Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GMOs = The Smart Future of Food
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 84 (725272)
04-25-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-24-2014 6:27 PM


And that argument would be a strawman of what I am claiming or that they are. They are fine with individuals who want to live a gluten-free life or pesticide free, or GMO free.
My understanding is that you cannot commercially use a GMO free label. I would have to buy this stuff from the back of shady Freddy's truck. Am I incorrect?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-24-2014 6:27 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 32 of 84 (725282)
04-25-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Omnivorous
04-25-2014 12:15 AM


Omni writes:
The position of the FDA, unless things have changed recently, is that no one can label a food product non-GMO; my understanding is that reflects Monsanto's position, lobbied for and won. The FDA, ironically, simply says that the non-GMO label would be inappropriate because GMOs so pervade our food industry that it is virtually impossible to make a non-GMO product.
Hardly a surprise, since Clarence "Long Dong" Thomas in the Supreme Court used to be one of Monsanto's major corporate lawyers
and
Obama appointed a VP of Monsanto, Michael Taylor, to the FDA. The system IS rigged.
But does Corn Bt work? Apparently we have another case of evolution in action here as the Corn Borer - the bug the corn was supposed to stop - is now mutating around that Genetic Modification:
http://www.isaaa.org/...s/pdfs/documents/Bt%20resistance.pdf
Perhaps not in percentages that kill the idea yet, but in a few more years? This similar to throwing antibiotic after antibiotic against a disease and expecting it to go away.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Omnivorous, posted 04-25-2014 12:15 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 84 (725283)
04-25-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Omnivorous
04-25-2014 12:15 AM


The position of the FDA, unless things have changed recently, is that no one can label a food product non-GMO
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Omnivorous, posted 04-25-2014 12:15 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 35 by xongsmith, posted 04-25-2014 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 38 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-25-2014 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 84 (725287)
04-25-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2014 11:11 AM


Like, if I came out with a new brand of hamburger and gave it an official label of "Does not contain horse shit"
The difference would be that "does contain genetically modified foods" is not supposed to be a negative, or at least that is what Monsanto and crew are telling us. Would you have the same problem with me labeling food "does not contain peanuts".
Are bananas genetically modified organisms? I'd say they are.
Genetically modified organism already has a definition. We are not using yours. You are of course free to say what you will.
Genetic engineering - Wikipedia
quote:
Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.
An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria in 1973 and GM mice were generated in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. Glofish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was first sold in the United States December in 2003.[1]
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?
Sigh. If your point is that GMO food is as safe as bananas, okay, opinion noted. But please at least look at the dictionary definition. You are asking questions you could have answered yourself in < 15 seconds using a C-64 on a slow network.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 12:21 PM NoNukes has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 35 of 84 (725288)
04-25-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2014 11:11 AM


CS asks:
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.
Breeding crops does not insert genetic material from a completely different organism, even an animal organism, into the DNA. Breeding involves a draconian selection mechanism, to be sure, but the species has to produce the differences in DNA itself.
GMOs are made by cutting genes out of other organisms and inserting them into the new DNA to introduce the new feature.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 84 (725290)
04-25-2014 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
04-25-2014 12:07 PM


The difference would be that "does contain genetically modified foods" is not supposed to be a negative, or at least that is what Monsanto and crew are telling us. Would you have the same problem with me labeling food "does not contain peanuts".
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.
Sigh. If your point is that GMO food is as safe as bananas, okay, opinion noted. But please at least look at the dictionary definition. You are asking questions you could have answered yourself in < 15 seconds using a C-64 on a slow network.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 12:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 84 (725293)
04-25-2014 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2014 12:21 PM


Labeling something as non-GMO implies that other foods do contain GMO's and that its a bad thing.
They pretty much all do contain GMO. And it does not seem to be the people who make GMO free food that are complaining about having to label. The complaint is that earning the label would require too much effort and money because right now, they don't have to segregate.
And for some people containing peanuts is a negative.
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?
Some people believe that it does matter. It may well be that they are wrong. If you have some insight into why it could not possibly matter, that insight would be really beneficial. On the other hand, if you don't believe it matters, why do you care if the food you buy must be presumed to be GMO?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 1:06 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 38 of 84 (725296)
04-25-2014 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2014 11:11 AM


