Coversations about GMOs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2013, 08:49 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2013 09:50 AM by jaguar3030.)
Coversations about GMOs
Yesterday, I was sucked into a conversation with an Anti-GMO'er. I started out the convo being nice and then it kind of went downhill. I have attached this story for your viewing pleasure.

The cast:
The OP The OP
Jag : me
Smartass Another intelligent individual
Drooling The Anti-GMO'er
--------------------

THE OP
What I learned about organic labeling today:
Any company can label organic. If it is labeled USDA organic then it follows certain regulations and criteria. Otherwise it depends on the honesty of a company.
5-10% of the organic may actually contain inorganics.
Organic does not mean GMO-free. It is labeled organic by how it is grown, and not by the seed itself. (This can even include Monsanto seeds)
Any thoughts??
Like · · Share · 6 hours ago via mobile ·


----------------------------
Smartass Gmo's by definition are just as organic as a non gmo seeds. So if they are cultivated and farmed the same as non gmo I don't know why they would be labeled inorganic if nothing synthetic has been added throughout the farming process. Something's genes or DNA being changed doesn't mean it's inorganic.
----------------
Jag There are a few items I usually always buy organic, just because their nonorganic counterparts can contain high levels of residual pesticides. GMOs are fantastic and without them our food growing capabilities would be much smaller. The problem with GMOs most often lies in the monopolization of certain crops by such companies as Monsanto. Anti-GMO is the buzzword in today's media. GMOs have been studied extensively and shown to be safe. Anyways, if I'm eating the food, GMO vs non GMO foods mean nothing to me, while organically grown vs nonorganically grown is a big deciding factor
3 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3
----------------------
Drooling Jag, would you be ok with someone forcing unwanted bacteria and viruses into your body? Also, it's not just about the human race. Have you stopped to educate yourself on what it has done to other species? Yea, I understand why ppl think that GMOs are so great but if that's the case then why have so many other countries banned them?

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated that, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM has asked physicians to advise all patients to avoid GM foods

And if GM foods are so wonderful why has there been so much secrecy from the FDA? Why are they not ok with labeling all foods? Why is that when a scientist researches against GM they get all government funds dropped?

In a different note.. What about the farmers who are getting sued because seeds are blowing into other fields? What about the farmers who have to buy new seeds every year because it would be "stealing" if they didn't

