Good article on GMO labeling.

[Eko]

Label Thumpers the GMO movement is about faith, not facts.

"If you’re the kind of person who frets over Americans’ lack of scientific literacy, this accommodationist position may send you into a sputtering rage. A person’s right to know, you might contend, should be in balance with his or her right to avoid unnecessary panic. The mere presence of a label has dire implications. It tells consumers that there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between GMO and non-GMO ingredients—a “material“ difference in the language of the Food and Drug Administration—and one that should be taken seriously. Yet “genetic modification” describes a process, not an end result, and there’s no evidence that this process leads to special risks. Some bioengineered options on the supermarket shelf could be better for your health than other products. Some could be better for independent farmers and their families. And some could be worse. The scarlet GMO blankets all this variation and replaces it with dread."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/03/the_gmo_labeling_movement_is_about_faith_not_facts.html

[marble falls]

1. If we can't trust ConAg, Nestles, Monsanto - why are we trusting GMO? Even if GMO is "safe"...

why should I have to eat it if I don't want to? Broccoli is good for me and I choose not to eat it.

[Eko]

2. You dont have to.

Just eat organic labeled food. Why should we have to change something just because you don't like it?

[zalinda]

4. Because a lot of people don't like it

and I want to know what's in my food. GMO is different than hybrid. A lot of people conflate the two. If it's a GMO that could never happen in nature, I don't want it in my body. And, if it is labeled GMO, I have a way to look it up and see if it's something I want in my body.

I don't know what the big deal is, it's adding one more 'ingredient' to the listing that's already on the package. Hell, what if one of the GMO's has a gene from a peanut that is pushed into it's dna, and it causes someone's death because of allergies. Pushing frankenfoods as being safe is crazy. We put food into our bodies every day. They do more testing on drugs, for longer periods of time than they do on various GMOs. We are supposed to trust these money grubbing CEOs? I don't think so.

Z

[Eko]

5. Oh,

because you and other people don't like it. What if what if? How about non gmo food that actually kills people every year? I'll challenge you, for every death from gmo food you find I'll find 100 from non gmo. So which is more dangerous?

[Eko]

6. All you have to do

is eat organic, then you will know there is no gmo in your food. Why is that a problem?

[progressoid]

7. You kind of have that backwards.

GM foods are extensively tested (unlike old school hybrids).

The AllergenOnline database at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, independently managed by a panel of internationally recognized allergy experts who review and vote on allergen inclusion, does not list any allergens coming from GMOs. The database “lists every known protein that has been shown to cause an allergy and or even might be suspected of possibly causing a reaction,” said Richard Goodman, a food allergy research professor who runs the database at the university. Three main tests are conducted to ensure that any new proteins from GM foods do not cause allergies: in vitro test, in silico test and digestion.

Food allergy remains one of the principal safety concerns about foods derived from GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Before release of a GMO, the producers must consider the risks posed by the GMO to food allergic individuals as well as the potential to introduce new allergens. The Codex Alimentarius Commission and EFSA recommend procedures to assess the new proteins in the GMOs for potential allergenicity. The procedures are designed to screen out new proteins that are likely to cause allergy. To date, no food derived from GMOs has been found to cause new allergies.

Interestingly, The Hypoallergenic Peanut Has Arrived Thanks to Genetic Modification


By the way. Do you know any diabetics that use insulin? It is likely to be made with genetically modified bacteria.

[yellowcanine]

16. Ah hell you better not eat apples then. Apples come from grafted trees.

Which could never happen in nature - graft one variety of apple onto a different root stock variety.

[zalinda]

17. It can happen in nature

it's called cross breeding. How else would you explain all the different varieties of apples before grafting began. Grafting is a quick, sure fire method of making sure a variety stays true.

Now, if you want to conflate grafting with GMO, then graft an oak graft onto an apple stock. That doesn't happen in nature.

Z

[HuckleB]

18. Name that fallacy!

[yellowcanine]

19. No you don't understand the concept of grafting.

It is not remotely similar to cross breeding.

[Eko]

3. Or maybe

let companies label gmo or non gmo if they want. I'm sure quite a few companies will bend to the will of this fad, some even are already, but don't let your dislike of something be mandated upon me.

[progressoid]

8. It certainly seems like a religion on DU.

I dare some some are even zealots for mandatory labeling.

[marble falls]

9. Its not a religion. Its a simple choice. The way I prefer red skins to russetts. Why do some here...

force feed the rest of us? I want everything labeled in my food. I want to know what I am eating. What is the problem with food nazis who think its all right jamming down our throats anything they want? Monsanto got it wrong about their seed being able to propagate (they said it wouldn't) and they got it wrong about their seed not passing on its round up resistance. What else do they have wrong? Why does my choice to not not eat what I don't want have some folks on DU with their panties twisted?

[progressoid]

10. A choice to believe in something regardless of what science says.

Sounds like religion to me. And only certain foods are allowed? Again, sounds like a religious tenet.


Better watch out though, there is a reformed movement occurring within the church of organic. Some are advocating for the use of more synthetic chemicals!11! Organic farmers are asking the federal government for permission to use more synthetic pesticides.

[zalinda]

11. Just label them for Pete's sake.

It's the same as buildings being labeled, or clothing, or anything else. The fact that someone has a problem with the labeling has me wondering why. Science has told us that things are safe, well the companies who pay the scientists have told us things are safe. Look what Agent Orange has done, it was safe for our soldiers, except for those who had an adverse reaction to it.

At this point in time, money rules just about everything, and I wouldn't trust an anonymous poster on a forum that a article is true. There are very few sources especially on the Internet that are really true. There are few scientists that we can even trust today because of the money involved.

I really, really don't understand the push back about labeling something. It sounds more like a big business stance than a scientific stance.

Z

[HuckleB]

12. You want labels for one seed development technology, but not all of them.

Those labels tell you nothing about the food itself.

That makes no sense on so many levels. Organic companies worked to foment baseless fear in consumers about GMOs. They did this to con consumers into spending more money on food with their marketing label. There is no basis for labeling a seed development technology.

http://www.itsmomsense.com/oppose-mandatory-gmo-labeling/

[progressoid]

13. Labeling won't help Pete understand what's in his food.

That you (and others) equate GMO's with Agent Orange shows how little people understand this subject. They are mostly motivated by fear. And citing thousands of scientific studies isn't going to change your mind - even if they weren't paid for by Monsanto.

The irony is that labeling is a big business stance, not a scientific one. Businesses will do it to satisfy a consumer demand and not for any scientific or health reasons.

Labeling is driving by fear. And labels will only feed your fear. It won't educate.

[zalinda]

14. No, it will tell me that I need to look up the origin

of the food product. We could have had this conversation years ago when ingredient listing was first done. It is basically the same thing. If I don't want to eat BHT, then I should have a right not to consume it. It is the same with GMO products. I do know the difference between hybrids, grafting, bud grafting and such. I know what wild corn looks like and what it looked like after the native people did selective 'breeding' with it. I can see giving nature a push in a direction. I cannot see putting something unnatural in the genes of a seed.

It's nature vs. unnatural and that's why labeling is important.

Z

[HuckleB]

15. There's nothing unnatural about it.

That's just marketing via baseless fear mongering. Genes are not unnatural.

You have what amounts to a religious preference. Well, guess what? Kosher and Halal are not mandatory labels, so your desire has no logical justification.