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

[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.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

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.

Not too good with English either I see.  "Safer" does not mean the same as "safe".  Two things can be "safe".  That doesn't necessarily mean one is "safer" than the other.  Vocabulary, man.  Learn it.

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.

Now who is practicing scare tactics?  There is more than enough food on the planet right now to feed everyone with huge swaths of the planet GMO free.  As Crabcake told you if you bothered to read and comprehend the thread the main problem is logistics.  The food is in one place being wasted and the starving people with no money are in another.

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.

You really don't understand English do you?  Crabcake and I never said there was a problem eating GMO food.  We spoke of the environmental hazards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517

Educate yourself son and quit drinking ADM Koolaid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100893540

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The most convincing arguments as far as health is concerned is:

- allergens. In an unregulated world, the main hazards are that genes which encode for proteins that cause allergies find themselves where they aren't wanted. If I'm allergic to shellfish, for example, it would be most unhelpful if some mad scientist started splicing genes from shellfish into apples. Therefore all novel proteins are intensely tested for novel proteins. The one occasion this didn't happen was GM papya and that, as I said, was an interesting case of lobbying that didn't involve your typical villains like Monsanto and their ilk. Under normal circumstances GMO's are tested that "normally" bred foods never get - if peanuts for example were a GM creation they would never get approval. (Same with "Novel foods" - nobody bothered to test kiwis to see if people were allergic to them when they started to be introduced to diets) One could argue that "normal genetic breeding" is less safe than GMO's - being that one is still manipulating gene expression under normal breeding, but with the disadvantage of being blind and working with cruder tools. The other counterargument is that many Genetically modified techniques don't actually encode proteins, merely silence genes. In fact, one can even stop them encoding for allergens,which would be helpful.

Other health-based arguments are, and I don't say this lightly, even shoddier.  If anybody prolytises to you about Horizontal gene transfer between animals and plants, I advise you to horizontally transfer your fist to their face. Some people have mused about superbugs being created in the formation of GMO's but I find that highly unlikely given the sort of bacteria used in these labs. Pesticide usage tends to decrease with GMO usage, which is a boon for health and the environment.

The environment and social impacts are more interesting, although as someone interested in agriculture, they are far less pernicious than many less stigmatised aspects of conventional farming.

As somebody who broadly supports GMO's (although does not see them as a silver bullet, unlike some in my department), I don't give a crap about labels. There is a Meaningful argument that once people realise everything has the damn things in them, they'll move on.

[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 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.

[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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes. My main thought on GMO's is they are partially a distraction. I don't know jack about physics, but it reminds of people who have an energy policy of "lol thorium/fusion will SOLVE EVERYTHING". Nobody wants to implement needed reforms in the agricultural sector or energy sector because they're waiting for some big technology to come along and solve problems for them.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

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

I'm not the one who originally used the word "safer".  While I agree with a lot of what Crabcake is saying I took exception to that one point.  I did not think it was factually correct.  And it is an important point.  There is only so much testing one can do in the experimental phase.  There simply is no substitute for testing something out on billions of people for thousands of years.  That has nothing to do with GMO.  It's a basic commonly understood concept in the pharmaceutical industry.  No one who works in the pharmaceutical industry would even argue about that.  And we see this problem time and time again amongst the lay public.  When a drug is pulled after it has been approved people assume incompetence or a conspiracy.  And that simply is not the case most of the time.  It's just understood that all that testing is actually limited vs just giving the medicine to millions of people for years.  But again lay people always get tripped up on that point.

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.

You are just posting unsubstantiated assertions.  Ever since grad school when I learned the stunning fact that we actually have plenty of food on the planet I've seen one professional after another echo that sentiment.  And the vast majority of those statements had nothing to do with GMO.  In fact I'm sure quite a few of those people are 100% comfortable with GMO crops.  I did not post that fact to win some stupid internet forum GMO war.  I posted it to educate people that this idea there is a food shortage is complete baloney.  We don't need to grow more food.  We could actually get by with dramatically less food if we just managed it properly.