Transgenic
CS writes:
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?
The biggest key to being classified as a GMO I believe resides in the use of transgenic genes. These are genes that most likely would not appear in the organism through normal genetic transfer. An important point to note is that when we use artificial selection to change a plant, we are aware of the physical changes we are aiming for but the genetic changes in these plants are largely unknown, whereas with transgenic plants the scientists are generally changing somewhere between 1 and 3 specific genes, which we know the function of. Then, they are waiting until the genes fixate to verify if any other changes have occurred along the genome.
To all, I think with the labeling issue we are arguing two different things...I am not against any company that would like to label their food as non-GMO (even though gaining the organic label would take care of this for the company, but that is another point). The issue I have is the push for mandatory labeling of all products containing GMO. Why can the specialty products not be the ones labeled (if it is mandatory) and the bulk of our food system (70% of grocery store items contain GMOs) can remain unlabeled and consumers can assume GMO presence? The increase in infrastructure I have been discussing is what would occur if GMO products were required to be labeled as containing GMOs, not if companies wanted to take extra care with only their products and do their own labeling. From the studies that have been done, I do not see the necessity of the mandatory requirement...

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 3:10 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 84 (725300)
04-25-2014 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
04-25-2014 12:42 PM


They pretty much all do contain GMO.
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.
And it does not seem to be the people who make GMO free food that are complaining about having to label.
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.
The complaint is that earning the label would require too much effort and money because right now, they don't have to segregate.
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?
If you have some insight into why it could not possibly matter, that insight would be really beneficial.
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.
On the other hand, if you don't believe it matters, why do you care if the food you buy must be presumed to be GMO?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 12:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-25-2014 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 40 of 84 (725305)
04-25-2014 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ramoss
04-25-2014 12:07 AM


Okay, finished reading the study:
Hello Ramoss!
So, I have now finished with the Seralini 2009 study, which detailed the effects on Sprague-Dawley rats consuming GMOs for both five weeks and 14 weeks. They stuck with the same parameters that were used in his later experiment of only testing 10 rats for each feeding method out of a larger group, similar to the Monsanto tests. We do not have the same problem with the small sample size in these trials (versus the 2012 study) because the length of the trial is not enough for the spontaneous tumor growth to be a factor. However, from reviews of Seralini's work, in addition to the fact that his predicted results were not duplicated within the later 2012 study, tend to show there is an error in his methods. In fact, the wiki I posted in my other message to you discusses that several regulation boards worldwide reviewed Seralini's work and all determined that the fluctuations in levels were within standards from the controls. These groups included European Food Safety Authority, The French Commission du Gnie Biomolculaire, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
One issue I have with the paper is that it does not include the levels in the charts for the control group, only the 11% and the 33%. I am just expected to take his word for it that there was a marked increase in size of these organs, without being able to check the data from the control myself.
He continues later during the discussion section to state that:
Seralini writes:
Proof of toxicity is hard to decide on the basis of these conditions. Longer-term (up to 2 years) feeding experiments are clearly justified and indeed necessary.
However, he has completed the two year feeding study (this is the one completed in 2012 and retracted in 2013) and not seen the differences he was expecting to see, especally because he did not control for the already high cancer rate in the test subjects used.
Monsanto runs similar trials to this, using a smaller rat population, but they do not use them to the full life span, since the small sample size combined with the high cancer rate is what kills the tests as they run longer. And Seralini came to the same results as Monsanto in his tests:
Seralini writes:
The first observation that we were able to make was that there is a good general concordance between our data and the results of Monsanto as presented in their original confidential reports, in particular on the proportion of statistically significant observations.
I would be more likely to give credence to this study if Seralini had actually been able to replicate his own results (and possibly fulfill his prediction), but he has not been able to do either of those things and neither has anyone else. People have seen the same differences in size of the organs, but only Seralini sees this as significantly outside of the control data.
Another nail in Seralini's coffin is the company that he does his research for is a well known Anti-GMO group known as "The Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering", or CRIIGEN. Coming from a company with a guaranteed bias and finding results that no one else can replicate leads me to find this study less than trustworthy.
The last point would be the Impact level of the journal this was printed in which is a 3.168, making this a very low-impact journal that is rarely cited in other publications. This is defnitely not a guarantee of bad science, but it does make one wonder why articles they are printing are rarely cited by other researchers to defend their theses.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ramoss, posted 04-25-2014 12:07 AM ramoss has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 84 (725306)
04-25-2014 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-25-2014 12:53 PM


Re: Transgenic
The issue I have is the push for mandatory labeling of all products containing GMO
Yes those can be discussed as two different issues.
But the original complaint was about the industry using heavy handed methods to prevent voluntary labeling. So when you take up the industry mantel you cannot avoid that.
Secondly, the industry position that there can be no "non GMO" labeling is what has resulted in the push back in labeling GMO. The industry has brought that on themselves.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-25-2014 12:53 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-25-2014 5:16 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 42 of 84 (725307)
04-25-2014 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2014 1:06 PM


CS writes:
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.
The US is the largest supplier of GMO foods, with 8 different GMO crops approved for sale. Our lsit includes, Maize, Soybean, Cotton, Canola, Sugarbeet, Alfalfa, Papaya and Squash. In the US, approximately 70% of the products sold in conventional grocery stores contain a GMO of some sort, especially within the processed foods.
CS writes:
I'd bet people who put a lot of effort into ensuring their products contain no GMO's would want to advertise that.
I am all for individuals who would like to label their foods GMO-free on a volutary basis, even though it does silently invoke a negative connotation to GMOs, at least it would not create a necessary major overhaul to the production process as far as farms are concerned.
CS writes:
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.
Agreed that the stigma being attached is the bogus part of all of this discussion. However, offering a voluntary GMO-Free label would allow a majority of infrastructure to still be maintained and will put the onus on the individuals who want to appeal to a market segment based upon personal preference, not health related reasons. GMOs have removed several products that were being tested prior to introduction because their testing did not show safety enough to be released, including the Flavr-Savr Tomato (colloquially known as the Fish Tomato), the low tar tobacco, and a GM pea that contained genes from Green Beans that did show unhealthy results. Those that have hit the market have shown themselves to be safe in testing and have been tested by independent (I know Blue Jay says not independent, but I would like to then know how he is aware that the money to the lab comes from BigAg, since the money trail states that it does not) groups showing similar results.
CS writes:
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?
Currently, no a lot of the food is not separated before being loaded into the grain silos for storage. Remember that several farmers all use the same grain silos by selling their product to the owner of that silo to be sold to the public. Organic must be certified to contain no GMO products and only use natural pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer and many farms will keep some stuff separated to provide for the organic market to ensure they receive no GMOs. However, the majority is mixed together and sold from there to the next level on the supply chain. The cost and effort that is being discussed is through mandatory labeling stating "GMOs Inside" or something similar, which would require the addition of extra grain silos, more trucks for transport, and several other levels of additions to the current US agricultural infrastructure. Creating this upheavel is not worth the cost when it is not based on scientifically sounds health reasons. If there reasons based on nutrition or health I would gladly fight for required GMO labeling, but I will fight against arbitrarily deciding that is the method that must be used. The article I posted from the point of view of a farmer (as I am a suburbanite, I can honestly say I do not get much opportunity to understand exactly how a farm operates) about mandatory labeling goes into detail on what will need to be added to the infrastructure and what goes into getting crops to your table:
Source
CS writes:
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.
Yes, GMOs must be submitted to a regulatory committee before being approved for sale and must go through several research steps to get to this point. 90 day toxicology studies, allergen studies, etc...they have to know how the added genes will alter any other proteins already being made by the organism. This is also why they must wait for the mutation to fixate before attempting to submit a crop for testing with the FDA
The problem people have with the testing procedure is that much of the system was designed by scientists who did work or currently worked for many of the BigAg companies. One reason I personally think this is a good idea (while I can see the negative possiblities also) is that these are the scientists best trained in the field of biotechnology. Would we want physicists making the standards for biotech? Or Geologists? And, as Blue Jay said, the cost of operating a genetic project is very prohibitive to small companies entering the industry, which means a majority of your biotechnology scientists will work for companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta. I defnitely don't think that people should be getting their nutrition advice and whether or not something is bad for you from FoodBabe:
Food Babe
This women seems to think that everything she cannot pronounce is going to give you cancer and sadly, people are taking her advice. She is the one resposible for revealing that a completely safe product, that also happens to be used in yoga mats in a different way, is contained in Subway bread. It was a bleaching agent to make your white bread look more white and had been used for years. It is GRAS, or Generally regarded as safe, with the major issues being individuals who have worked in the processing plants of the product.
Source

