Should labels be required on GM foods?

[Delano]

Should labels be required on all Genetically Modified food products??

[Paragon]

1. The "danger" of GM foods is hype.

Give it up - GM foods have fed billions of starving people.

[Kellanved]

2. as is the "fed billions of starving people"

so what?

[Paragon]

6. Uh, no it isn't.

GM foods have enabled crops to grow in areas of the world they might not otherwise have had much success. Billions of people fed. FACT.

I guess you're pro-starvation. :shrug:

[Kellanved]

16. I don't think so

GM crops are more expensive than normal crops and their advantages only appear with very large-scale farming with lots of pesticides.

Large-scale Farming and cash-crops is one of the reasons that billions of people are starving in the first place, so I don't really see how GM crops can offer any hope to solve the problem.

So don't even start with a cheap line like "pro-starvation", better remember than the Gene-corps don't tend to be altruistic: they want money; for the Farmers that's one more person to pay.

[Delano]

20. You've yet to cite an example.

The food supply today would be prretty much the same today if tthere were no GM.

Did you know they are GM'ing cows so that they produce three times morre milk, even when the hormone-pumped cows are already producing surpus milk? And yet the price of milk continues to skyrocket.

And those of us who don't want to eat the frankenfoods - what are these companies doing to see to it that their crops don't contaminate normal food supplies via pollination?

NOTHING.

[Paragon]

23. Here you go.

http://normanborlaug.org/links.htm

[Delano]

26. EDIT. My mistake.

Not THAT heritage foundation. Will read.

[sangh0]

78. No Delano, you were right

GM crops will not prevent starvation or malnutrition because the world already produces enough food to feed everyone. The only reason why there are still famines is due to political obstacles, and not because of any shortage of food.

[Delano]

122. The mistake I was referring to...

Wass thinking that the link he provided was the right-wing think tank, "The Heritage Foundation". The name is similar, but there's no connection I could find (but we can only guess where their funding comes from) I didn't want to unjustly accuse someone of using right-wing sources.

[tkmorris]

7. Call me crazy

but I don't think that monopolizing the world food supply is a particularly good idea.

[IrateCitizen]

8. They've also instigated suicide increases in India

As the BJP opened up Indian agricultural markets to GM products, suicide rates among Indian farmers spiked dramatically. This was a result of many of the farmers being forced off their land due to the accompanying centralization and consolidation of farming that accompanies genetically modified foods.

In Mexico, farmers are facing a complete loss of biodiversity in corn attained over centuries, due to the introduction of GM corn. Many of these farmers are also being forced off their land.

You claim that GM foods have fed billions of starving people. Could you please cite how these people were fed by GM foods but could not have been fed by non-GM foods? Could you also please cite examples?

While you're at it, could you please tell me how to address the mutation of pests, viruses and bacteria in response to genetic modification, and how to deal with the more virulent and hardy strains that are certain to develop in the future (or are developing now)?

Thanks.

[Paragon]

Sure.

As soon as you cite reputable sources for all the claims you just made.

[Delano]

22. YOU'RE the one trying to foist off experimental foods on unwitting public.

YOU (and the industries you are playing apologist for) are the ones who have an obligation to PROVE that they are safe, effective, and will not be released into the biosphere (of course, in many cases, it''s already too late)

[Paragon]

28. There are innumerable products on the market that are untested long-term

Psychiatric drugs, cell phones, the "triple cocktail" for HIV, power lines, friggin' Atkins...

Let's bury 'em all until we have long-term studies done, regardless of who benefits. Oh, wait -- then we couldn't do long-term studies...

[Delano]

33. In all those cases, the consumer knows what he's buying.

The industry is not telling people that they are eating frankenfoods. If they are so great, why are you afraid to label them? Surrely consumers would overwhelmingly choose your superior product, right, Mr. ADM apologist?

[IrateCitizen]

Fine -- here's a few after just a quick search...

Although these don't necessarily represent the sources from which I first read these claims (I'm going off of memory here), at least I can provide you something to help support my claims.

WRT Mexican corn biodiversity being threatened:
http://www.thecampaign.org/analysis/analysis042002.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/newsweekcorn012502.cfm

Indian farmer suicides:
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0205StoneIndia.htm
http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/9905suic/suicide2.htm#conclusion

And a bonus on transgenics:
http://www.patagonia.com/sports/fish_enviro.shtml

[treepig]

43. you do know that the mexican corn biodiversity study

has been thoroughly debunked, don't you?

[IrateCitizen]

49. Thoroughly debunked? By whom?

Please provide supporting documentation, and I'll judge for myself.