And furthermore instead of doing crazy gene splicing how about some birth control?  Seems to me you are just back solving into EVERYONE NEEDS GMO!

3. You don't read my links either do you? One of the links cited an Italian study...

And you didn't read my link to Nature.  You are keep cherrypicking and making it sound like every scientist is on board with your viewpoint.  Nature is a far more prestigious and far more cited journal than anything you linked to and bam right there scientists concerned about the environmental impact of GMO crops.  But you just ignore that data point.  I am well aware of studies that have found GMOs to be "safe".  And at the same time I have found studies of GMOs that raise concerns.  Here's the issue if GMOs as safe then we have nothing to worry about.  Even if some places ban them and we fight about it for decades in the end everything will be fine and we wouldn't have lost much in the grand scheme of things.  But lets look at the scenario where there is an issue and we just ignore it as you propose.  Even if there is a 1% chance of a herbicide resistant gene jumping to a wild planet the results could be catastrophic.  At no time have I suggested banning all GMO crops as you hysterically keep implying.  I've just said we must proceed with caution and push back against all these people telling us to look the other way and just assume everything is fine.

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.

Yeah you linked to some googled article and ignored a quote from Nature.  Hardly what I would call the makings of a global scientific consensus.  Hey man it is clear I have a much more robust science background than all you guys combined.  Trust me there are plenty of misconceptions and hyperbolic statements on both sides of this issue.  Anyone that says GMO's are totally safe or we should ban all GMOs is wrong.  Science is just more nuanced than usual nonsensical partisan bickering that pervades this forum.  There is a middle ground.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

What scientific background do you have? That's not an accusation, just curious. Ftr I am bit a humble bio undergrad, so you may outrank me!

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

You can scare anyone by throwing in any acronym or name into a quick poll question. Look at how quickly the DiHydrogen Monoxide Facebook memes that started out as a joke were taken seriously.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

By your logic until we definitively determine a safe drinking limit during pregnancy, assuming there is one, we should remove all these labels...



You can always count on the Republican back solving machine to arrive at one conclusion... "less information for consumers is better."  I will give you points though for not complaining about the high cost of printing ink.  I personally never understood how people could say that with a straight face.

[Bojack Horseman]

I have a hard time believing this, considering that every state that's had a vote on GMO labeling (And for the record, I'm not one of those anti-GMO crusaders) has voted against labeling in landslides.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

By your logic until we definitively determine a safe drinking limit during pregnancy, assuming there is one, we should remove all these labels...



You can always count on the Republican back solving machine to arrive at one conclusion... "less information for consumers is better."  I will give you points though for not complaining about the high cost of printing ink.  I personally never understood how people could say that with a straight face.

     Alcohol of any sort is known to cause problems during pregnancy. It's hardly clear that all (or even most) GMOs have deleterious effects. "This contains GMOs" is not useful information to give someone, whereas "this contains alcohol" is. If you had an argument, you wouldn't need ad hominems to make your point.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I have a hard time believing this, considering that every state that's had a vote on GMO labeling (And for the record, I'm not one of those anti-GMO crusaders) has voted against labeling in landslides.

That's because you are an intelligent thinking human being with no agenda.  The OP is a bizarre vehicle for its author to show the forum that he is more intelligent than 80% of the population and he should control their votes.  Simfan34's analysis is the exact opposite of the study's author's...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2015/1/19/dna-labels

[Taco Truck 🚚]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

By your logic until we definitively determine a safe drinking limit during pregnancy, assuming there is one, we should remove all these labels...



You can always count on the Republican back solving machine to arrive at one conclusion... "less information for consumers is better."  I will give you points though for not complaining about the high cost of printing ink.  I personally never understood how people could say that with a straight face.

     Alcohol of any sort is known to cause problems during pregnancy. It's hardly clear that all (or even most) GMOs have deleterious effects. "This contains GMOs" is not useful information to give someone, whereas "this contains alcohol" is. If you had an argument, you wouldn't need ad hominems to make your point.

