to http://www.rodalenews.com/search/gmo  and read through the 10+ pages of related articles. 

 

And one more link:  http://geneticroulettemovie.com/  rent the movie - it is only $2.99 and it explains it all. 

[SpiritDragon]

Here is the thing, your objection focuses on farming practices, not the food. You've got yourself an argument for farm practice labeling, or tighter pesticide regulation. Also, a company can benefit from a plant designed for it's pesticide by locking farmers into their product, it does not necessarily follow that the business plan is, "Farmers will dump our pesticide on their crops willy nilly." Indeed, one can argue they don't want such because it increases the likelihood of increased regulation of their product and can cause negative PR.

 

It's fine to be cynical, but if you want to persuade me, show me the data. Otherwise all I see is people trying to argue policy based on boogeymen.

 

I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking questions. 

 

As for farming policy, is it wrong for people to want to know where and how their food is raised?

Perhaps it would be better to label pesticide exposure with a color coded system than to worry about GMO's, IDK?

 

 

I'm not talking about in-lab versus out of lab, I'm simply pointing out that there are more ways to modify an organism than, "Make it pesticide resistant." The objection you brought up only applies to a subset of GMO regardless of if we mean GMO to imply 'in-lab' or not. 

 

I already asserted that I agree with you, but because of the exposure I get to it in my area these are the first to come to mind for me. I never meant to suggest they are the only kind. Just asking if their existence should factor into the equation of labeling or not.

[Dravin]

As for farming policy, is it wrong for people to want to know where and how their food is raised?

 

 

If there is a demand then you'll see voluntary advertising of the methods used, see for example free range meat or organic foods. The only need I see is that the foods are safe, which is overseen by the various government alphabet soup. If one wants to tighten what is considered safe, by all means, present data and make the argument. If all you want is a government certification of "GMO Free" that businesses can slap on their products with public confidence, I'm fine with that as well.

[Blackmarch]

How do you feel about labeling genetically modified organisms in the food supply and what are your main reasons?

depends on the modifications.

[SpiritDragon]

depends on the modifications.

 Care to elaborate?

[talisyn]

oh I totally forgot about the fish genes in tomatoes  

[Guest]

Yes, I would like to see GMO labeling (not necessarily hybridization) as a part of the nutritional information and ingredients list.  Not because I'm anti-GMO but because I like to know what exactly I'm buying.  It's the same reason why I like to see Country of Origin labeling as well.  I want to know where I'm buying my bananas from.

 

Yes, it costs a lot of money to include such things in labels (it cost the grocery chain I worked for before a whole lot of money to install Country of Origin in their labeling system for all the produce they sell) - therefore, I am just fine with it being a voluntary thing instead of a mandate where the consumers can drive the demand for labels.

[Iggy]

I want the GMO labeling - just like Vermont did - 

 

—being the first state to pass a no-strings-attached GMO labeling law.

The Vermont state House of Representatives has just voted 114 to 30 in favor of a bill that calls for mandatory labeling of foods sold in Vermont that contain genetically engineered ingredients. It would also ban GMO-containing foods from being marketed as "natural" or "all natural." The same bill was passed by the state Senate a week ago by a vote of 26 to 2.

The Organic Consumers Association is calling this the first potential no-strings-attached GMO labeling law because it doesn't require other states to sign similar laws to force the law into effect, as GMO-labeling laws passed recently inConnecticut and Maine do. That power in numbers strategy is designed to prevent lawsuits, but according to a Burlington Free Press article, Vermont lawmakers believe they crafted a strong law. Nevertheless, the legislature did create a fund to help cover legal costs if they are sued over the right-to-know-what's-in-your-food law.

Don't know if you can access this link: http://www.rodalenews.com/gmo-labeling-vermont , I had to sign in first. 

I care about my health, and I don't want to unknowingly consume gmo's. 

 

 

http://www.rodalenews.com/gmo-myths  

 

GMO Myth #1: GMOs have been around for 1000s of years.

The Facts: Genetic modification is different from traditional breeding and presents its own set of unique risks.

GMO Myth #2: We need GMOs to control weeds and pests.

The Facts: In an ironic twist, GMO technology has actually made pest problems more severe.

GMO Myth #3: GMOs reduce farmers' dependence on more older, more toxic pesticides.

The Facts: Dow Agrosciences is currently asking the United States Department of Agriculture to approve a new generation of GMO corn and soy crops designed to withstand heavy doses of 2,4-D, an old, toxic weedkiller because current GMOs are failing.

GMO Myth #4: GMO ingredients are safe to eat.

The Facts: GMO ingredients have never been adequately tested for long-term impacts on public health despite hitting the market in 1996.

GMO Myth #6: GMOs are safe for the environment.

The Facts: GMOs are crushing biodiversity and are implicated in the collapse of several specie

GMO Myth #7: GMO technology is an exact science.

The Facts: Although improving, GMO technology is still young and not very reliable

 

These facts are from RodaleNews.com   

 

Yes I am 62 years old (will be this June), so I have pretty much consumed gmo's since 1996, and roundup laced foods since probably the 60's. My diabetes is probably a result of the pesticides/fungicides used in the foods I and my entire family have eaten. (my entire family are Type II Diabetics) The chemicals my MIL's husband sprayed all over the crops in Pinal County AZ as a crop duster probably contributed to her Alzheimer's. 

 

BUT I want young parents to know the truth about GMO's and monsanto's maniacal desire to spread their poison on the crops of the world. 

 

GMO's are the splicing the dna (genes) of non-related species. Even God does not do this. It never happens in nature, and even though man knows how to do it and is doing it, it doesn't mean it should be done. 

 

Hybridization is the grafting of related species. This happens in nature. This has been done for a 1,000 years. 

[RipFoster]

I find it funny that you refer to info published by Rodale as "facts"

[Traveler]

I find it interesting that some are concerned about eating foods that are produced in a controlled genetic environment where any genetic changes are carefully monitored in opposition to a completely uncontrolled and "wild" wide open genetic environment -- thinking that they will know more about what they are eating from the uncontrolled environment.

 

Just as a note - historically the most common genetic changes are caused by virus infections.  This is a very popular method of modern science as well.  The difference being that science attempts to control what the infecting virus is doing genetically in order to insure the most benefit.

 

To be honest - I am not sure I would rather have "organic" food over more understood and controlled production of food.  Bio chemical reactions are very defined and if science can balance the nutrients we need better in our food supplies; I have difficulty thinking we will be less healthy eating the better foods.