[treepig]

52. by non-google sources . . .

The original study, published in Nature after shoddy peer review:

Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico.
Nature. 2001 Nov 29;414(6863):541-3.


Debunked by "Members of the Editorial Board of Transgenic Research, and a number of other scientists with many decades of experience
in the area of transgenics"

Transgenic Res. 2002 Feb;11(1):iii-v. Related Articles, Links

No credible scientific evidence is presented to support claims that transgenic DNA was introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico.

Because maize and its progenitor are wind-pollinated and capable of outcrossing, the eventual introgression of transgenes from commercial hybrids into landraces and wild relatives is likely should they be grown in close proximity. On 14th November 2001, a paper was published in the journal Nature which claimed for the first time to present evidence that transgene DNA had introgressed from commercially-released transgenic maize varieties into traditional landraces. It is not surprising that a scientific paper with such a strong claim in the title would be seized upon by the media and the public, including those who have been working with transgenic plants for many years. What is very surprising, however, is that a manuscript with so many fundamental flaws was published in a scientific journal that normally has very stringent criteria for accepting manuscripts for publication.

Members of the Editorial Board of Transgenic Research, and a number
of other scientists with many decades of experience in the area of transgenics, have provided comments that indeed demonstrate that the data presented in the published article are mere artifacts resulting from poor experimental design and practices. Consequently, this editorial focuses strictly on a purely scientific analysis of the data presented in the manuscript. We will not address implications or consequences if such an event had actually happened, as this is beyond the scope of this analysis. Our conclusion following detailed analysis of the results presented in this paper is that no credible scientific evidence is presented in the paper to support claims made by the authors that gene flow between transgenic maize and traditional maize landraces has taken place.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

118. "Thoroughly debunked"?

I don't see any actual debunking here, just an unsupported assertion that the article has been debunked.

[treepig]

123. Transgenics Research

is a peer-reviewed journal, if you wish to characterize their statements as "unsupported assertions" so be it - such as comment fit's nicely into this thread.

you are free of course, to consult the entire article to see the "nuts and bolts" of the issue (unfortunately, due to copyright issues, i am apparently not allowed to reproduce the article in it's entirety here).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

137. Who is the publisher? Where can I get a copy?

Could you please list the banner info, with the name and address of the publisher?


Who are the 'peers' who are supposedly doing the review? Are they in the employ of the corporations pushing GM food or are they independent?


I note, that you have not disputed the fact that you did not include any actual 'debunking', rather, you simply repeated the assertion.



Is it true?

[treepig]

141. the long reach of monsanto . . .

this company appears to be more influential outside the usa than most people believe . . .

in any event, these are the people who "debunked" the mexican maize story:

Editor:
Paul Christou
Fraunhofer IME, Schmallenberg, Germany
Bruce Whitelaw
Roslin Institute, Midlothian, UK

Editorial Board:
Zsuzsa Bosze, Agricultural Research Centre, Godollo, Hungary;
Diego Breviario, Consiglio Nazionale del Ricerche, Milan, Italy;
Ken Brown, CXR Biosciences Limited, Dundee, UK;
Teresa Capell, Fraunhofer IME, Schmallenberg, Germany;
Swapan Datta, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, The Philippines;
Isabel Diaz, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain;
Thomas Doetschman, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA;
Rainer Fischer, RWTH Aachen, Germany;
Roy Forster, Centre Internationale de Toxicologie, Evreux, France;
John D. Gearhart, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA;
Frank G. Grosveld, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
Emmanuel Guiderdoni, CIRAD, Montpellier, France;
Perry B. Hackett, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA;
Lothar Hennighausen, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA;
Luis Herrera Estrella, CINVESTAV, Irapuato, Mexico;
Elizabeth E. Hood, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, USA;
John G. Mason, Florigene Ltd., Collingwood, Vict., Australia;
Lluis Montoliu, CNB-CSIC, Madrid, Spain; Mathias Müller, VUW, Wien, Austria;
Nickolas Panopoulos, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece;
Mario Pezzotti, Università di Verona, Italy;
Carl A. Pinkert, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, NY, USA;
Christine Pourcel, INSERM, Nantes, France;
Hector Quemada, Crop Technology Consulting, Inc., Kalamazoo, MI, USA;
Frank H. Ruddle, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA;
Helen Sang, Roslin Institute, Midlothian, UK;
Stefan Schillberg, Fraunhofer-Institut for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology IME, Aachen, Germany;
Andrew J.H. Smith, University of Edinburgh, UK;
David A. Somers, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA;
Eva Stöger, RWTH/ Biology VII, Aachen, Germany;
Akhilesh K. Tyagi, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India;
Jean-Luc Vilotte, INRA-CRJ, Jouy-en-Josas, France;
Robert J. Wall, Gene Evaluation and Mapping Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA;
Ken-Ichi Yamamura, Kumamoto University Medical School, Japan

[sangh0]

79. There was also an article in yesterday's NY Times

or it may have been Sunday's NY Times.

[buddhamama]

36. here's one Dr.Vandana Shiva

she resides in India and she is a Physicist.

Happy reading

http://www.vshiva.net/index.html

[buddhamama]

53. Suppressing the Safety Debate:

Examples of Bad Science Parading as Good Science

(this is a small excerpt of a paper written by Dr.Vandana Shiva on GMO)

3.2 Suppressing the Safety Debate: Examples of Bad Science Parading as Good Science

The safety debate has been repeatedly suppressed by bad science parading as good science. One of the unscientific strategies used to extinguish the safety discussion is to tautologically define a novel organism or novel food created through genetic engineering as "substantially equivalent" to conventional organisms and foods. However, a genetically engineered crop or food is different because it has genes from unrelated organisms -- it cannot, therefore, be treated as equivalent to a non-genetically engineered crop or food. In fact, the biotechnology industry itself gives up the claim of "substantial equivalence" when it claims patents on GMOs on grounds of novelty.

While governments and government agencies which are promoting genetic engineering refer to "good science" as the basis for their decisions, they are manipulating scientific data and research to promote the interests of the biotechnology industry while putting citizen health and the environment at risk. The report of the scientists of EPA titled "Genetic Gene: The premature commercial release of genetically engineered bacteria" and the report by Andrew Christiansen "Recombinant Bovine Growth Harmone: Alarming Tests, Unfounded Approval: The Story Behind the Rush to Bring rBGH to the market" show in detail how regulatory agencies have been manipulated on issues of safety. Scientific agencies have been split and polarised into two communities - a corporate science community and a public science community. The corporate science community participates in distorting and manipulating science. Among the distortions of corporate science is the assumption of "substantial equivalence" which is falsified both by the research done by the public science community as well as by the "intellectual property rights" claims of the biotechnology industry itself.

When industry wants to avoid risk assessment and issues of liability, the argument used is that the genetically engineered organism is "substantially equivalent" to the non engineered parent. However, when industry wants property rights, the same Geo becomes "novel" or substantially inequivalent to the parent organism.

When safety and intellectual property rights discourses of the genetic engineering industry is put side by side what emerges is an unscientific, incoherent undemocratic structure for total control through which absolute rights are claimed and all responsibility is denied and disclaimed.

This ontological schizophrenia is based on and leads to incoherence, which is a characteristic of bad science. Good science is based on coherence. The consistency and incoherence between the discourse on property rights and the discourse on issues of safety contributes to an undemocratic structure in which there are no mechanisms to protect citizens from corporate irresponsibility.

A similar display of ontological schizophrenia and is seen in the argument that without genetic engineering the world cannot be fed because there is no alternative to dramatic increase in agricultural productivity, while simultaneously denying that there is a productivity increase in agriculture due to genetic engineering as a result of which farmers can be displaced.

While increased food productivity is the argument used to promote genetic engineering, when the issue of impact on farmers is brought up, the biotechnology industry argues that genetic engineering does not lead to significant productivity increased.

Thus, Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto while referring to Posilac (Monsantos rbgh) in an Interview in Business Ethics said, on the one hand that,

There is need for agricultural productivity, including dairy productivity, to double if we want to feed all the people who will be joining us so I think this is unequivocally a good product.9

On the other hand, when asked about the economic impact on farmers, Robert Shapiro stated that Posilac would play a relatively small role in the process of increasing dairy productivity.

The justification of genetic engineering is thus increased productivity, but when the negative impact on farmers is brought up, the contribution of genetic engineering is suddenly "relatively small", displaying systemic ontological schizophrenia.

A second unscientific concept used to ignore biosafety considerations is "significance". Thus the EPA has argued that because we are surrounded by bacteria, the risk of introducing pathogenic bacteria through gene transfer is not significant. The EPA has argued that because the problem of antibiotic resistance already exists, any new risk is insignificant. These unscientific attempts to ignore risks or suppress scientific data on risks are examples of bad science, not good science.

Another stragtegy used to suppress good science by bad science is in the design of trials, and the extrapolation of data from artificially constructed contexts to real ecosystems.

The final strategy used is of direct arm twisting. This is the strategy the US administration has tried to use repeatedly to kill the Biosafety protocol in the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), even though the US is not a party to the Convention.

While constantly referring to "Good Science" the US government is in fact promoting bad science, and with it, it is promoting ecological and health risks. Instead of generating scientific understanding of the ecological impacts of genes, it is manufacturing deliberate ignorance.

full paper can be read here

http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/risks_ge&unsound_science.htm

[Delano]

12. The agricultural revolution fed them, not GM.

Prove to me how GM has increased the food supply. Crossbreeding and irrigation have done so, but I've seen no evidence that GM has made any difference.

[Paragon]

13. LOL - "the agricultural revolution"?

We learned to crossbreed and irrigate...how many hundreds of years ago?

[Delano]

21. The 20th century saw those technologies developed to their peak.

Why do you consider that funny? Do you work for ADM or something? You're starting to sound like a bit of a shill...

[Paragon]

32. Yup - that's me. Shilling for poor and hungry people.

Guilty as charged.

[sangh0]

90. Monsanto is hungry?

Hungry for more money

[sendero]

56. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE...

.... whether I wish to eat them or not should be MY decision, not yours.

These foods MIGHT be safe for consumption. They almost certainly are NOT good for the environment.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

115. Exactly

well said. People should be able to know what they are buying and make their own choices.

[durutti]

130. Just like global warming and cigarettes causing cancer.

n/t

[Jim__]

3. Absolutely!

I have a right to know whether I am buying "natural" or GM food.

[Kool Kitty]

4. I agree. n/t

[wuushew]

5. How much more allergenic are they then normal foods?

The peanut it natural form kills some unknown number of people each year.

We are allergic to certain chemicals and enzymes in food not the food itself. Having been genetically modified removing these substances is something one could not do with "organic" food.

[treepig]

9. all food you eat has been "genetically modified"

so yeah, let's go ahead and label everything.

if nothing else, that'll provide a few jobs for the label-makers and lower unemployement a bit . . .

[Delano]

14. Crossbreeding is NOT GM

Sticking a human gene, or a pig gene into corn is not the same as selectively breeding better strains of corn.

Although there is probably no harm in eating GM foods, the impact of such foods introduced and spread throughout the environment is unknown. Also, putting patents on a certain genetic makeup is an infringement on the public commons, IMO.

[treepig]

37. you don't really know what's going on with "breeding," do you?

From Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5665/1765b


My (Nina Fedoroff's) words were chosen with care. It is indeed true, as Ramsay points out, that the contemporary definition of genetically modified, or GM, applies only to plants modified by molecular techniques and that I have used this definition both in writing and in public lectures. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the distinction is not just artificial and unhelpful, but profoundly counterproductive on a global scale.

Both Grun and Ramsay maintain that meaningful discourse requires making a distinction between "traditional selective breeding" and "biotechnology based on recombinant DNA." I disagree. It is precisely this distinction that has created the widely accepted, albeit mythical, view that "traditional" plant breeding is somehow gradual, and, yes, natural, whereas contemporary techniques are rapid and unnatural.

According to the Mutant Variety Database, established by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (See http://www-infocris.iaea.org/MVD/ ), more than 2000 crop varieties grown today were created using chemical or radiation mutagenesis. Is using neutron radiation to create the popular Rio Red grapefruit variety gradual and natural? Is using the somaclonal variation arising as a result of passage through tissue culture to create mutant herbicide-tolerant Clearfield Corn less rapid and unnatural than introducing bacterial or mutant genes cloned by molecular techniques to create Round-up Ready corn and soybeans?

Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler ask, "Why, in the debate on natural versus unnatural, should we draw the line right here, right now, at the point where genetic engineering has entered the scene?" <(2), p. 80-81>. And it is indeed a puzzle that people blithely accept churning up genomes with radiation, mutagenic chemicals, and a variety of other techniques, including intergeneric crosses, while looking askance at the newer, very much less disruptive molecular methods. But maybe they don't know what traditional breeders do.

[texastoast]

82. Just curious

Has all our food been modified to the extent a fish gene is put into a tomato to help the tomato grow past frost time so that tomato "farmer" (Con-Agra) can get more money in their pockets and consumers can get nice mealy tomatoes to eat?

Has all our food been modified so that certain plants glow in the dark when needing water (potatoes)?

What about vegetarians? Shall they eat a fish gene or shall they eat cake?