You are wrong and contradicting yourself.  No lower limit for alcohol consumption during pregnancy was universally established when those labels were introduced.  Last time I discussed the issue with obstetricians at an academic medical center there was still a debate.  So by your logic we should remove the label because hey we don't know whether one beer is okay.

And it is your ill informed opinion that a GMO label is not useful.  You don't know my education.

[Figueira]

There is nothing inherently wrong with consuming GMO's (indeed most are so stringently tested - Hawaian Papya aside, and that was a very unusual case - they are significantly safer than "normal" foods). the interesting thing (beyond the exact need for GMO's which are often overstated by techno utopians  - much of the real issues of food is related to unsexy issues like logistics) is the environmental and social impacts which are mixed. Which raises the question why just GMO's? Farming is an incredibly environmentally and socially destructive act, "organic" or not. Should food labels also have I dunno, the water usage? Or the use of soluble fertilisers? Or the use of immigrant labour? Or the carbon and methane emissions? Or the land usage? Etc.

This is actually one of the most reasonable posts I've seen on the topic in a long time.

Edit: your other posts on this thread are also reasonable.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

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

You don't seem to understand something can pose no threat when ingested and still wreck the environment and the economy.  Did you read the quote?  The farmers are suing Monsanto because of the economic damage they caused.

And you like a lot of lay people have a naive Hollywood kind of view of how disasters happen.  As someone who has studied some disaster prevention and management let me tell you most catastrophes are caused by little mundane things that the average person ignores.  It is only in retrospect that the average person goes whoa okay I guess that thing I ignored was God's warning shot across my bow.

The zombie wheat incident illustrated a couple of things.  First of all all that testing in a certain sense is worthless.  Why?  Because zombie wheat demonstrated seeds can circumnavigate the testing and approval process and end up surreptitiously on private property.  The second thing it demonstrated is all the control that Monsanto tells us they have is no guarantee.

Basically it is like Monsanto had the working ICBMs, centrifuges, and uranium mining equipment.  All they need to do is find some uranium... and they are actively prospecting.  So you would look at Monsanto and say nothing to see here?  Or would you call the IAEA and say let's chat with these guys?  So you see all that but you would rather wait for a mushroom cloud before even doing something as simple as writing three letters on food packaging?  I wish Republicans showed that kind of restraint with Iraq.  You guys have a very weird sense of what people should worry about and take action on.

Unfortunately I got a front row seat to a natural disaster that evolved into a man made disaster.  There was a structure with a completely mind blowingly dumb design flaw.  I had been in and around the structure more times than I can count.  I never realized it harbored this particular design flaw.  Well after disaster struck and the design flaw crippled various facilities and probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars I became aware of it.  I was dumbstruck.  And what was weird was even after the disaster the design flaw was mentioned almost casually.  Well I ranted about it to anyone who would listen.  My family probably got sick of me talking about it.

Well fast forward a few years later.  The Fukushima disaster occurs.  I get a call from a relative.  They tell me the reactor melted down and there were multiple hydrogen explosions because of the design flaw you kept ranting about all those years ago.  I just said, "They never learn."  Actually I didn't say that.  I ranted even more.  Can't believe the design flaw was demonstrated in grand fashion and some jerk running a nuclear power plant on a coastline on the ring of fire just shrugged.  WTF?!  God gives you a nice clean shot across the bow demonstrating for you a flaw in your design or process and all he gets in response is a smart ass on the interwebs.  Trust me seeing a package of food in the grocery store with three extra letters on the packaging is not the worst thing that can happen in this scenario... not even close.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

By your logic until we definitively determine a safe drinking limit during pregnancy, assuming there is one, we should remove all these labels...



You can always count on the Republican back solving machine to arrive at one conclusion... "less information for consumers is better."  I will give you points though for not complaining about the high cost of printing ink.  I personally never understood how people could say that with a straight face.

     Alcohol of any sort is known to cause problems during pregnancy. It's hardly clear that all (or even most) GMOs have deleterious effects. "This contains GMOs" is not useful information to give someone, whereas "this contains alcohol" is. If you had an argument, you wouldn't need ad hominems to make your point.

