Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by moonman239, May 30, 2016.
Why or why not?
Just make sure there's no Gluten...
Seriously, yes. That said, several recent studies have said GMOs do not effect the food in any detrimental way...although studies are a lot like statistics...haha
Given that from a uk stand point fats and sugars have to be clearly listed EVERYTHING should. Will it make a difference to me personally. Nope!
The choices are too limited.
It bars the reality that chemists and their employers fear - that labeling will lead to a drop in sales.
We already eat genetically modified foods. Corn has been selectively bred for high yields of nutrients in its kernels, and it little similarity to the wild plant it was derived from. The same can be said of a lot of fruit and vegetables, such as rice, carrots, and lemons. All domesticated animals raised for consumption have been bred to gain weight rapidly. My point is 'GM' technology is an extension of something we've been doing for thousands of years through selective breeding (you need only look at pets and plants in gardens to confirm this). Moreover, the new genetic tools will soon be able to turn existing genes on or off, so technically because they do not insert new genes, they are not 'GM' techniques. Yet the changes in protein expression are just as real as the ones caused by 'GM' technologies.
A shocking high proportion of people in the US want mandatory labels of food 'containing DNA' (see link), which is absurd in the extreme. I do not think it would hurt to subject GM crops and animals to safety testing, but then again if one does this it should be applied to all crops and animals we consume.
When I was a kid, we switched from butter to margarine because it was better for you. Now 40 years later we learn the trans-fats are not good for you and we are back to butter.
So I don't trust the scientists know what they are talking about.
So label the packages and let the people decide.
There is a huge difference between GMO and cross-breeding.
I'm not worried that GMO food in particular will harm my health, but, I'm still generally against GMO foods for other reasons. Once, Mexico was the home of thousands of historically-occurring varieties of corn. Today, these varieties are rapidly being replaced by a few high-yield varieties. (Link) I think that is very bad.
Corn is a cheap source of starch calories. The entire states of Iowa and Illinois and large parts of neighboring states are mostly devoted to growing corn. GMOs facilitate that. Fortunately, a large fraction of the GMO corn is turned into ethanol and used as an anti-pollution additive for gasoline, but, some of it makes into the food supply-- if you consider HFCS and corn chips "food". It isn't the GMO-ness per se that is a health threat. Cheap corn is a poor substitute for a healthy diet. The world needs healthier food, but, agribusiness food production is not necessarily giving people what they need.
So, sure, if the GMO label causes people to run in fear, and hide in the heirloom tomato section of produce, I guess it is all good.
You should have a healthy scepticism about any scientific claim, but then again so do scientists. In theory science is self-correcting, and while I am not so sure this is always the case (in the same way that I do not believe that evolution always 'improves' life or free market competition always leads to the most efficient companies), it is more likely to be true of science than of street wisdom. We still have people convinced that MMR causes autism for heaven's sake...
Both involve manipulating genes to create proteins. The end effect - a difference in the profile of proteins expressed is precisely the same.
I am not a huge fan of GM as practised by large corporations, but it is possible that failing to pursue the sensible application of the technology will have an ethical cost (e.g., world hunger arising from climate change) that is greater than pursuing it. I do not mind labelling of GM products, but it's not something that society needs to prioritise.
Global warming: No debate. Settled science.
Nuclear power: SCARY!!
As far as I have read, scientific evidence has been pretty consistent that there is zero deleterious effects to one's health from eating GMOs.
The entire concept is somewhat fuzzy anyhow. Genetic modification of edible crops, whether artificial or natural, does not seem to cause much harm throughout mankind's history.
How is it any different just because supposedly evil companies are doing it en masse, scientifically instead of farmers doing it by breeding?
I like reading what's in what I'm about to eat. Their telling us upfront shows integrity on their part, doesn't add much at all to the cost of the packaging compared to the R&D used to determine the ingredients in the first place, and in the sheer bulk of cases even the most frankensteined food is more than safe as long as humans don't eat 50 pounds of it per meal, for 6 meals every day, 8 days per week.
Even splicing two plants together like what some kids do or did in middle school science class is technically GMO too.
Plus, not everything that's 100% natural is good for a person just because it's "natural".
Apparently you didn't read that article about the potatoes that grew legs, and started spitting chlorine at people.
True, but pollution - claimed to be a contributor to the "'global warming' debate" - is very real and Americans are too cheap to want it in their backyards so instead of cleaning up their acts companies just dump it to other countries where they don't care to have it, and the people are apparently prospering as a result - or at least coughing and wearing gas masks and wondering why they have so many more dalits (or, in real life, birth defects and other problems)...
Only because cheapskates think it's awesome to build these things on fault lines or won't hire enough people to maintain the things because the CEO needs a 20th yacht, so can a couple maintenance workers and voila - it all runs on magic ♪ anyway...
See my post above, a lot of it all is overrated.
Yes. Not even if they pose a health risk. They should be labeled in the first place. It's something people should have a right to know.
There were plenty of Drs who said smoking was healthy.
Concerning gmos do we really have an option? I'm. It sure we can feed the worlds population. W/o messing with things
You left out the part about spiders and snakes.
The cigarette companies all claimed that. I never heard a doctor say that. But, back in the day, doctors whispered the word cancer, while everybody bragged about ulcers and heart attacks being signs of masculinity.
You mean the ones that those mutant GMO potatoes ate? It was pretty brutal.
Without adequate consumer education on the subject, a GMO label will be more like a scarlet letter than a label.
any source for this?
plus...anyone who smokes can tell thats unhealthy. and in this case, their denial DOES hurt other people due to the effect of 2nd hand smoke.
anyway, about GMOs, I agree they should be labeled. Most studies show no harmful effects. but again it is pretty obvious when the apple I'm eating is literally the size of my face that this wouldn't grow on a tree naturally.
current moron in charge appointed a Monsanto clown to a position that of power. So really we are going to get the "education". They want us to get
--- Post Merged, May 30, 2016 ---
Apologies. Should have stated the time frame when they did so, see advertisement above on post 18
--- Post Merged, May 30, 2016 ---
Exactly. The wide public has no idea what GMO means, and have only heard from hippies that genes are bad to eat, so a GMO label may in fact just scare people away.
So keep them forever in the dark?
Not really. In cross-breeding, pollen from one plant is bred with another and then the plant develops naturally. This could have happened in nature given the right circumstances.
In GMO, scientists insert specific genes into a plants DNA to get the desired outcome. Big difference. And this can't happen in nature.