Labelling GMO foods

[Angry Citizen]

Goodness, requiring a the words "contains genetically modified organisms" is hardly an onerous regulation, particularly when it turns out there are a large number of people who want to know where their foods comes from and what to make an informed choice.

As to the putative benefits of GMOs, all are open to skepticism, not because of the potential for the technology but rather because of how it is currently being implemented.

It eludes me as to why those who wish to remain ignorant of what they're eating should be permitted to impose their willful ignorance on others.

It seems some don't agree, that the public should be informed, and in fact should be kept as ignorant as possible. Odd position to take, unless of course one is profiting from the ignorance.

AGAIN, an informed choice already exists. People who care about genetically modified organisms can guarantee that they are not purchasing a genetically modified organism by buying only organic foods. That you fail to address this key point of mine is only evidence that you wish to demonize GMO for political reasons.

[barts]

I'm wondering what those who are sanguine about the safety of GMOs make of the study, Genetically Modified Food, Risk Assessment and Scientific Uncertainty Principles: Does the New Understanding of the Networked Gene Trigger the Need for Post-Market Surveillance to Protect Public Health? which states, in part,

The FDA’s regulatory presumption of bioequivalence is based on the now dated Central Dogma of molecular biology. According to the Central Dogma, a gene is a static stretch of genetic code that acts like a blueprint, or a complete set of instructions, on how to build a protein. Based on this model, scientists have presumed that a gene from any organism can be precisely excised and neatly, predictably and safely moved into another organism.

Directly contrary to the Central Dogma, in the past year numerous scientific discoveries involving the network effects of junk DNA, hybrid mRNA, SNPs and epigenetics have created a new model of a Networked Gene. Instead of viewing DNA as just a string of biological code, scientists now know that genes operate in a highly contextual way, engaging in intricate biochemical cross-talk. Consequently, changing the context in which a gene operates can change the way the gene works. And changing how even one gene works can have a ‘butterfly effect’ on the entire organism. Critically, epigenetics and epigenetic inheritance explain that these unintended consequences can be passed on to future generations and may not manifest themselves until triggered by external environmental factors.

In the context of GM foods, a genetic modification changes the biochemical cross-talk between genes, creating genetic material that has never existed before in nature. This novel genetic material can create unintended health risks, as seen with the case of the GM peas that contained a novel and unexpected allergenic protein and primed test mice to react to other allergens. The bottom line is that the scientific acceptance of the existence of the networked gene establishes that the FDA’s presumption that GM plant food is bioequivalent to traditional plant food is no longer scientifically supportable and that a new system for GM plant food regulation is required.

Given the uncertainties, labeling is called for.

[barts]

That you fail to address this key point of mine is only evidence that you wish to demonize GMO for political reasons.

What political reasons? I suppose it is wrong-headed in your view not to blithely accept the assurances of major corporations that are known to engage in immoral behavior and break laws, and the politicians whom they fund?

Why I wonder, too, should the default be GMOs and the exception be "organic"? "Organic" is the real food, GMOs are the manufactured foods for which safety is yet to be assured over the long term. Both organic and GMOs should be labelled. The latter should not be exempt, because some will not accept the mounting evidence about the dangers of GMO technology being misused by agri-business, and who may be enamored uncritically with shiny new technologies.

[crimethinker]

Why I wonder, too, should the default be GMOs and the exception be "organic"? "Organic" is the real food, GMOs are the manufactured foods for which safety is yet to be assured over the long term. Both organic and GMOs should be labelled. The latter should not be exempt, because some will not accept the mounting evidence about the dangers of GMO technology being misused by agri-business, and who may be enamored uncritically with shiny new technologies.

Organic food is regulated because corporations (known to engage in immoral behavior) use that as a selling point. They say it's organic to cast aspersions on GMO foods. So their claim is subject to a burden of proof -- that the thing they're marketing as organic is actually organic. GMO foods make no such claims. A banana's a banana. If they claimed to be GMO, or non-organic, they'd have to prove it as well.

So can I ask, in your view, what is Norman Borlaug? Hitler x100? I'm sure the millions he saved would find that insulting.

[SoylentGreen]

From a nutritional standpoint, they shouldn't have to. GMO products exists because of their increased yield capacity, leading to fewer deaths by starvation..

Not actually proven yet, and still gives us the problem that GM crops are controlled by companies not growers

When that possible defect is not supported by science, then yes

Then when you manage to prove there are no defects with GM then you can use that argument.

[SoylentGreen]

There is a very easy way for a concerned consumer to avoid eating genetically modified produce. I have already discussed it: organic foods, the marketing of which is heavily regulated. Instead of stigmatizing one group, be happy that another group is marketed explicitly as non-GMO. No consumer choice is violated in this process.

You are of course ignoring the fact that GM companies have no ability to prevent cross pollination.
Consumer choice is reduced by contamination. GM is pollution clear and simple.

[Angry Citizen]

You are of course ignoring the fact that GM companies have no ability to prevent cross pollination.

Would the maize growers who first domesticated corn feel similarly? You say genetically modified cross pollination occurs; I say it has been happening since the dawn of agriculture. You do remember that genetic modification occurs every day through natural means, yes?

Not actually proven yet, and still gives us the problem that GM crops are controlled by companies not growers

I would like to enshrine this statement as the true reason behind the GMO concern.

[SoylentGreen]

AGAIN, an informed choice already exists. People who care about genetically modified organisms can guarantee that they are not purchasing a genetically modified organism by buying only organic foods. That you fail to address this key point of mine is only evidence that you wish to demonize GMO for political reasons.

Bullshit, back what you say up.

Organic Farmers Fight Genetic Pollution

Organic farmers are having an increasingly difficult time preventing
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from migrating into their fields. And
organic food companies are struggling to ensure the integrity of their
products. For consumers who demand organic foods, the alarm bells are
ringing.

In April, The Wall Street Journal tested twenty food products labeled "GMO
free" and found that sixteen of them contained at least traces of
genetically modified ingredients; five had significant amounts. One of the
companies testing positive, albeit with trace amounts, was Nature's Path
Foods, the largest organic cereal company in the world.

"We have found traces in corn that has been grown organically for ten to
fifteen years," Arran Stephens, president of Nature's Path Foods, told The
New York Times in June. "There's no wall high enough to keep that stuff
contained."

You are just giving us your completely uninformed opinion.

[SoylentGreen]

Would the maize growers who first domesticated corn feel similarly? You say genetically modified cross pollination occurs; I say it has been happening since the dawn of agriculture. You do remember that genetic modification occurs every day through natural means, yes?



I would like to enshrine this statement as the true reason behind the GMO concern.

Again bullshit, if you are comparing natural modifications made by cross breeding with GM then you are doing nothing more than displaying your complete ignorance on the subject.
NERC - What is the difference between selective breeding and genetic modification?

Both selective breeding and genetic modification are useful techniques, but genetic modification can produce a wide range of characteristics that are not possible with selective breeding.

[SoylentGreen]

I would like to enshrine this statement as the true reason behind the GMO concern.

Really! does that mean you will finally drop the use of your ridiculous strawman?

[LetThereBe]

I think there are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Does it make sense to mandate labeling something if there is no objective or scientifically supported concern?

2. Is there any objective or scientifically supported concern for GMO on human health?

[SoylentGreen]

I think there are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Does it make sense to mandate labeling something if there is no objective or scientifically supported concern?

And why are we being concerned with "if there is no objective or scientifically supported concern"?
Do you have a concern about the methods used to study crop contamination?

2. Is there any objective or scientifically supported concern for GMO on human health?

Why is human health the only issue?