You are wrong and contradicting yourself.  No lower limit for alcohol consumption during pregnancy was universally established when those labels were introduced.  Last time I discussed the issue with obstetricians at an academic medical center there was still a debate.  So by your logic we should remove the label because hey we don't know whether one beer is okay.

And it is your ill informed opinion that a GMO label is not useful.  You don't know my education.

     You're not comparing like items, since it has been established that alcohol in general does contribute to birth defects. GMOs have not been established to be harmful in general. Nevermind that GMOs as a general label doesn't actually make sense. Saying "you're wrong" and repeating the same point isn't persuasive.

     I don't know your education. Fortunately, your education is not relevant. Appeal to authority is an amateurish mistake in argumentation. Appealing to one's own authority is an indicator of a certain lack of confidence in your own argument.

[Alcon]

You don't seem to understand something can pose no threat when ingested and still wreck the environment and the economy.  Did you read the quote?  The farmers are suing Monsanto because of the economic damage they caused.

OK, so we have an incident of a genetically modified crop being introduced accidentally into the environment, with economic consequences, because some consumers (for almost invariably irrational reasons) don't want to buy the stuff.  That seems like a compelling reason for a civil case, but how do you arrive at mandated labeling from it?

And you like a lot of lay people have a naive Hollywood kind of view of how disasters happen.  As someone who has studied some disaster prevention and management let me tell you most catastrophes are caused by little mundane things that the average person ignores.  It is only in retrospect that the average person goes whoa okay I guess that thing I ignored was God's warning shot across my bow.

The zombie wheat incident illustrated a couple of things.  First of all all that testing in a certain sense is worthless.  Why?  Because zombie wheat demonstrated seeds can circumnavigate the testing and approval process and end up surreptitiously on private property.  The second thing it demonstrated is all the control that Monsanto tells us they have is no guarantee.

You're using incredibly flowery language to say that a supply chain error occurred.  Nothing in the testing process of GMOs somehow protects against supply chain errors.  You're acting like this was some unknown and catastrophic secondary consequence of the technology that somehow requires more than the usual remedies for civil issues, and I have no idea why.

Basically it is like Monsanto had the working ICBMs, centrifuges, and uranium mining equipment.  All they need to do is find some uranium... and they are actively prospecting.  So you would look at Monsanto and say nothing to see here?  Or would you call the IAEA and say let's chat with these guys?  So you see all that but you would rather wait for a mushroom cloud before even doing something as simple as writing three letters on food packaging?  I wish Republicans showed that kind of restraint with Iraq.  You guys have a very weird sense of what people should worry about and take action on.

Unfortunately I got a front row seat to a natural disaster that evolved into a man made disaster.  There was a structure with a completely mind blowingly dumb design flaw.  I had been in and around the structure more times than I can count.  I never realized it harbored this particular design flaw.  Well after disaster struck and the design flaw crippled various facilities and probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars I became aware of it.  I was dumbstruck.  And what was weird was even after the disaster the design flaw was mentioned almost casually.  Well I ranted about it to anyone who would listen.  My family probably got sick of me talking about it.

Well fast forward a few years later.  The Fukushima disaster occurs.  I get a call from a relative.  They tell me the reactor melted down and there were multiple hydrogen explosions because of the design flaw you kept ranting about all those years ago.  I just said, "They never learn."  Actually I didn't say that.  I ranted even more.  Can't believe the design flaw was demonstrated in grand fashion and some jerk running a nuclear power plant on a coastline on the ring of fire just shrugged.  WTF?!  God gives you a nice clean shot across the bow demonstrating for you a flaw in your design or process and all he gets in response is a smart ass on the interwebs.  Trust me seeing a package of food in the grocery store with three extra letters on the packaging is not the worst thing that can happen in this scenario... not even close.

...what?

You seem to be arguing that we should assume there's some massively terrible unknown-unknown at play here, and your "shot across the bow" is a largely conventional supply chain issue.  Hell, it's a supply chain issue that would be exacerbated by manual labeling, since that would increase the ridiculous GMO hysteria, worsening these problems when they occur.

You're basically arguing the precautionary principle, and using an irrelevant supply chain issue and a bunch of metaphorical bluster to make the precaution seem more reasonable in this case.  It's not.

[Nhoj]

I would very much like to have the DNA of what I eat put on the label. In college my brother took part in an experiment where they bought a lot of fish from local supermarkets, tested the DNA of everything, and over a third of the fish was, genetically, a different species than what the stores claimed them to be

labeling wouldn't really solve that. Since companies get caught all the time lying on labels anyways...

[Taco Truck 🚚]

And you like a lot of lay people have a naive Hollywood kind of view of how disasters happen.  As someone who has studied some disaster prevention and management let me tell you most catastrophes are caused by little mundane things that the average person ignores.  It is only in retrospect that the average person goes whoa okay I guess that thing I ignored was God's warning shot across my bow.

The zombie wheat incident illustrated a couple of things.  First of all all that testing in a certain sense is worthless.  Why?  Because zombie wheat demonstrated seeds can circumnavigate the testing and approval process and end up surreptitiously on private property.  The second thing it demonstrated is all the control that Monsanto tells us they have is no guarantee.

You're using incredibly flowery language to say that a supply chain error occurred.  Nothing in the testing process of GMOs somehow protects against supply chain errors. You're acting like this was some unknown and catastrophic secondary consequence of the technology that somehow requires more than the usual remedies for civil issues, and I have no idea why.

Uhh...  Did you even read the post you quoted?  The whole point of my post was people are naive when they think most disasters are caused by big complicated high tech faults.  You are agreeing with me, genius.

And the second point I made is even once these simple faults are demonstrated in much smaller scale disasters history is littered with the wreckage of idiots that did not head those warnings... like Monsanto.  After the zombie wheat incident did they immediately coordinate with regulaters to implement a process improvement program... or did they deny the event happened?  If you chose choice B then congratulations you have at least half a brain.

Also an interesting point is no one in this thread is suggesting banning GMOs.  The only fanatical hair on fire lunatics are on the don't touch muh GMO side.  Everyone else is saying lets consider writing three letters on the side of the box and use a little bit of common sense restraint in using this new and potential dangerous discovery.  I mean do you really think it is crazy to say maybe the majority of Americans who are overweight or obese should think about eating less vs churning out more GMO mutations at a break neck speed to create high fructose corn syrup for Big Gulps?  Is that really a radical position?

I mean a poster on this forum honestly said we should suppress information from the average American because they can't handle it.

This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

How Orwellian is that?  And worst of all if those nanny state apologists bothered to read what the author they were quoting wrote he debunked that insane notion.  Some of the proGMO fanatics on this forum have lost the plot.  Seriously printing three letters on a box, a bit more government oversight, and a more robust discussion of how much crap we cram in our fat pie holes is not a crazy suggestion.  Take a chill pill folks.



Can't live without muh GMO!!!  Gobal food shortage indeed!

[Alcon]

Uhh...  Did you even read the post you quoted?  The whole point of my post was people are naive when they think most disasters are caused by big complicated high tech faults.  You are agreeing with me, genius.

Yes, I did.  You have not explained why this incident is disastrous enough to require special concern or anything beyond the civil remedy typical of addressing supply chain screw-ups.  That was my point; it was clearly stated, and you did not respond to it.

And the second point I made is even once these simple faults are demonstrated in much smaller scale disasters history is littered with the wreckage of idiots that did not head those warnings... like Monsanto.  After the zombie wheat incident did they immediately coordinate with regulaters to implement a process improvement program... or did they deny the event happened?  If you chose choice B then congratulations you have at least half a brain.

I'm aware of this incident, and Monsanto did not deny it happened.  They suggested it was a malicious introduction instead of a supply chain error.  I doubt that's the case, but so what?  If your argument is that corporations can spin into denial when they might be on the hook for something, that's obviously the case -- and it's the case with virtually every corporation, in virtually every sector, because that's how the incentive structure lines up.  So what?  Again, unless this is some disastrous issue that can't be remedied through the normal processes used to address civil cases, I have no idea why this is unusually significant, let alone what it has to do with mandatory labeling.

Also an interesting point is no one in this thread is suggesting banning GMOs.  The only fanatical hair on fire lunatics are on the don't touch muh GMO side.  Everyone else is saying lets consider writing three letters on the side of the box and use a little bit of common sense restraint in using this new and potential dangerous discovery.  I mean do you really think it is crazy to say maybe the majority of Americans who are overweight or obese should think about eating less vs churning out more GMO mutations at a break neck speed to create high fructose corn syrup for Big Gulps?  Is that really a radical position?

"Potential dangerous" (sic) in what way?  You seem to be arguing from the precaution principle, but your only rationale for precaution seems to be something easily addressed by civil law (the possibility of supply chain issues), and something that would not, as far as I can tell, be helped by labeling anyway.

What kind of ridiculous false dichotomy is "maybe you should eat less high-fructose corn syrup instead of making GMOs"?  You seem to be verging on wrapping up ideas of health, and evidence-based things like limiting caloric consumption, with woo food 'purity' nonsense.

I mean a poster on this forum honestly said we should suppress information from the average American because they can't handle it.

How Orwellian is that?  And worst of all if those nanny state apologists bothered to read what the author they were quoting wrote he debunked that insane notion.  Some of the proGMO fanatics on this forum have lost the plot.  Seriously printing three letters on a box, a bit more government oversight, and a more robust discussion of how much crap we cram in our fat pie holes is not a crazy suggestion.  Take a chill pill folks.

It's not Orwellian.  I doubt he's arguing against banning voluntarily labeling; that would be authoritarian.  He's responding to the argument that commonly put forward, which is essentially, "even if mandatory labeling of GMOs is pointless and arbitrary, why not do it anyway?"  His response is that the consumer demand doesn't reflect a compelling interest -- in fact, it causes harm, so arbitrary labeling is worse than just pointless.  He is (I assume) arguing that the government should pursue evidence-based policy, not institute labeling based on (and contributing to) people's non-evidence-based freakouts.  That's entirely a valid response to "why not just label it anyway?"

Imagine if the government considered instituting mandatory labeling of vaccines simply because some proportion of the population believes, in the absence of compelling evidence, that they're harmful.  Would you not find the scaremongering effects of the label a potentially compelling argument against the label?

Can't live without muh GMO!!!  Gobal food shortage indeed!

I don't think you should be the one accusing others of having apparent emotional over-investment in this issue...

[SillyAmerican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

You think it would be a good idea to not label GMO foods? I completely disagree, for the following simple reason. If you look at some of the old commercials put out by the cigarette companies, you'll see all kinds of claims being made. (Check out the one showing the brand smoked by most doctors, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE). So what has changed? Well, we began seeing claims that smoking tobacco causes cancer, so we decided to do the science: the studies were run by looking at people that smoke vs. those that don't, results began to be compiled, and attitudes began to change. Ok, so fast forward to GMOs. Certain people are making one set of claims, others are making opposite claims. Which group is correct?  Well, to do the science like we did with cigarettes, you need to run studies on two groups of people, those that consume GMOs and those that don't. Then you look to see if correlations exist between diseases and consumption of GMO foods. But how can you do this when people don't know whether or not they've consumed foods with GMOs in them? Use of GMOs in our food system is so wide spread and so downplayed that it's going to be near impossible to get any clear answers on the subject, and I suspect that's by design.

[SillyAmerican]

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.

Yes, but perhaps the main issue is not to the environment. There have been problems with GMO and non-GMO corn being grown in adjacent areas, with the GMO pollinating the non-GMO. When that happens, the results typically are (1) the non-GMO farmer can no longer bring to market the desired non-GMO product, and (2) the folks supporting GMO use file suit against the (often times smaller) non-GMO grower on the basis of the fact that they are now producing corn containing patented genetic modifications. It's a real mess, especially with regard to wind pollinated crops such as corn.