GMOs = The Smart Future of Food

I kinda get that. Like, if I came out with a new brand of hamburger and gave it an official label of "Does not contain horse shit", then doesn't that insinuate to the consumer that other brands of hamburger might contain horse shit?Also, how exactly should GMO be defined. Are bananas genetically modified organisms? I'd say they are. All-natural bananas are seedy crap and the wonderful ones in the supermarket are clones of bred ones.Is it different because it was done out in the field instead of in the lab? If you brought a bench and some beakers out to the field, would it then be a lab? Or does the means not define the end?

I would not. The negativity is one of the issues. Labeling something as non-GMO implies that other foods do contain GMO's and that its a bad thing.Then, everyone who doesn't have GMO's in their food would have to jump on the bandwagon and get the label and I'm not sure that's a good thing. What I'm asking is does the means qualify the end, i.e. does manipulating the genome through phenotypic selection rather than direct meddling really matter?At the end of the day, everything we eat has had its genetics modified. It just hasn't been done in the lab. But so what? What makes it happening in the lab such a bad thing?

What are the more common organisms that foods contain that are genetically modified? Corn syrup I guess? I honestly don't know much about this topic. I'm here to learn. I'd bet people who put a lot of effort into ensuring their products contain no GMO's would want to advertise that.But I think there'd be others who unintentionally have GMO-free products, and its not really fair to them to have to jump through some hoops to prove that their products don't have them just so they're not stigmatized for not having the label. I don't think I understand what you're saying. Monsanto is saying that? Who is the they that doesn't have to segregate? And are they physically segregating GMO foods from non-ones? Oh, it certainly could matter. I mean, I'm sure you could genetically modify a food so that it became poisonous.But don't foods have to be shown to be safe to eat before you can sell them as food? If there are GMO foods that have been shown to be safe, then they, specifically, don't deserve to be stigmatized.I'm not sure that there's any truth to the general opinion that if a food contains a GMO then it is in some way bad for you. It all depends on what the modification is and how it affects you. But I figure that would be figured out when you make sure the stuff is safe to eat, although I don't really know how that works. I don't care. It makes sense to me that food makers wouldn't want to have to deal with the non-GMO labelling, though.

I see, yeah, and the way T12C details it, it does sound like a pain in the ass. I'm not advocating disallowing people to put anything on their products (as long as its true). I just don't think we should have some official regulated GMO-free label like we have for certified organic. And I certainly don't think that foods that contain GMO's should be forced to disclose that on their labeling.

Thanks for the info. I can't really find anything to disagree with.Regarding that meme you linked to, you can right-click in Chrome to get the direct image url (either copied or opened in a new tab)