There is still soo much to be learned about GMOs.
-------------------------------------
Smartass I don't think this can be compared to someone forcing bacteria and viruses into your body. That's not even remotely the same thing and literally has nothing to do with this conversation. And the countries that gmo's are banned in isn't because of health issues, it's because they have no way of controlling the resistant weeds that come from having gmo seeds. For example, round up resistant volunteer corn. It comes up at the same time or after seed corn, so to get rid of it you have to have access to a different chemical designed to kill things round up resistant or work the entire field, killing the volunteer and the desired crop. Other countries lack of availability or tighter chemical restrictions is why they ban gmo crops, not because it's proven to be unhealthy.
----------------------------------------
Jag I have no idea where things are getting forced into my body, but the recombination process doesn't leave viruses and bacteria running around willy-nilly. Without GMOs diabetics would have a difficult time finding an adequate supply of insulin. GMOs offer our crops such things as pest resistance, disease resistance, and drought tolerance. GMOs also can be used to fight malnutrition in 3rd world countries. Yes some countries have banned GMOs due to misunderstanding. The organization you cite, the AAEM, is an organization that is found on quack watch and it's credentials are very dubious. If you want to read actual,legitimate scientific papers on GMOs I can provide you with hundreds. All of which come to the conclusion that GMO foods are no different than non GMOs. The FDA doesn't have any secrecy about GMOs, it simply fails to understand why it would be necessary to single out crops that he science community has overwhelmingly supported. As for Monsanto, they treat farmers like crap. Just because Monsanto has questionable practices does not equate to GMOs being bad. You need to stay away from naturalnews.com. That website is full of illegitimate claims that have no credible backing.
----------------------------
Smartass Oh, and the aaem has been cited as an illegitimate foundation by a few other medical groups. I'm guessing ALL of the "researchers" "findings" have more to do with there funding and members and less to do with actual science and research. And I'm also talking about pro gmo groups
--------------------------------------
Smartass If you give me a million bucks I can probably prove that my shit does not, in fact, stink. It'd be great if we had more groups aimed at legitimately improving health and quality of life but unfortunately, that's not where the money's at. And we all know that just because the government funds something, doesn't mean it has any more truth behind it then anyone else funding something. And without devil chemicals and gmo's, I'm unemployed! That's why I eat a shot of roundup with almost everything! Lol
--------------------------------
Drooling Justin some gm foods have bacteria and viruses in them.. Did I say they were running "nilly-willy"? No. They now have crops that will die after the first use. Also the concept of resistant plants is a scary issue. Yes, I understand why people think that's great because we don't have to use as much chemicals.. but when we have weeds that are now resistant, aren't we just trying to use more chemicals to try and kill those weeds. They didn't ban them because of misunderstanding.. they did it because there is lack of information. I don't buy that the FDA doesn't want to label because they find it unnecessary. So I shouldn't have used the AAEM as an example.. but that doesn't change the fact that studies have been done on animals and they have had horrible side effects.
-----------------
Drooling I never said just because the government funds it means it's correct... I just find it ironic that they have been defunded.
-------------------------
Jag Bacteria and viruses are simply the vector that takes incorporates the DNA into the organism. Insulin is made by a bacterium--E. coli. I don't see many people running around telling diabetics that they are shooting themselves up with E. coli. There are no bacteria and viruses that are in the plant from the recombination process. You do not understand how it works. Which studies show that GMOs are bad? The only study I know of involves mice that developed cancer. The funny thing is, that breed of mouse is notorious for developing cancer, no matter what its diet is. You don't believe that the FDA doesn't label because its unnecessary? Well, thank goodness science relies on facts and not beliefs. Anyway, I'm off to hunt for unicorns with Smartass.
---------------------------
Smartass Your mistaken, sorry but you are. Gm plants are not resistant by accident, and yes the volunteer is resistant but it's planned and they have other chemicals and farming techniques to handle the planned resistance. Volunteer crops are not considered a noxious weed, the resistance issues we have has zero to do with gmo plants. It has everything to do with cutting of chemical rates, spraying plants when uptake is not optimal so they only get a partial dose, etc etc. a resistant weed and a volunteer from a gmo plant are NOT the same thing. I don't know a lot about a lot of things, but I do happen to know something about gmo crops, planned resistance, and resistance problem.
----------------------------------------
Smartass The only possible way to not have a resistant weed, is to cut chemicals out %100. Let me know when this way if farming can produce 1/4 what we produce today. It simply does not work.
----------
Drooling I'm aware that the resistant crops that are planted aren't resistant by accident... i guess my point was that if we keep using chemicals and the weeds become more and more resistant where is the end point? Jag, you're the kind of person that is completely close-minded. You have no room for discussion if your mind is already made up... I'm sure that's probably why you find the need to be rude... Everything else aside .. The simplest of the issue is just labeling our food. Everyone has a right to know what is in their food, good or bad.. So why is it such a huge problem if everything is so safe? Why can't they just give the people the choice to know?
-------------------
Drooling So I may have read your comment about cutting of chemical rates and such wrong.. Sorry. You can disregard my question..
---------------------
Smartass It's not a matter of an end point, it's a cycle, weeds can also lose resistance. So by rotating the use of different chemicals we hope to keep a handle on resistant weeds. There's always research being done on chemicals that can be produced and used t...See More
--------------------------
Jag: Rude? Possibly. Facetious? Definitely. I'm close minded because I accept the scientific consensus? I'm close mined because I'm showing you how your claims fail to have any support? Or am I close minded because you cannot come up with a rational rebuttal that has a modicum of validity to it? Being open minded to the point of your brains falling out is not an ideal situation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
Most Americans do not care whether their food is GMO. But for those who do care,
labels should indicate whether a food item is GMO or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
12-11-2013, 09:47 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 09:38 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Most Americans do not care whether their food is GMO. But for those who do care,
labels should indicate whether a food item is GMO or not.

Why should the money be spent to label for these people? GMOs have been shown to be just as safe as non GMO food, so why make the distinction?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 10:00 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 09:38 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Most Americans do not care whether their food is GMO. But for those who do care,
labels should indicate whether a food item is GMO or not.

I agree.

Anything derived from a domesticated species should be clearly identified.

Don't want any of that unnaturally modified stuff getting through, right?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 10:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-11-2013 09:38 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Most Americans do not care whether their food is GMO. But for those who do care,
labels should indicate whether a food item is GMO or not.

I agree.

Anything derived from a domesticated species should be clearly identified.

Don't want any of that unnaturally modified stuff getting through, right?

The whole problem with the GMO labeling movement is that GMOs have been vilified, so labeling your product as non-GMO is nothing but a business tactic to sell more food.

GMO labeling is giving into the false notion that there is something inherently wrong with them.

Albeit, there are problems with some of the practices of entities such as Monsanto. Just because the company is said to be 'evil,' doesnt mean that GMOs are evil.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 11:08 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 09:47 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  
(12-11-2013 09:38 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Most Americans do not care whether their food is GMO. But for those who do care,
labels should indicate whether a food item is GMO or not.

Why should the money be spent to label for these people? GMOs have been shown to be just as safe as non GMO food, so why make the distinction?

The cost of modifying the text on labels is a very weak argument
against having labels. It wouldn't cost must to add three letters to the label.

