If GMOs are so good for you..

afraid I have to disagree with you there - the only observable benefit is anyone can get any porn they want now. In every other instance that I see computers pretty much just enhance the ability to screw things up.

 

I wasn't thinking about just the Internet and computers - however, computers have improved significantly in the last 50-60 years.
Just the storage capacity differences are amazing:



I was talking about 'technology' in general, and the obvious improvement upto this point in time.
From a smartphone (remember when they were not that smart?) to a MRI scanner, to the International space station.

Obviously there are downsides to technology, too.

 

I am not sure that Mercola can be any more a trusted source than Monsanto.

I do not feel Monsanto should be exempt from litigation. I also do agree that food should be labeled, with the given that it probably will not make any difference on consumption of products. People in general will continue to use the same products.

Monsanto basically has a monopoly which is never a productive thing in a competitive market.

GM is something that may need improvement as in the structure of implementation and accountability but the general reasons for GM are valid points. That crops are more resilient, higher yield is desirable.

 

Is that really the only benefit you could come up with? Or is it perhaps just the only benefit for you personally

 

Look a little farther back...Tesla. He had an idea, possibly even a working prototype of a device that would have given mankind access to free energy. What happened to him?

 

^
That still doesn't change the fact that mankind as whole has benefited from the electronic industry that has actually developed (and is still continuing to do so).

 

Explain (please)...

Take into consideration: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/evil-capitalists-prevent-nikola-tesla-creating-free-energy/

 

If it did happen 'they' would probably say it gave children cancer and/or autism and want it banned.

 

Fans of GMOs state that GMOs will help the starving children of Africa. But did anyone ever stop to think why they are starving in the first place?

Fact of the matter is, GMOs will lead to less crop diversity, which is a horrible thing. But that is how GMOs are..designed...

 

Not to mention, a lack of food supply on a global level is not the reason Africans are starving. GMO food produced in America will never make its way to third world countries because food grown on an industrial level is grown for profit.

 

Let's see if I can get some quick replies in here before I have to go cook.

OH GEEZ...wth. I just screwed this whole thing up. Quoted a bunch and deleted stuff. Lost so much. Now someone is on the phone. I'll come back to this later.


fitzy though....why you such a fan of gmo's?

This right here, below is my reply to what Odon wrote....

On the whole topic of mandatory labeling of GMO's seeming like a warning instead of just information, so that consumers can make informed choices.
I think I already came up with a solution to that-instead of sticking it on the front of a product- like the organic stamps or free range on eggs, etc.- how bout then just where ingredients are labeled, calling corn for example "genetically modified corn"....that would be no different then a label saying "yellow carrots" or marinated tomatoes"- you know, a word in front of a noun that is descriptive.

As for what I bolded in your quote-which I will quote here "Food companies are in the best position to determine what type of information meets the needs and desires of their customers."--- all I can say on that is that is the biggest load of BS I have ever heard.


And as for you saying that you don't think labels would inform, but would instead confuse. ODON...are you SERIOUS? Do you read food labels? More and more people are reading food labels than at any other time and in the US food labels are in the process of being changed because they are not informative ENOUGH. They don't differentiate between natural sugars and added sugars for one and that is huge. They show you total fat but don't tell you omega 3's. All kinds of relevant info is left out. I do not find food labels confusing AT ALL. I find a lot of it irrelevant and kinda dumb...mostly I find that they are LACKING information and not confusing at all.

As for the labeling thing being confusing, see the last thing I wrote under your other post.

I just quoted this to say yea, it's pretty simple, organic or everything else. I find it very easy between the non gmo project stamps and certified organic to avoid gmo's. HOWEVER, not all people know these things so I support labeling for the benefit of the masses.

ALSO I want even organic companies, who sell organic products (labeled organic) to have to show their products don't contain genetically modified ingredients... too many organic companies have put forth large amounts of money against man. labeling of GMO's for me not to smell a rat.





*edit-Just cannot believe I screwed up my reply so bad. Spent over 20 minutes typing and had quoted about 5 people and went to post it and ended up with what I have above. Frustratingly I don't even have time to re-write or further fix the above. Oh well. =/

 

A complex series of social and economic problems caused by arbitrary borders and other conflicts from the race for Africa, the prevalance of hiv and malaria. Strife relatedfto internal warfare, rapid population growth, and agrarian problems related to global warming and the other problems mentioned above as well as natural pests.

Monoculture is a concern with GM's and without.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/

 

:2thumbsup:

+ lack of clean drinking water (and an abundance of sources for dirty bacteria to thrive in like open sewers etc.)

 

"Some 'fans' (a little derogatory, but never mind) of GMOs state that GMOs are only to help the starving children of Africa."

I think that is fairer. The way you phrased it, imho, it seemed like that was the only thing 'fans' think, and not just a percentage of those 'fans', but ALL of those 'fans'.

Have you been on the Monsanto website lately? I struggled to find that GMO's are only to feed the starving children in Africa - even under 'Fighting Rural Hunger'. Instead it says:

America’s farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world. They grow a food supply that is abundant and safe, and, for most American consumers, affordable. However, food insecurity is still a reality for many people in this country.

