Over 80 percent of Americans support mandatory labels on foods containing DNA

[The_Doctor]

The bid to label and ban GMO is akin to the creationists demanding that we teach creationism in our schools. The moronic stupidity on the Left is just as bad as on the extreme right. It's dangerous - possibly more dangerous - because if you restrict our food supply to non-GMO, we risk not being able to feed everyone. GMO IS one reason we're going to feed an expanding global population.

Chipotle banning GMO food to placate liberal Democrats who were perpetually frightened by anything that landed on their plates was retarded. Here's a hint - corn is genetically modified. And has been for thousands of years.

The scientific community has repeatedly said GMO and the like in our food is perfectly safe. It's like how they said aspartame is perfectly safe, and yet some deluded liberals scream that aspartame is dangerous. Yes, if you chug it down by the boatload.

[The_Doctor]

Ah, another Republican that can't tell the difference between a fact and religious faith.  Here's a helpful key:

GMO=FACT
creationism=religious faith

Not surprising.  Republicans never want to put FACTS on food labels.  The last thing a Republican wants is an informed electorate or consumer.

GMO, DNA, and whatever buzz words people want to throw out are irrelevant.  This Republican game has been going on for decades.  The smoke screen isn't fooling anyone.

Quote
The momentum for an overhauling of food labels has been increasing in recent years, fueled by the demands of consumers, who have become more concerned with eating healthier foods, and by growing scientific data that has established a firm association between diet and certain illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease.

Similar changes were last proposed toward the end of the Jimmy Carter Administration but were abandoned by the Ronald Reagan Administration as part of its emphasis on deregulation.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-08/news/mn-2914_1_food-labels

And anyone that says there are no issues with GMO crops is either completely stupid or knowingly pushing propaganda.

Quote
News emerged this week about a possible settlement between Monsanto and the farmers whose wheat was allegedly contaminated by unauthorized genetically modified seeds produced by the biotech firm. Lawyers for a contingent of soft-white wheat farmers in Kansas told a Kansas City federal judge that an agreement had been reached in a class-action lawsuit between Monsanto and a group of wheat farmers in Oregon, where “zombie” GMO wheat contaminated fields last year, throwing off wheat exports in the process.

http://news.yahoo.com/monsanto-admitting-guilt-zombie-gmo-wheat-settlement-210908016.html

We already have food labels. They’re on the nutrition label and they list the ingredients that go into the food itself. (Oh, by the way? Your whole “Republicans never want to put facts on food labels is laughable” given your first article. The HHS Secretary was a Republican, nominated by a Republican President, while the FDA Commissioner was also a Republican appointee. So yeah, nope.)

To add if it was GMO or organic is superfluous. The whole GMO v. organic movement is in fact based on hysteria, not reasonable information. This is a movement purely predicated on hysteria of the safety of our food rather than any serious movement that uses scientific data and evidence to prove that GMO foods are dangerous to us.

If this movement was in any way a serious movement that had scientific backing to demonstrate that labeling food GMO or organic would make a difference to consumers, I would be more favorable to the idea of labeling or banning GMO. There isn’t. Again: movement based on hysteria, rather than credible science, designed to create more costs for producers to commit to unnecessary actions because again, liberals (they are predominantly liberals who are calling against GMO and for organics. The Whole Foods Shoppers stereotype) think their food is crawling with the dead husks of rats. (Interesting side note - some of the hard candy we eat? Coated with the exoskeletons of insects).

Let me put it this way. The anti - GMO movement is essentially a movement predicated on the premise that somehow GMO made food is somehow bad for you. That’s empirically disproven by the scientific community. That’s where my religious analogy comes in. Just as scientists have proven evolution, they have also proven that the GMO movement is pretty much debunked and based on hysteria/belief about x and y, not a scientific basis for understanding.

The whole debate about Monsanto was never about the quality of the food they produce. It’s all about the seed arrangement they have with farmers, which have caused the drama.

Here’s a few comments about GMO from the scientific community

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html

Your own article doesn’t even signify what health risks this “zombie wheat” caused.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Scare tactics. The scientific community has repeatedly said that GMO foods are healthy and safe to eat. GMO are in fact probably going to end up being essential to deal with a growing global population and there is no way around that fact.

You can peddle the scheme that GMO are somehow unsafe, that we should be cautious, but the scientific community as a whole, the vast majority of scientists say it's perfectly fine to eat GMO.

[The_Doctor]

Responding to your points. I don't feel like doing quotes. And I understand English pretty well, thanks. Also nice to see that you dropped the "Republicans are against food labeling" argument since I debunked that!

Let's move onto your posts.

1. If both are safe to eat, produce, and consume, why does the adjective "safer" matter?

2. With a population of 10 billion people projected by 2050, we could probably feed everyone with dealing with our food spoilage problems.  But we could also handle the increased population by using GMO to handle that food load. I say that if we can use GMO to feed the world's population, that's a great idea.

3. You don't read my links either do you? One of the links cited an Italian study that specifically said that GMO do not present an issue to the environment.

To quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4. This has begun to be addressed by American scientists. As the BBC points out:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would point out that to date, as the earlier article I linked to demonstrated, the scientific community seems to indicate that GMO is safe to grow. The BBC article goes a bit in the way of negating environmental issues, and even then so, the last sentence points out "contained industrial conditions."

[The_Doctor]

The environmental arguments stem from:

- genetic and species diversity (as if all farming isn't on a mission to destroy diversity, but whatever). Data is mixed here, but as I said - trade-off as if you can concentrate GMO's you can give more space to non-crop plants for reasons of diversity,
- in GMO's which target specific pests, it could accidentally target different insects like pollinating ones. Secondary pests can also be a menace, but that's normal business in the shortsighted world of being a farmer, GM or otherwise.

The interesting trade off is regulating outcrossing or gene flow. Nobody really wants that, Monsanto or its opponents alike, but the only way to prevent that is very very very controversial and sits uncomfortably with me as a leftist - the Terminator genes, which sterilise crops and prevents farmers from stockpiling their own seeds. All seeds are the intellectual property of multinationals and this can force poor farmers into a horrendous situation, farmers who already have to deal with western countries subsidising their rich agribusiness to a ridiculous extent and undercutting their business.

THE OTHER TRADE OFF IS THAT (oops caps lock) a reduction in the use of NPK's is always a benefit. No one likes fertilisers, for various reasons.

I can agree that there are some trade offs being made. For example, I agree with the Left that Monsanto and other multinational corporations shouldn't own the seeds indefinitely or continue to hold their seeds over farmers by manipulating patent law.

I do have some faith that as we develop GMO science, we'll be able to deal with any environmental issues. I think that any present issues (as the BBC article I posted) can be contained and handled through refining GMO seeds and technology.