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 4:22 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 84 (725309)
04-25-2014 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2014 1:06 PM


What are the more common organisms that foods contain that are genetically modified? Corn syrup I guess?
Corn sounds like a good answer. I can also note that Cheerios recently decided to put out a non-GMO product so I'm guessing oats is another answer.
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?
Good point. I did take some short cuts in expressing myself because I thought we'd put out some of this detail.
Monsanto is against the labeling non-GMO food and is pretty aggressive in their efforts to lobbying for that position. The stated reason is that it would make things worse for their customers food industry which would then have to take measures to segregate non-GMO from GMO if they want to label.
I think the real reason is that people are going to decide, rationally or irrationally, that they would prefer non-GMO food, exactly as you suggest. But don't we ordinarily allow the market place to sort that out? The answer to speech is more speech right?
Except that ultimately Monsanto and their like loses if GMO loses. Farmers might end up spending a bit more during processing etc, but Monsanto gets the butt end of the deal.
If there are GMO foods that have been shown to be safe, then they, specifically, don't deserve to be stigmatized.
Yes. Your calling yourself Catholic Scientist stigmatizes me as a non mass attending Protestant. Please stop it.
If I want non-GMO food, I don't appreciate someone elses efforts to stop me from getting it. Requiring GMO labeling is one thing, but not allowing someone else a non-GMO label is something else entirely.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-25-2014 4:01 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2014 4:19 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 44 of 84 (725311)
04-25-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
04-25-2014 3:27 PM


It is not the Oats that are GMO in the product. It is in reference to the sugar and was more based upon possible contamination before. Original Cheerios, recipe wise, is non-GMO because Oats are not an approved GMO crop. Cheerios has stated that the only change was a process to ensure that cane sugar could not get mixed with beet sugar to make the product GMO-free:
Cheerios writes:
The formula for original Cheerios has not changed. We did make some changes in sourcing and in our plants — for example, to separate cane sugar from beet sugar. But Cheerios remains the same great-tasting, wholesomely good cereal that’s been a family favorite for years.
Sugarbeets are one of the approved GMOs grown in the United States, but must be segregated from pure cane sugar to call a product GMO free.
I like this meme that I have seen regarding GMO sugar (just follow the link, I can't get it to load:
GMO Labeling Quiz: Sucrose

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 3:27 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 6:43 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 84 (725314)
04-25-2014 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
04-25-2014 3:27 PM


The stated reason is that it would make things worse for their customers food industry which would then have to take measures to segregate non-GMO from GMO if they want to label.
I see, yeah, and the way T12C details it, it does sound like a pain in the ass.
If I want non-GMO food, I don't appreciate someone else's efforts to stop me from getting it. Requiring GMO labeling is one thing, but not allowing someone else a non-GMO label is something else entirely.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 3:27 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2014 6:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024