Rural America is no exception. Nearly 15 percent of rural households are food insecure. That’s around three million households in the farm communities where much of the world’s food supply is raised.
As an agriculture company with deep roots in rural America, Monsanto is committed to helping address this issue.
We’re continuing to develop tools that help farmers get the most from their land – but we know production is only part of the solution. It takes collaboration and people willing to lend a helping hand to get food on the tables of those who need it most. That’s why we’re also focused on fighting rural hunger in America through partnerships and philanthropy.
Rural hunger is a real issue that needs real action. We’re doing our part.

http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/fighting-rural-hunger.aspx

Monsanto are clearly 'fans' of GM, do you think they are in it to feed the starving children in Africa, or the starving children in rural/America?

How long has GM been 'out there'?

Why is that BS?

If the 'desires of their customers' (market research) point to GM free, they will remove GM. If it points to labels, they will put 'GM' on the label.
And it if doesn't, they won't.
It's about money isn't it?
I could argue Monsanto are not apposed to labeling 'GM'.

I think this article puts it better than I could:

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health [see “The Truth about Genetically Modified Food”]. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not. (The GMO-fearing can seek out “100 Percent Organic” products, indicating that a food contains no genetically modified ingredients, among other requirements.)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/

As a veggie, yes I do read labels, and the V sign is very helpful.
However, that helps me because I want to avoid meat end of story.
In the GM world:
What do the vast majority of people that appose GM buy?
What do the vast majority of people buy that could not care less?
What do the people that are not sure/on the fence buy?
The whole GM debate is confusing anyway.
A small snippet taken from thousands of documents from various sources:
http://www.biosafety.be/PDF/1829_2003_EN.pdf

This is confusing:

GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. This is quite significant and well worth remembering.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “safe” level for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm... At 13 ppm, GMO corn contains more than 18 times the “safe” level of glyphosate set by the EPA.


http://articles.***********/sites/articles/archive/2013/04/30/monsanto-gmo-corn.aspx




So what would a GM label actually achieve?


As it stands in the EU today, we can never really be truly sure something is GM or not, that doesn't seem to be stopping them going down the path of mandatory labels:
http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gm_labelling#WillthelabeltellmeiffoodisGM?

(Isn't the EU 'evil' etc?)

So, in your ideal world what would a label have on it?

Know what things about GM?

I have no idea if that is true or not.

 

Have you any idea why it doesn't provide any evidence for any of it's other facts?

 

The report cited by Mercola and others that appeared on Moms Across America blog apparently was an internal report made by a company called ProfitPro that did its own testing of crops on a portion of a farmland. It doesn't appear to have been published in a peer reviewed science journal or any public journal. ProfitPro is promoting a soil-based manure treatment approach as a way of improving agricultural yield which can be seen as an alternative to using herbicides and GMO. In that regard, it's in competition with those other methods. The information was leaked to the public by email correspondence and blog posts, which makes it difficult to know the exact source and quality of the information. Skepticism about such information is warranted.

Skepticism should also be raised about any internal reports of experiments conducted on crops by companies such as Monsanto or the company that makes Roundup Ready, especially if they haven't been published in a public peer reviewed science journal.

Data is needed that is gathered by various groups that don't have a vested financial, political, or ideological interest in a company and that publish in various peer reviewed science journals. Repeatable and reproducible results from numerous independent groups that agree with one another offers a basis for drawing an objective science based consensus about a particular claim.

 

the real problem with gmo's is that private/corporate ownership of the genomes of food crops is a real threat to future food supplies. i don't feel ambitious enough right now to detail how and why this is so. but it shouldn't be too hard to look this up for anyone who doesn't already know.

 

stumbled upon:

GENERA
This is the future home of the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA). GENERA will be a searchable database of peer-reviewed research on the risks of genetically engineered crops. The database will include important details at-a-glance. We have been planning GENERA for several years, but development officially launched in Fall 2012, thanks to a grant from the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB).

GENERA FAQ. One-stop page to learn all about what GENERA is, who is it is for, how to use it, and more!
Evaluating Bias. A guide on recognizing bias in scientific discussions.
Studies for GENERA. Partial list of the studies that will be in the GENERA database.
Studies with independent funding. Partial list of studies about risks of genetically engineered crops that aren’t industry funded.
Submit a study. Let us know if we are missing a study that should be in GENERA.

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/

 

"Just eat organic" is a simplistic response and shows a lack of appreciation of the complexity of the matter. It is akin to a "let them eat cake" response. Many foods are neither GMO nor organic. People desire to be able to identify such foods and purchase them without being forced to buy the more expensive and smaller subset of organic as a last resort because of lack of GMO labeling.

Some consumers prefer GMO food. They see GMO as a way of making the most efficient use of arable land. Mandatory GMO labeling would do a service to those consumers.

Many developed countries require GMO labeling. The U.S. and Canada are absent from the list.

http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gm_labelling

http://www.ediblecommunities.com/va...es/genetically-engineered-and-grown-in-bc.htm

According to the above link, this is a list of countries that require GMO labeling.

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
China
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom