GMO is not an ingredient. We don't list chemical elements of ingredients. When you buy that "super sweet" corn from the stand, no special label, but it contains more sugar. It's a hybrid. We don't formaldehyde as an ingredient in pears, but it's in there. That's the line. I'm not afraid of anything. I don't want to pay for something because you are.If someone is making a profit on the technique, and especially if the technique is patented to protect someone's profits, it should be labelled, IMO. Lois
GMO is not an ingredient. We don't list chemical elements of ingredients. When you buy that "super sweet" corn from the stand, no special label, but it contains more sugar. It's a hybrid. We don't formaldehyde as an ingredient in pears, but it's in there. That's the line. I'm not afraid of anything. I don't want to pay for something because you are.If someone is making a profit on the technique, and especially if the technique is patented to protect someone's profits, it should be labelled, IMO. Lois You are asking too many questions. If you don't answers to those questions, maybe you shouldn't be engaging in this conversation. It's not my job to educate you. I provided a link at the beginning. That's a good place to start and it has links to sites with more links. You can't claim that anything is being hidden from you. I will answer this one, "If GMOs are safe why is there so much resistance to saying they are being used?" Because organic food producers think it helps with their profits. Follow the money, that's who is behind the anti-GMO movement. Why people believe what they are told by internet sites and junk mail, I can't answer that. There are way too many examples of that to say it is anything but human nature.
GMO is not an ingredient. We don't list chemical elements of ingredients. When you buy that "super sweet" corn from the stand, no special label, but it contains more sugar. It's a hybrid. We don't formaldehyde as an ingredient in pears, but it's in there. That's the line. I'm not afraid of anything. I don't want to pay for something because you are.If someone is making a profit on the technique, and especially if the technique is patented to protect someone's profits, it should be labelled, IMO. Lois You are asking too many questions. If you don't answers to those questions, maybe you shouldn't be engaging in this conversation. It's not my job to educate you. I provided a link at the beginning. That's a good place to start and it has links to sites with more links. You can't claim that anything is being hidden from you. What questions am I asking too often? I wasn't actually asking questions so much as expressing my opinion that GMOs should be labeled. This has somehow set you off. What's the problem? I will answer this one, "If GMOs are safe why is there so much resistance to saying they are being used?" Because organic food producers think it helps with their profits. Follow the money, that's who is behind the anti-GMO movement. Why people believe what they are told by internet sites and junk mail, I can't answer that. There are way too many examples of that to say it is anything but human nature.
What questions am I asking too often? I wasn't actually asking questions so much as expressing my opinion that GMOs should be labeled. This has somehow set you off. What's the problem?I didn't say anything about "often". You posted three times in a row and opened a bunch of new lines of questioning. All of which are answerable via Google and/or links already provided. I'm not going to put in all the effort here.
What questions am I asking too often? I wasn't actually asking questions so much as expressing my opinion that GMOs should be labeled. This has somehow set you off. What's the problem?I didn't say anything about "often". You posted three times in a row and opened a bunch of new lines of questioning. All of which are answerable via Google and/or links already provided. I'm not going to put in all the effort here. Ok, you said "too many." Is there a limit to how many questions can be asked, especially rhetorical ones? You ask plenty, yourself that could be answered via Google. Lois
The fact that I and a lot of people want to know how many calories, fat, sugar, salt and added chemicals are in my food does not mean I am afraid of it or that someone is using it as "scare tactics." Don't you want you know? Do you want to know what's inthe medicines you prescribe or do you just want to trust the government that everything is all right and that anyone who wants to know is just using scare tactics? If GMOs are safe why is there so much resistance to saying they are being used? It shouldn't matter how long crops have been genetically altered, either. But I'm willing to compromise. All crops genetically altered in modern laboratories using gene splicing and other such techniques invented since, say, 1950, and all croos developed using patented seeds should be labeled. I don't think that's asking too much. For the record, I am not against GMOs. I am against secrecy. The fact that I want to know what artificial preservatives are in my food, fr example, does not mean I am afraid of them or want to stop their use. I just want to know what they are and how much is in my food. Labeling has been the law for decades. Why should we suddenly want to stop labeling because some corporations are afraid it will eat into their profits if the public knows what they are doing? Check out the inserts required by law in any prescription medicine and let me know what information you'd like to leave out. Would it be ok with you if it says only "contains chemicals"? LoisLois the reason labeling is wrong is that it implies there is something dangerous about these foods (why label them unless there is some danger?). To someone who is ignorant of the fact ( 99% of the public) it will create unwarranted concern. Already a number of retailers are refusing to carry GMO's for exactly that reason. They know there is a significant portion of the population that has already been convinced that these foods are somehow unhealthy. I'm curious why you think there is a difference between foods genetically engineered before 1950? You are buying into the false dichotomy that the anti-GMO faction often employs. There is no scientific reason to assume that foods created through selective breeding are any safer than those developed with modern genetic techniques. In fact selective breeding uses random mutations rather than carefully selected genetic alterations so if anything its less safe. Labeling foods as GMO or not does not give people more information about their foods unless they are educated. When they are misinformed as nearly everyone is on this issue the label further misinforms people which will result in fewer choices and more expensive food when retailers and manufacturers remove these choices because of a fear of backlash from a misinformed public. That's why labels should not be required or even allowed.