To many consumers it does matter whether their food is GM or not,
so they have a right to know. Their objections to GM could be that
it is not safe, it could be that they like the seeds in their grapes,
they may be worried about cross-pollination of GM foods etc. etc.
Or maybe they really prefer GM foods as many do. But it is not
really up to you to decide what criteria consumers are allowed
for buying products.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 11:12 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 09:47 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  
(12-11-2013 09:38 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Most Americans do not care whether their food is GMO. But for those who do care,
labels should indicate whether a food item is GMO or not.

Why should the money be spent to label for these people? GMOs have been shown to be just as safe as non GMO food, so why make the distinction?

The cost of modifying the text on labels is a very weak argument
against having labels. It wouldn't cost must to add three letters to the label.

To many consumers it does matter whether their food is GM or not,
so they have a right to know. Their objections to GM could be that
it is not safe, it could be that they like the seeds in their grapes,
they may be worried about cross-pollination of GM foods etc. etc.
Or maybe they really prefer GM foods as many do. But it is not
really up to you to decide what criteria consumers are allowed
for buying products.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 11:08 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  The cost of modifying the text on labels is a very weak argument
against having labels. It wouldn't cost must to add three letters to the label.

To many consumers it does matter whether their food is GM or not,
so they have a right to know. Their objections to GM could be that
it is not safe, it could be that they like the seeds in their grapes,
they may be worried about cross-pollination of GM foods etc. etc.
Or maybe they really prefer GM foods as many do. But it is not
really up to you to decide what criteria consumers are allowed
for buying products.

Counterpoint:
Define genetically modified.

In order for such an identifier not to be utterly meaningless, you'd have to throw in a new layer of regulation and certification for, er, basically all organic material (not just food, but including things like cotton, linen, flax, hemp; probably things that most anti-GMO ninnies aren't even aware of). That would cost time and money that would be better spent on about a million other things (and pretty much all regulatory bodies are tragically understaffed and underfunded already).

But, if that's what the people want...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 11:26 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 11:12 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(12-11-2013 09:47 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  Why should the money be spent to label for these people? GMOs have been shown to be just as safe as non GMO food, so why make the distinction?

The cost of modifying the text on labels is a very weak argument
against having labels. It wouldn't cost must to add three letters to the label.

To many consumers it does matter whether their food is GM or not,
so they have a right to know. Their objections to GM could be that
it is not safe, it could be that they like the seeds in their grapes,
they may be worried about cross-pollination of GM foods etc. etc.
Or maybe they really prefer GM foods as many do. But it is not
really up to you to decide what criteria consumers are allowed
for buying products.

It is not just the cost of the labeling. Its the total cost associated with the fear of GMO. If consumers really didn't care about GMOs, it wouldn't be such a hot media topic. If consumers didn't care, then naturalnews.com wouldn't be publishing articles about it constantly.

The cost is apparent in loss of revenue. If it is added to the label, then it brings it into a negative light. Yes, it would cost very little to change a label, but untold of amounts in lost revenue and litigation. Plus you would have to go through the laborious process of defining what is and what is not a GMO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2013 12:50 PM by kim.)
RE: Coversations about GMOs
Quote:If it is labeled USDA organic then it follows certain regulations and criteria.
Organic does not mean GMO-free. It is labeled organic by how it is grown, and not by the seed itself.
Those are accurate statements. Thumbsup
(I stepped out for coffee while writing this so... sorry if someone's already addressed the following.)

I understand about fear of GMOs but probably from a different view.
Realize, the following are broad hypotheticals for the purpose of illustration.

The common yellow corn we grow today is genetically not the corn grown 60 years ago - or even 20 years ago. It has been genetically altered to be higher in sugar and it now lacks the nutritive quality to do much more than fatten whatever creature that eats it. Yay for the staving.

Most GMO crops are developed to contain toxins to resist certain known pests but they are also developed for vigor and high yield - for example, 20 rows on the cob as opposed to 16 rows.

If a GMO corn becomes mixed into the seeds of another more nutritious native corn or simply fertilizes a native crop to develop a hybrid, it can quickly out produce the more nutritious native variety. This hybrid variety may or may not contain GMO pest resistant toxins and it also may or may not contain nutritious value of the native crop.

The political issue comes in when a giant corporation sues a single farmer to death because they find the patented pest resistant toxin in the genetic make up of the farmer's native corn. (Fuck you very much, Monsanto)

Control freaks aside... something even more troubling needles my will to survive. When this homogenized corn becomes the only variety in existence, that might sit very precariously on the cusp of evolution. I am a human being and as such, do not possess the audacity to think I can control the future.

If a some new bacteria or pest or some new sort of plague comes along and completely wipes out the only corn variety left... ? What happened to letting evolution take it's course? What happened to not putting all the eggs into one basket? I know everyone isn't a farmer or wasn't a Scout but.... what happened to be prepared?

I can not control the future, but I can control what I do right now. A diverse food supply is wise and a non GMO crop is a particular commitment to such diversity.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: