That it’s GMO. That’s all I’ve talked about. Why’s it such a big deal? It’s not saying labels should say “Warning GMO’s: proven to cause cancer.”
It’s patentable, as Monsanto might say.
I think that many people are well aware that there haven’t been clear link to health problems from GMO foods, yet. But that’s the key:yet. They would prefer to wait and let others be the human guinea pigs. We’ve done lots of testing, but we haven’t seen what a lifetime of eating genetically engineered food will do. We can say that theoretically there shouldn’t be a difference and that we don’t know why there would be a difference, but we don’t know for sure until we test.
In the mean time there are real risks of cross fertilization between GMO and non-GMO foods. If GMO production is not properly regulated, and it’s use continues to grow, we could soon see the GMO choice taken away from us by cross fertilization.
Other people just consider it “unnatural” and hence undesirable. It’s a purely subjective value judgement, but if enough people find it important, then it should be made known. Much like labeling kosher foods in Israel. Sure you could say there’s no evidence for this “God” making demands on people’s diets, but that doesn’t erase a real concern that many people there have.
You and I are making relatively informed decisions and know that we are eating GMO food. My concern is that many people don’t know that they’re eating and don’t want to eat GMO food.
A large portion of the non-GM seeds were bred by being irradiated to produce mutations. Why is that so much safer than GM? Answer: Hard to say except that there isn’t as big of a lobby against it. However, scientific truth is not a matter of voting.
Truth is, there is no real safety testing of any horticultural varieties. To do so, you would have to spend far more than the enormous costs associated with drug testing. Why? Because most drugs are approved for short-term use only, whereas a new variety of apple is likely to be eaten by the same person for decades. Testing that is so long term is impractical.
Why not require the testing of old heirloom varieties instead? For all we know they are the ones which take a year off your life, and withdrawing them from the general market for twenty years would, at least, and however irrational, at least not contribute to world hunger.
Those who are unwilling to be, under at least some circumstances, experimental subjects, do not deserve to benefit from the sacrifices of experimental subjects of the past.
Should people be offered human-tested medical treatments (or, in this case, foodstuffs) anyway, even though they are not deserving? For all sorts of practical reasons, and out of concern for their more generous loved ones, yes. But not out of fairness.
The insulting phrase “human guinea pig” is among the the most pernicious I know.
That is, interestingly enough, the same question opponents to mandated labelling are asking…
Ah, so there is a fear here…you seem to think that by eating genetically altered food, we’ll become some sort of hideous mutant or something. You do realize that the genes you consume won’t be incorporated into your own genome, right?
Hyperbole aside, you must also realize that selective breeding is simply genetic alteration on a much slower timeline; yet no one is complaining about eating “normal” corn - which itself wouldn’t exist without our meddling.
So you think it’s OK to draw the rest of us into your zero risk fiction? GM foods have to go through some pretty demanding testing before they are allowed on the market, just as with any other new food. Unfortunately “yet” will never happen until that one study comes along to confirm your beliefs at the cost of all of the others that should have dispelled them.
Saying GMO = health problems shows a pretty simplistic understanding of how that applies to the general case anyway. A GM label isn’t necessarily going to tell you what sort of genetic modification has taken place and why that particular enzyme might be dangerous (unless it’s potentially allergenic) when it has been tested over and over again to show that it is not. GM is only a process, not the source of any health problems associated with a product.
“Ewwww mice genes” wouldn’t work for a five year old who didn’t want to finish his dinner and I am certain it wouldn’t work as a government basis for labelling. Since we are talking about the sort of aesthetics that are hopelessly relativistic and value laden I don’t suppose it would help to point out that a high percentage of your own genes are “mouse genes.”
Then don’t eat any of the crops grown on farms (even organic farms), human selection has made those varieties just as “unnatural.” These people would be woefully misinformed (not to mention hypocritical) if they would equate “unnatural” with “undesirable,” yet if their beliefs must be pandered to then it should not be through state regulation.
Come on now, just how much waiting would it take to convince you that these foods are OK? The FDA doesn’t want us to be the human guinea pigs so they do real testing… as opposed to scaremongering.
There have been instances of genetically modified crops not performing as expected.
A few types of Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops were recalled in the mid-90s due to errors in the genetic engineering process.
In 1998 the Mississippi Seed Arbitration Council ruled that Monsanto should pay farmers complaining about defective crops of Roundup Ready cotton $2 million in damages. cite The ruling was not binding, and Monsanto refused to pay it. cite
Monsanto settled with other farmers, paying them $5 million.
I believe that this matter is now in the federal court system, and has not yet been resolved.
Monsanto is the company that also introduced the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). The US has tried to promote acceptance of the hormone in other countries, but the United Nations has refused to endorse its safety. cite
Biotech company Calgene tried to make a better tomato, but their endeavor failed due to a haste to get the product on the market. They claim part of the problem was that they planted the wrong variety of tomato, resulting in poor crop yields. The genetic modification slowed the ripening process (as hoped for) but also made the tomato softer than normal ones, resulting in more bruising and mashing in the packaging process. cite
Monsanto ended up buying Calgene.
The science and technology itself is very promising, but I do think that given the biotech companies’ errors with products that actually made it onto the market, there is a distinct possibility of genetically modified foods having unexpected adverse effects on consumers, such as the already mentioned allergic reaction possibility.
I found an interesting link concerning the voluntary labelling of non-rBGH products here.
My fear is that a government labeling law would prove so harmful to sales of GM food that much or all of it would go off the market, raising the price of remaining food which would have to be grown from less cost effective seeds. The people who make the cheapest store brand of vegetable oil would probably not want to stock two types, and would likely drop the kind with the sales-hurting label. Same for cheap cuts of grain-fed beef. I could afford to pay more, but sure would not like it. For those on tighter budgets , it would be a real sacrifice. Over time the price sacrifice for both myself and the poor would be more and more, as the opportunity is lost for use of still more efficient seed which will never be developed because agronomists will have financial disincentive to use GM in future breeding projects.
The labeling law could not help but raise food prices for those of us who buy what is cheapest. The only question is how much, how soon.
Needless to say, there is no big problem with voluntary labeling, because the absence of the label on GM food is no kiss of death the way the GM label would be.
Although the slippery slope does not apply always, it certainly does here. If the junk scientists win on getting GM food the label kiss of death, next they will work on irradiated seed labeling and/or labeling to list the pesticides and fungicides used to grow food. As I result my food costs will go through the roof, and the impact on the poor will be major. If the junk scientists lose on this, there is no chance of them going on to force pesticide labeling.
Remember, there is no chemical way to tell if the GM labeling is truthful. Stop forced government labeling now.
The creation of a drug is not at all like the modification of a food product. What do you expect to happen to the food that will damage you? I mean, what are testers supposed to look for?
My mention of rBGH had more to do with the controversies concerning the company Monsanto. The US is a minority in advocating rBGH, and past Monsanto crops have proven to be defective.
I do not know what to expect to happen to the food that will damage people. Similarly, Monsanto itself did not expect its crops to be defective. Calgene did not expect its tomato crops to have the problems they had.
I do not know what the testers are supposed to look for. I am not in the field of biotechnology. I am just pointing out that the experts in the technology have made mistakes before, and those mistakes were not discovered until after the products were on the market.
I am sure that testing procedures have improved over the years, especially in light of past failures, and that the risk of any harmful effects will be lessened as the technology develops.
Still, given the past incidents of unforeseen negative effects, I believe there are grounds to be concerned about genetically modified foods.
Defective. That is, didn’t live up to expectation. Not, poisoned millions. Not: gave people headaches, nausea, and flu symptoms. You see what I’m driving at here?
The property “defective” was with respect to growers, not consumers. The label is for (presumably) consumers. If the problems you demonstrate (which have been demonstrated) form a class, this class of problems does not relate to what a label would (I hope) attempt to address.
It’s simple to me it affects market value. This is why the debate is so hot.
I know very well that you people could care less about GMO and think that others should agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that people do care. You can attack the reasoning all that you want, but it’s changing few people’s minds. Don’t you get that?
It doesn’t matter whether you think they’re stupid, overly fearful or using false reasoning. They have a clear preference and are buying foods they otherwise wouldn’t due to misreprentation.
The misrepresentation of the product is important not because of health or nutritional defects but because of market value. They’re being had. Until GMO foods have earned consumer’s trust (not the FDA’s) they should sell for what they’re market value is. Which is probably substantially less right now.
Back to the fake diamonds. Sure the unaware consumer may not know the difference, but if they paid a higher price for something that they didn’t want to buy, they’ve been had. It doesn’t matter whether the fake diamonds could give them cancer or if their as good at cutting glass: the customer was fooled.
But you have not explained why it affects market value. Only that there is some nebulous attribute, which has not been actually defined by anyone, that makes them somehow different…but not really. The alleged market value rests on the presumption that, in your mind, there is a difference, that to buy a GMO without your explicit knowledge is somehow cheating you out of something. So: what is that “something”?
And don’t you get that labelling costs money? Who do you think will ultimately pay for that labelling? The consumer! I, for one, do not wish to pay because of some nebulous concern that people associate with the words “genetically modified”, without understanding what that really means.
**
If that “clear preference” is borne of irrational fears, then, yes, it does matter.
**
Unlabelled GMO foods have been on the market for some time now. Given that no one has been able to tell the difference, I’d say that should count for establishing the consumer’s trust.
**
The value of a diamond is relative to its alleged rarity, not its sparkliness. If I payed good money for what I thought was a rare item, yeah, I’d be upset if it turned out to be synthetic.
It should be obvious, however, that that’s not what you’re paying for when it comes to food. Unless it’s a delicacy, or something, I guess.
It’s not just me it’s apparently a majority of the US population (according to my earlier cite). This isn’t a few wacko’s it’s a prevelant consumer preference. What consequences are you afraid of suffering from labeling?
Food coloring presumable doesn’t cause any health problems, but we have a right to know that it’s been used.
Well I guess as a mammal I share some of the same genes as a mouse, but do you know how many a mouse and a tomato share in common?
Don’t be silly. Can you not see the difference between a genetic engineer and a farmer? One process has been tested over thousands of years across diverse populations, the other process has been tested for less than an average lifetime. You must have some fuzzy glasses.
I understand your opinion, but you are in the minority.
Labeling isn’t about the foods being ok, it’s about the foods being accurately represented. If I thought there was clear evidence they were harmful, I would be advocating banning them rather than labeling them.
Ahh, “fake diamonds” might not have meant zirconium, but rather man-made diamonds. If that’s the case…
If they were using diamonds for cutting glass it wouldn’t have mattered. Similarly, if I was doing work on genome sequencing of tomato strains it would matter. I’m just eating it. I’m not purchasing it as a thing of value, but as a foodsource. It fits those requirements.