[treepig]

100. why wouldn't a vegetarian want to eat a fish gene

if it was in a tomato? because then it's no longer a fish gene, it's now a tomato gene!!! (genes from all known living organisms on earth are chemically identical - distinctions such as "fish" gene, "tomato" gene, etc are utterly meaningless).

to illustrate this point, humans have somewhere between 40 and 250 bacterially-derived genes in their chromosomes (see below). but, once these DNA sequences become part of the human genome, they are then considered to be full-fledged, card-carrying human genes.

Studies of the evolution of species long assumed that gene flow between species is a minor contributor to genetic makeup, generally thought to only occur between closely related species. This picture changed when researchers began to study the genetics of microorganisms. Genes, including those encoding antibiotic resistance, can be exchanged between even distantly related bacterial species (horizontal or lateral gene transfer). A growing body of evidence suggests that lateral gene transfer may be a much more important force in prokaryotic evolution than was previously realized (1). Lateral gene transfers involving eukaryotes have also been well documented, in most cases involving transfers from organellar genomes into the eukaryotic nucleus (2).

Analysis of the rough draft of the human genome led to the suggestion recently (3) that 223 bacterial genes have been laterally transferred into the human genome sometime during vertebrate evolution. Such a possibility is of interest because it implies that bacterial infections have led to permanent transfer of genes into their hosts. One possible implication is that bacteria might be manipulating the human genome for their own benefit and that this process may be continuing.

from Science, Vol 292, Issue 5523, 1903-1906, 8 June 2001

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5523/1903

[texastoast]

111. So just shove that fish gene down my throat?

Unknowingly? What would give you such a right?

It is obvious that you have presented a lot of internet knowledge about genetics (and perhaps this is the field you work in). But I've been reading a lot of the text of your posts. I see quite a bit of this:

They are then considered to be full-fledged, card-carrying human genes. (May I ask who considers such a thing--the never-wrong scientific community?)

Studies of the evolution of species long assumed . . .

A growing body of evidence suggests . . .

gene transfer may be a much more important force . . .

Analysis of the rough draft of the human genome led to the suggestion recently . . .

Such a possibility is of interest . . .

I'm not betting my bottom dollar on language like this. Good scientists are ALWAYS skeptical, though they might not say anything when Monsanto is footing the bill.

[treepig]

113. i said in the first post that i posted in this thread

that gm foods should be labeled (although such labeling would soon become just so much more background noise considering that basically every single food now eaten is genetically modified, as i explain in post #37)- in any event, i'm not advocating unknowingly shoving anything down your throat.

my comments range more in the direction that artificial distinctions such as "fish" gene are completely unjustifiable. mother nature is constantly sharing genes, usually within or across species - but often enough across kingdom boundaries. therefore, if you eat a strictly plant-based, organic diet - by your definition you're already eating a myriad of "animal" genes - simply because genes are widely shared throughout nature.

finally, if you've read the scientific literature, you'd know that the language you ridicule is in standard usage, considering that nothing is 100% certain. as an example, another poster has pointed out in this thread, based on exhaustive scientific evidence, it is probable that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning. in this example, there's not really alot of doubt involved - however since this event has not yet happened it's just not possible to say it will definitely happen. the bottom line is that this type of language is just the way scientists express things.

[texastoast]

125. This type of language . . .

Is what keeps trial lawyers in business.

Thalidomide was probably going to help reduce nausea in pregnant women in the 1960s. Asbestos provides more than fire-proofing. Benzene in small concentrations can cause cancer. Have we learned NOTHING? Or is it the dollar that always and only counts?

GMOs should come with labels and warnings to the effect that long-term effects haven't really been tested on either people or the environment in appropriately controlled, multigenerational studies on varied subjects with varied environmental and genetic factors by brilliant scientists employed by Monsanto who probably know what they are talking about. Period. Then let the market decide like a good capitalist would want.

[treepig]

132. you forgot the collapse of the tacoma narrows bridge

back in 1937 or so - based on that precedent i demand that all bridges be subject to multi-generational environmental and clinical studies before being opened to the public.

and i recall a spate of tire blow-outs on ford explorers just a few years ago - wouldn't it be prudent to subject each and every tire under production to decades of study before entrusting your family's safety to it?

and what about penicillin - how dastardly irresponsible for this life-saving compound to be rushed into use in WWII without decades of study - in fact, every time i see one of my rather aged uncles, the first thought that goes through my mind is "you really should have died years ago - you're a walking testament to the irresponsibility of society to having allowed you to be dosed with untested fungal agents back in the uk in 1944" - i'm still pissed about that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

139. Your attempt at irony falls flat.

Because the facts don't back you up.


Yes, engineers did learn lessons and institute new design-safety-testing regimens after the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

Tire manufacturers are in fact responsible for the safety of their products and do in reality subject them to extensive testing.

Penicillin was discovered in 1928.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. Yes, absolutely...

we should have a right to know as much information about our food sources as possible, including if it's GMO.

I resent being a participant in an experiment I have not signed on to.

[LynzM]

11. Sure, but where do you draw the line?

I think that perhaps those specifically created in a lab, yes, should carry a label.

But think about it. When you choose the plants that best meet your criteria, and use their seeds the next year (or next cycle, whenever) to grow a crop, over time, this repetition is a genetic modification, is it not? You are passing on the traits that best meet your needs as a consumer by selective 'breeding', so to speak. So how fast is too fast, in terms of modifications? What's to say that lab modifications are more dangerous than those that occur naturally and spontaneously? (I honestly don't know, just playing Devil's Advocate. I'd love some links to more info!)

[Delano]

15. I wouldn't have a problem with same-species GM

Intoducing one corn gene into another kind of corn plant.

Putting whale genes into corn IS NOT THE SAME AS CROSSBREEDING!

[redqueen]

17. Is it just me

or is it enormously revolting that this has to be explained on this board?

:puke:

[LWolf]

140. It is not just you.

And this is not the first time here on DU.

:puke:

[Paragon]

18. "whale genes into corn"???

Pardon me while I try to stop gut-laughing. :7

Where do you get this stuff?

[Delano]

24. It's a made-up example, but they are splicing animal genes into plants.

Again, why do you find that funny?

[theoceansnerves]

31. it's amazing

the corporate-gm apologists we have on this board. it's going to be one of the most destructive corporate schemes ever devised-- and that's all it is, a scam and a scheme to MAKE MONEY. do you honestly think monsanto gives one shit about feeding poor people in third world countries?

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

34. Doesn't matter. Genes are just DNA segments.

"Animal DNA" is no different than "Plant DNA". So I wouldn't worry about it. It is the sequencing that matters. In a way it is like "animal atoms" vs. "plant atoms".

[Delano]

42. Yes, and I personally wouldn't be afraid to eat a GM food.

But I should be able to know that that's what I'm getting with a label.

Also, what you are saying does not address what could happen when the GM plants mix theough pollination with species in the wild. Can you GUARANTEE that they might cause a mutaion that might cause a later massive die-off? Or poison animals that eat them, or who knows what?

These organisms aren't a problem in a lab, butt who knows what they could do to the biosphere once they spread?

[Paragon]

46. Is it possible you're the victim of environmental panic?

Stop dreaming up doomsday scenarios and Frankenstein analogies and ask if maybe you've been lied to.

[Delano]

54. In other words, you, and your industries CAN'T guarantee...

that such a scenario won't happen.

Thanks for your concise answer.

[Paragon]

57. Dumb.

I can't GUARANTEE that the sun will come up tomorrow, either.

But all credible scientific evidence tells me that it will. And that beats Chicken Little any day.

[sangh0]

80. Yes, that was a dumb argum,ent

Calling names is not a strong way to make a point.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

85. Bullshit!!!.....It isn't paranoia if they are really after you...

You don't have a fucking clue about what you are talking about. These GMOs are going nowhere, because the countries where they have tried to force them on the farmers have wised up pretty quick as to the greedy motives of the companies like Monsanto. If you don't choose to grow their fucking crops and wind up with any evidence of their genetics in your crop (due to cross-pollination), then they want to fine you a massive amount of money per acre for ripping them off. It is all about control, and that kind of shit is not fair.

The part about them wanting to feed the world's hungry people is bullshit, much like attacking Iraq to liberate it. The part about these crops being more nutritious and easier to grow is also bullshit, but I'm sure you won't believe it.

Have another glass of Kool-Aid.

[Paragon]

88. Wow, thanks for all those facts.

Oh, wait - you don't have any. Just a lot of half-baked conspiracy theories.

[sangh0]

92. Just like you

It looks like you've met your match, since all I've seen from you is disinformation and name-calling.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

104. And I'll take full disclosure and NO NANNIES

Unlike you, I think people should make up their own minds based on full disclosure of all the info. You prefer to hide info and decide what's best for others, but you won't take responsibility if you turn out to be wrong.

[Webster Green]

102. Your post 23 was about selective breeding not GMOs....

Are you just fucking nuts or what?

[Webster Green]

106. What about fining farmers for cross-pollination....

Do you think it is fair for them to have to pay a $15,000 dollar an acre fine because bees brought in Monsanto's genetic info from next door?.....huh?.....do you think that is fair?

