General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPoll shows 80% support among Americans for "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA"
http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdfVia:
But the one I boggled at was the seventh one down. "Mandatory labels on food containing DNA." 80% of those surveyed thought that was a good idea, only slightly less than those demanding mandatory labels on GMO foods. But, but, but, you splutter, thats basically everything. If its food thats made from organisms, its tainted with DNA. I tried to think of what I could buy at the grocery store that might be DNA-free, and I came up with heavily sugared sodas, maybe? Those cheese products that taste like theyre made from petroleum? Bottled water?
All those lovely things touted as good and healthy for you fresh fruits and vegetables, for instance, and even those things that might not be so good for you, like bacon are full of DNA.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/01/17/the-most-dangerous-additive/
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)When reading that headline I was sure that a word or two had been left out of it. Sigh!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I cant believe 80% are that ignorant.
Arkansas Granny
(31,518 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Are 80% that clueless?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)Doesn't the law require them already?
I thought the law required ingredient labels on all food. That would include food containing DNA.
That's not what the question means? Seems to me that's what it says. Some responders may have taken it to mean what it says.
Igel
(35,320 posts)Check out that next apple or banana you buy at the store.
Looking at bananas right now. No warning labels. No nutritional content labels. Just a little round thing that gives the cashier the right code and identifies them as bananas. (Just in case the cashier fails to recognize them as bananas, no doubt. Easily confused with fish and figs, those bananas.)
We mock a survey that says, "Most people have their thumbs up their butts ... at the same time they're sucking their thumbs."
Then we cite one as solid support when those same "most people" have something "wise" to say. Sort of the very definition of "confirmation bias."
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)That stuff is NASTY!
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
~ snip ~
Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.
~ snip ~
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
> Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
> Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
> Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
> DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
> Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
> Contributes to soil erosion.
> Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
> Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
> Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
> Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
> Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
~ snip ~