What questions am I asking too often? I wasn't actually asking questions so much as expressing my opinion that GMOs should be labeled. This has somehow set you off. What's the problem?I didn't say anything about "often". You posted three times in a row and opened a bunch of new lines of questioning. All of which are answerable via Google and/or links already provided. I'm not going to put in all the effort here. Ok, you said "too many." Is there a limit to how many questions can be asked, especially rhetorical ones? You ask plenty, yourself that could be answered via Google. Lois I just explained my limit and my reasoning. There you go with the questions again. They aren't rhetorical if they are based on bad data. You just think they are rhetorical. And go ahead, google what I say, prove me wrong. I was wrong about GMO's once, then I read a book.
The fact that I and a lot of people want to know how many calories, fat, sugar, salt and added chemicals are in my food does not mean I am afraid of it or that someone is using it as "scare tactics." Don't you want you know? Do you want to know what's inthe medicines you prescribe or do you just want to trust the government that everything is all right and that anyone who wants to know is just using scare tactics? If GMOs are safe why is there so much resistance to saying they are being used? It shouldn't matter how long crops have been genetically altered, either. But I'm willing to compromise. All crops genetically altered in modern laboratories using gene splicing and other such techniques invented since, say, 1950, and all croos developed using patented seeds should be labeled. I don't think that's asking too much. For the record, I am not against GMOs. I am against secrecy. The fact that I want to know what artificial preservatives are in my food, fr example, does not mean I am afraid of them or want to stop their use. I just want to know what they are and how much is in my food. Labeling has been the law for decades. Why should we suddenly want to stop labeling because some corporations are afraid it will eat into their profits if the public knows what they are doing? Check out the inserts required by law in any prescription medicine and let me know what information you'd like to leave out. Would it be ok with you if it says only "contains chemicals"? LoisLois the reason labeling is wrong is that it implies there is something dangerous about these foods (why label them unless there is some danger?). Do you feel the same way about labeling medicines, that it implies there is something dangerous about the ingredients and that if people know about them that they might avoid them? To someone who is ignorant of the fact ( 99% of the public) it will create unwarranted concern. Already a number of retailers are refusing to carry GMO's for exactly that reason. Shouldn't that be their prerogative and right? There are thousands if medications that people won't take or that some doctors won't prescribe because they could cause bad reactions. Shouldn't they have the right to be informed? Or do you think drug ingredients should be kept out of the public view beccause some people might avoid them? It sounds as if you are syaing, "Keep the public ignorant for their own good." They know there is a significant portion of the population that has already been convinced that these foods are somehow unhealthy. Just as a significant portion of the population has been convinced that certain medicines are unhealthy. Do you really want an uninformed public because some people might think the foods or medicines are unhealthy? People should know what they are ingesting, but you seem to be saying they should be kept in the dark. I'm curious why you think there is a difference between foods genetically engineered before 1950? I merely offered that date as a cut off point to end the threats from those who are against labeling. They will always claim that crops that are manipulated using grafting and other benign techniques are the same as what is being done in laboratories today--techniques that are considered so lucrative that they require patents and other protections, such as a campaign against labeling and other scare tactics. You are buying into the false dichotomy that the anti-GMO faction often employs. Just as I think you are buying into the false premises that the anti-labeling faction employs. There is no scientific reason to assume that foods created through selective breeding are any safer than those developed with modern genetic techniques. In fact selective breeding uses random mutations rather than carefully selected genetic alterations so if anything its less safe. If you are so sure it's safe why are you against labeling? Labeling foods as GMO or not does not give people more information about their foods unless they are educated. You could say exactly the same thing about labeling pharmaceuticals--or labeling foods of any kind. Are you really in favor of not labeling drugs and prepared foods because people are not educated enough? Because you think they can't be trusted with information about how their food is grown? Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can't be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat? Who is to make those decisions? Those who are making a profit on the techniques? That sounds dangerous and elitist to me. When they are misinformed as nearly everyone is on this issue the label further misinforms people which will result in fewer choices and more expensive food when retailers and manufacturers remove these choices because of a fear of backlash from a misinformed public. That's why labels should not be required or even allowed. So, can we expect you to join the campaign to end the labeling of pharmaceuticals and nutrition labeling on foods beause it will mean "more expensive food and drugs because of fear of backlash from a misinformed public"? Do you take the position that labels on drugs and prepared foods should be banned and will you campaign against them with the same amount of zeal you campaign against labeling GMOs?
You’re being ridiculous Lois. Medicine actually IS dangerous. You have to have a professional sign off on you taking it.
As I’ve stated a couple times, if you want to know how your food is grown, you can easily find out. If you want to see the chicken you eat while it’s still alive, it’s not that hard these days. Not the one you get at McDonald’s, but if you want a local chicken, you can find one.
Slapping a label on a box doesn’t in inform people of much. You still have to understand it. The ingredients labels we have already confuse people. Have you heard of the “Food Babe"? She reads labels and sees long chemical names and says she won’t ingest those things. It doesn’t matter that it’s just the chemical term for salt, she is afraid of something she doesn’t understand and she is quite popular for spreading that fear.
It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That’s why we have labels and advertising laws. You’re grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.
I changed my mind about labeling GM foods specifically because people are not rational. As others have stated, GM foods have no different nutritional content than what is considered traditional food.
Fentanyl: drug 50 times more potent than heroin ravages New Hampshire
Of 69 fatal overdose victims last year, 68% had taken the synthetic opioid, which Mexican cartels have learned to make and smuggle to interstate highways. The drug ‘is what is killing our citizens,’ says Manchester’s police chief
Let’s not tell anyone–people might stop buying it! What then?
Lois
You’re being ridiculous Lois. Medicine actually IS dangerous. You have to have a professional sign off on you taking it. As I’ve stated a couple times, if you want to know how your food is grown, you can easily find out. If you want to see the chicken you eat while it’s still alive, it’s not that hard these days. Not the one you get at McDonald's, but if you want a local chicken, you can find one. Slapping a label on a box doesn't in inform people of much. You still have to understand it. The ingredients labels we have already confuse people. Have you heard of the “Food Babe"? She reads labels and sees long chemical names and says she won’t ingest those things. It doesn’t matter that it’s just the chemical term for salt, she is afraid of something she doesn’t understand and she is quite popular for spreading that fear. It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
I changed my mind about labeling GM foods specifically because people are not rational. As others have stated, GM foods have no different nutritional content than what is considered traditional food.It's not just a matter of nutritional information. We still have nutritional labels. Do you want to do away with them? How do you know that GMO foods are all safe? Where do you get your information? Lois
Fentanyl: drug 50 times more potent than heroin ravages New Hampshire Of 69 fatal overdose victims last year, 68% had taken the synthetic opioid, which Mexican cartels have learned to make and smuggle to interstate highways. The drug ‘is what is killing our citizens,’ says Manchester’s police chief http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/fentanyl-drug-heroin-new-hampshire-mexico-cartels?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Version+CB+header&utm_term=154839&subid=8282399&CMP=ema_565b Let's not tell anyone--people might stop buying it! What then? LoisThere is no way to connect people illegally injecting Fentanyl and labeling GMOs. I honestly don't see how the two are even faintly related. But regardless of whether there is a connection between drug abuse and food labeling, I guarantee you that labeling GMOs on food will cause problems, while not labeling them will cause no problems. Again, I compare this to anti-vaccination groups who simply don't know or believe the science. This is only an issue to conspiracy theory lovers. What purpose do you see in labeling them if for all practical purposes GMO food and nonGMO food are the same?
I changed my mind about labeling GM foods specifically because people are not rational. As others have stated, GM foods have no different nutritional content than what is considered traditional food.It's not just a matter of nutritional information. We still have nutritional labels. Do you want to do away with them? How do you know that GMO foods are all safe? Where do you get your information? Lois I did not advocate doing away with nutritional labels. I was thinking of mentioning them when typing my comment, but did not. Perhaps I should have to make myself more clear. We need nutritional labels because we need to know what goes into our bodies. I am diabetic and have to stay away from sugar, carbs and fat. Without nutritional labels I would not be able to purchase any prepared foods. I am confident GM foods are safe because I did research on them a few years ago (as mentioned a few pages back in this thread) and the only studies I found that concluded they are not safe were seriously flawed. I got my information from then-current peer reviewed research. My mind is open, but the best evidence we have right now is that GM foods are safe to eat. We can argue possible environmental side effects, but as I also mentioned earlier we need GM foods to cope with climate change and feed the growing world population. The alternative is mass unprecedented starvation worldwide. I cannot think of any ethical theory which supports the latter.
The comparison of GMO labeling with foods or prescription drugs is not valid. As already mentioned, prescriptions do have side effects and can be harmful. Therefore label them. Some foods can also be harmful for some people. Therefore label them. GMOs? Well unless they pose a health risk compared to non-GMO food, I don’t see the need to label. So far there is no good evidence of risk from GMO food.
I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case.It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
Here are a few of the GMO techniques being used on food crops. I think food crops grown with these techniques should carry labels saying which techniques have been used. Are you comfortable eating and feeding these products to your family without knowing how the food crops were manipulated? Can you be 100% sure that there is no danger in any of it to the point that you don’t even want to know what techniques are being used?
Bacterial Carriers
Bacterial carriers can be very effective for delivering DNA. Typically, a bacterium would be prepped in a solution that makes the cell walls extremely porous. The chosen gene would then be inserted into a plasmid and put in the solution. After heating the solution, the plasmid is able to ‘merge’ with the bacterium and show the new gene. Once the genetically modified bacterium recovers and grows, it can make additional replicates of the new gene. After infecting the targeted plant, it can deliver the plasmid and the new gene.
Calcium Phosphate Precipitation
In this biotechnology technique, the chosen DNA would be exposed to calcium phosphate, which results in the creation of miniscule granules. The targeted cells react to the granules by essentially ‘swarming’ them and ingesting them, thereby facilitating the granule release of DNA and the subsequent delivery to the host’s nuclei and chromosomes.
Using Electroporation To Create GM Organisms
In electroporation, the prepped target cells are saturated in a solution with the chosen DNA. A brief but strong electric shock is transmitted through the solution, causing little tears in the walls of the cells. This allows for the new genetic material to penetrate the nuclei. Afterwards, the cells are put in a different solution that coaxes the repair of their walls, which works to ‘trap’ the DNA of the donor in the cell. The chosen DNA becomes joined with the host chromosomes to give the host this new gene.
Biolistocs For GM Technology
This technique uses the chosen DNA to attach it to tiny gold particles. The particles – now ‘carrying’ DNA – are forced into the target cells using an intense burst of gas.
Gene Silencing Technique
With GM techniques, they are sometimes used to remove a gene that is responsible for an undesirable trait. When gene silencing is used, the gene that is responsible for this trait will first be identified in the organism. Then, another copy of the gene is attached but in the other direction, which prevents the expression of that trait. For instance, an allergen that triggers an allergic reaction in humans could be ‘silenced’ in this manner.
Gene Splicing
With this GM technique, biotechnologists can modify DNA, and then insert it into target host cells to allow for genes and resulting traits to be modified. An enzyme is then used to fuse the newly added gene into the chromosome.
Using A Viral Carrier
A virus can make an effective carrier for modifying an organism. The virus chosen will be one that does not cause any kind of disease or death. Through the addition of the chosen DNA to the virus genome, the virus can infect the target. Once the virus invades the cell and makes copies of itself, the chosen DNA can be added to the targeted cell.
There are other techniques such as lipofection or microinjection, which show how vast the array of techniques is for modifying an organism. Care always has to be taken to choose the most effective technique to produce the desired result. While GM foods will likely continue to be controversial, the techniques that allow for their creation will also continue to advance at a rapid pace.
Issues surrounding GMO technology
A worrisome issue in GM foods is the ability of a food to trigger an allergy in humans. Some of the genes used in GM technology might be taken from a food that causes allergies in some people. Inserting that gene into another organism could cause the host organism to express that allergen as a trait. Alternately, a new allergen could be produced when genes are mixed across different species.
Another potential downside to GM technology is that other organisms in the ecosystem could be harmed, which would lead to a lower level of biodiversity. By removing one pest that harms the crop, you could be removing a food source for an animal. Also, GM crops could prove toxic to an organism in the environment, leading to reduced numbers or extinction of that organism.
Given that some GM foods are modified using bacteria and viruses, there is a fear that we will see the emergence of new diseases. The threat to human health is a worrisome aspect of GM technology and one that has received a great deal of debate.
I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case. Looks like a black or white issue happening here....It’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois
I never said I didn't support the current labeling laws. I said there are reasons for those laws and GMO does not fall under those reasons. You are the one who tried this false equivalency argument about drugs. Sugar is bad for you in too high of quantities. Sodium is bad for some people. Peanuts cause severe reactions in some people. Those have labels. Simple. If you want labels about GMOs, make a case for it. Simply wanting it is not a case. Looks like a black or white issue happening here.... What's black and what's white? I HAVE made a case for labeling. You have simply rejected it. You apparemtly want to be kept in the dark. How about you making a case for not labeling. I have yet to hear a valid one. LoisIt’s hard to believe you even asked, “Do you really think the general population is so ignorant that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about what they eat?“, Umm, yes, I think that. That's why we have labels and advertising laws. You're grabbing at random facts now and typing without thinking.So now you are SUPPORTING labels and advertising laws? What happened? Lois