Do you think it is fair that practices like that are putting the small family farms out of business? They can't afford the patented seeds, and they cannot compete with the mega-corporate-farms. That is the wave of the future with GMO's. Is that what you think is desirable?

Those are facts.

[Paragon]

38. Because it's simply not possible.

Animals and plants cannot cross-breed. Biology 101.

We all share common DNA/RNA -- from houseplants to frogs to human beings. It's that basic genetic material already inherent on the planet that is being used, not the "Frankenfood" analogy, which apparently, is easier for you to understand.

[Delano]

58. WE. ARE. NOT. TALKING. ABOUT. CROSSBREEDING.

Are you trying to say that animal genes are NOT being spliced into plants?

If so, #########, or you have NO idea of what this discussion is about.

EDIT: Never mind. Wouldn't want to break the lovely rules of civility.

[redqueen]

59. I admire your stamina

:)

[Paragon]

65. see posts #34 and #38

We're not talking about crossbreeding, either. DNA segments are not "animal" or "plant" exclusive -- they're just DNA.

Stamina is admirable - unless you're uninformed and giving "made-up examples". Then it's just wasted effort.

But, hey - go on and keep busting me for being a "corporate apologist" if it makes you feel better -- even if you're dead wrong.

[Delano]

67. No you're playing semantic games.

It is not deceptive to call genes derived from a plant "plant genes", nor is it deceptive to call genes derived from an animal "animal genes"

What you are doing - implying that no genetic material from animals is being introduced into plant organisms IS deceptive. And I don't see why I should continue discussion with someone who is being deliberately deceptive.

[Paragon]

74. The only thing you're deceiving is yourself.

How many times do we have to type THE GENETIC MATERIAL IS COMMON TO BOTH PLANTS AND ANIMALS before you fucking get it?!?

Oh, and it works in reverse, too -- we use plenty of "plant material" to benefit "animal material". Considering IT'S THE SAME FUCKING DNA, it doesn't make any difference.

And just what makes "plant material" so much better than "animal material" for manipulation? Try eating some cactus or rolling around in poison ivy to enjoy all of nature's goodness.

[sangh0]

83. You are flat out wrong

1) Not all of the genetic material is common to both plants and animals. The gene that cause plants to photosynthesize is not found in animals.

2) Animal DNA is not the same as plant DNA

3) "plant material" is not any better than "animal material" and no one made that argument. Straw man

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

94. Your arguments are ridiculous

as demonstrated by your "need" to use straw men arguments

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

107. Why don't you want GM foods labelled as GM?

.

[redqueen]

69. Not as simple as you seem to wish to believe

You're apparently confusing me with another poster, but no matter.

[treepig]

64. what's your point?

this type of thing, namely cross-kingdom gene transfer, happens naturally - in fact the genetic engineer's toolkit - restriction endonucleases, plasmids and viral vectors, ligases, dna polymerases (etc) are exactly what mother nature uses to move genes from organism to organism.

if it's done with precision in the lab, instead of by mother nature's haphazard and messy methods, what's the big deal?

[Webster Green]

75. The bis deal is that its being done by money grubbing assholes

Not by Mother Nature. She would not have created plants that have built in insecticides to enable planting monocuture mega farms, but also tend to kill all the honeybees in the area.

Get a fucking grip, people. These maga-corporations are not altruistic. They want to control the resources of the earth, and want their copyright on every plant that grows on the planet, so they can charge you for growing or eating it.

[Paragon]

77. Ah, yes - Mother Nature will provide all.

:eyes:

[treepig]

81. mother nature has provided plants with "built-in pesticides"

after all, plants don't just sit around, waiting to be eaten by any critter that comes by . . .

Before pesticides, plants had only their own natural defenses to protect them from pests and disease. Naturally occurring toxins are nature's way of giving plants a fighting chance.

We devote a lot of attention to man-made pesticides but often don't realize that we actually ingest naturally occurring toxins at a much higher rate. Just like man-made pesticides, some of these natural chemicals can actually cause cancer, birth defects, or tumors

http://www.ivillage.com/food/experts/nutrition/articles/0,,244581_5518,00.html?arrivalSA=1&cobrandRef=0&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=8841850

when "man-made" pesticides are used, the plants produce less of their "natural" pesiticides - both allowing them to grow faster, and reducing the potential risk to the end consumer - which could be you.

if you're against modern corporate-based mono-culture - fine, i agree it's completely stupid - but that's an entirely different issue than the genetic engineering of crops - it's being done equally or more with "traditional" crops.

[Webster Green]

I give up..you guys are brainwashed beyond repair....

All hail the great Monsanto....whatever.

