Looks like there’s a 30 year study in progress.
I’m sorry, did you retract your statements about BT yet?
Can you cite any evidence of human danger in eating GMOs? I mean, it seems to me that, since you’re proposing that eating GMO’s is bad for our health, you should be providing evidence of that. (As opposed to you demanding that people provide evidence that GMOs aren’t bad.)
How would you label kalettes?
I will simply point out that there are no studies showing human safety in eating non-GMOs.
Regards,
Shodan
Re: halal- I was answering you and BPC at the same time, in a hurry.
The voluntary labeling of non-GMO foods isn’t complete. A person who isn’t interested in GM foods has to give up a major portion of food products available in order to stick just to the voluntarily labeled ones. Labeling GM corn and so on brings us to the point where all ingredients (more or less) are labeled on food products.
Everything has been bred, sure. But things like inserting salmon genes into plants creates a different category of genetic modification, and therefore a different class of food product/organism. You can point and laugh at people who want to avoid those, but since we all gotta eat, I think they have the right to choose what they eat.
Ha! I’m not very familiar with the newer methods 
But I can’t recall those other methods rising to the scale of a political issue that GM products has.
Still, radiation and chemicals are the way things mutate and evolve in nature, those techniques just force the issue. Cutting up genes and then splicing them back together is not how things mutate and evolve in nature.
Yes it does. Mutation occurs via transposing insertion, lateral gene swapping, gene duplication and insertion, viruses bringing in foreign DNA, all in nature.
What those techniques do is non-specifically target the entire genome in the hopes that something useful will be generated. The outcome is analyzed for development of desired traits, but there is no testing to assure that there aren’t unwanted/allergenic proteins and unforseen undesired effects - which is what anti-GMOers say they worry about.
With genetic modification, specific sequences are added to DNA instead of nonspecifically targeting/damaging nucleotide arrangements throughout the genome, and there is safety testing involving multiple parameters.
It is bewildering that people can be fine with untested products of radiation-induced change, but refuse to accept tested GMO products.
You remember from when you were young that in the future people would have more leisure time? Behold one of the fruits of all that extra time, scary internet rumors.
Yep. Which is bizarre, given that the newer hybridization methods are considerably less targeted or well-thought-out. It’s actually kind of ridiculous, when you think about it. We should be labeling those, rather than, yanno, GMO foods. :rolleyes:
OK, say we all decide we do want to do this on principle. Explain to me how it’s done–that is, what, exactly, qualifies as GM that requires labeling, that, to the general public is a “scary” label that might cause lower sales.
It seems more likely to me that companies will simply use the opportunity to schmooze up to their friendly neighborhood politician and convince them that their methods of modifications should be excepted by Subparagraph 108.d of Appendix E, but their competitors products definitely need to be labeled.
So then not only would we have the confusion caused by people not realizing that any labels are unrelated to safety, you also would have confusion over exactly what “GM” means anyway.
Remember hydrogenated oils? They were ‘just oils’, right? All people did was add a hydrogen atom to the oil molecules, which gave them a nice shelf life and other properties the manufacturers found very convenient and good for their bottom lines.
Still, even with just that one added hydrogen atom, they got labeled. I watched the conversation about it, and for many years hydrogenated oils was effectively my only dietary restriction (I was into running and health in general, and had/have no use for clogged arteries, regardless of some corporation’s bottom line). In the end, if I am not mistaken, hydrogenated oils were altogether banned.
I’m not saying that GM crops are shown to have deleterious health effects, or that I even have a personal restriction against them. Hell, I eat a lot of Doritos lately, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that those things use GM corn. Still, the genetic modification of an organism rises at least to the level of the modification done on hydrogenated oils, which makes it something other than simply “another breed of corn”, as you put it. Therefore, they ought to be labeled.
It isn’t a question of “refuse to accept”, it is an issue of putting it on the label.
For instance, Ivory Tower Denizen corrects me by pointing out that in nature, bits of genetic code sometimes drift from one organism to another. Still, when it happens it nature, the resulting organism does not get smacked with a patent that explicitly sets it apart from every other organism in nature, for the purposes of claiming it as intellectual property and so on.
So sure, the GM process is more specific. But still, it creates a new category of thing, a fact illuminated explicitly by the patenting on the part of the developers. It is a modification to a greater degree than the simple adding of a hydrogen atom to an oil molecule. Consistency demands that it be labeled.
But look. The issue on both sides boils down to “people won’t want to buy it.” So what? Everybody has to eat- it strikes me as highly inappropriate to manipulate the law to hide these creations in 2 out of every 3 products so that people are helpless to choose what the eat, and are instead forced to consume some interested corporation’s products. It may not have anything to do with Frankenfood-type fears. For example, all this cheap GM corn is being dumped at low prices in Central America via the (sort of) recent free trade agreements. Local farmers have been unable to compete, which drives them off their land, which in conjunction with other factors results in unaccompanied children showing up on our borders from those parts of the world. Maybe people don’t want to support that. Maybe people don’t support the corporate manipulation of our legal system. Maybe people simply don’t want to eat GM foods, despite all the condescending assurances from industry representatives that they’re just Jim-dandy.
I think people deserve the choice. GM products ought to be labeled. Louis Pasteur never behaved like this.
No!
They were substantially different. You even listed some of the properties that made them different.
An oil molecule that is unsaturated behaves very differently from one that is partially saturated. No one would claim that the two molecules are substantially the same.
All right. Does it follow then that GM products are “substantially different”, occupy their own category and therefore demand labeling?
No! Because the major test that’s used to determine whether or not they’re safe quite literally is “does this behave the same as a non-GM analogue in every way the gene change might effect it?”. You know, that equivalency that whatshisname was blathering on about.
No. Being patentable does not make it categorically different. Using different techniques does not make them categorically different. Only if, by any available metric, the end-product is categorically different should labeling be considered. To be sent to market it can not behave differently, so it is not categorically different.
By adding a salmon gene, for example, the product does not take on “salmoness”. It just adds a new protein with a particular function.
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive;17620146
…Ivory Tower Denizen corrects me by pointing out that in nature, bits of genetic code sometimes drift from one organism to another. Still, when it happens it nature, the resulting organism does not get smacked with a patent that explicitly sets it apart from every other organism in nature, for the purposes of claiming it as intellectual property and so on.[/QUOTE]
Plant varieties have been patented for a very long time, whether created by simple cross-pollination or derived from mutagenic agents like radiation. The act of patenting a new hybrid has never conferred an obligation to perform special labeling of the subsequent food product. It doesn’t make sense that new GM hybrids have to be treated differently.
Hey, I just ate a corn chip with GMO corn in it. I didn’t die.
There’s your “just one study” complete: science proves GMO crops cause immortality.
Can we move on now?
Think of GMO labeling more as an environmental notation than a food notation. The result of gmos has been increased use of pesticides – present AND FUTURE pesticides. The studies that have been done on the active ingredients in Roundup studied them at a lower level than they are actually being used. The incredible effectiveness of application after application has ballooned Roundup use far above what even the doomsday cassandras thought it would be.
With the growing resistance of weeds, we are now moving on to another pesticide which will no doubt go through the same life cycle. We will then move on to another one, and another one.
Farmers who put up the money for gmo seeds, chemicals, and fuel are certainly not going to watch their expensive crop go without water. So they pour it on.
I want to avoid gmo foods because I like to make good environmental choices when I purchase food.
Round-Up is a herbicide, not a pesticide.
If you’re going to object to something, learn about it first.