Forget bio-diversity. Cover the planet with copyrighted, identical, corporate grown bullshit crops. Fuck the family farmer who can't compete, who can't afford to buy the patented varieties, whose standard varieties grown for centuries will be illegal because they threaten profits of the mega-corporations.

I'll be fighting you pigs in the streets....

[texastoast]

91. Maybe there is some wisdom

from "messy Mother Nature."

Perhaps in the big picture, such rapid change (overnight in the lab versus 100,000 years) is not a good thing. Any predictions on this that you would be willing to bet the lives of future generations on, especially those of your children?

[treepig]

126. can you kindly cite one crop that was developed by "traditional"

breeding methods over a 100,000 year period.

that's a very interesting claim considering that modern humans only emerged 50,000 odd years ago:


In 1985, the generally accepted (Eurocentric) view on human evolution was that modern humans evolved some time around 50,000 years in Africa, replaced Neanderthals in the Levant around 45,000 years and colonised Europe by replacing Neanderthals around 40,000 to 35,000 years

http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

so basically, what you're claiming is that the breeding of any extant crop has been a seemless, age-old, collaborative effort between neanderthals and humans?

that's simply amazing, on many levels. particularly, if you happen to have read (and understood) post #37.

[Delano]

62. DECEPTIVE STATEMENT.

"Animals and plants cannot cross-breed. Biology 101."

This is a deceptive statement, since the topic is GM, NOT cross-breeding. Animal genes ARE being spliced into plant crops, and vice-versa.

It is an UNTRUE statement that "it isn't possible" or "isn't being done".

[Gothic Sponge]

19. Forgeting the possible heath hazzards of GM foods..

I don't like the idea that a corporation can (AND WILL!) hold a Patent on food! What's next air?

[Shirley_U_Geste]

25. They are all genetically modified

You cannot buy food that isn't genetically modified.

Corn, beans, mellons, cows, chickens, tobacco, marijuana, etc.

It has all been modified genetically thru selective breeding/planting over the years.

Science is good. And I am looking forward to the advances in this area.

First on my list, I want a soft maple tree with NO whirly-birds. The damn things clog up my gutters and make my basement flood.

Self cutting grass.

I want a miniature cow so I can grill up a whole side of beef on my Weber.

But more than anything, I would like science to set about the task of consolidating my vices. We could call the resulting product "Panacea". It would be a genetic combination of marijuana, coffee, and tobacco.

[buddhamama]

29. what you're describing is not Genetically altering plants animals etc

selective breeding or cross pollination is what you described. IT is NOT the same as altering on a molecular level.

[Delano]

30. GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.

GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.
GM is not the same as crossbreeding/selective breeding.


How many times does it take to get this message across?

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

40. It is the same.

GM is just faster. You can get the exact same result crossbreeding, it would just take many generations.

[theoceansnerves]

47. contaminating soybeans

with corn grown to include a pig vaccine is the same as crossbreeding?

[treepig]

48. did you even read the information in post #37?

what you refer to as "GM" is much less disruptive genetically-speaking than the "selective breeding" methods that have been used to create over 2000 crops now consumed by humans.

[sangh0]

86. SO even you admit that there IS a difference between GM and crossbreed

but you continue to claim that there is no difference.

[treepig]

116. i just said there was a difference

and that difference is the the "gm" methods are much safer.

did you even bother to read post #37?

[bhunt70]

45. I like these ideas.

[gpandas]

71. i'd like to try some panacea n/t

[Kilroy003]

27. Sure. Why not.

Actually, I could care less. I appologize to the healthy folks everywhere, but I need another cigarette...

[Delano]

35. If GM foods are so wonderful, why are some of you afraid to label them?

Surely consumers would choose the "superior" GM food when given the choice by labeling, RIGHT?

[Delano]

50. Funny how NONE of the apologists are EVER able to answer this question.

EOM

[theoceansnerves]

51. banned

in u.s. counties, moratorium in europe, ban upcoming in venezuela.. yet monsanto, novartis, prodigene...they know whats best :eyes:

[Gothic Sponge]

39. Is it a science fiction story or is it reality?

Scientists are toying with mother nature. They mix flounders' genes with strawberries and tomatoes. They mix jelly fish with rabbits. They mix bacteria with corn. They feed genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH) to cows to squeeze all the milk and life out of them in the shortest period of time possible.

Scientists create plants that make their own pesticide, so that pesticide poisons end up in every plant cell. These foods have no blemishes; they have excellent shelf life AND they carry their poisons to everyone's palate. Scientists also design plants that can survive being treated with high concentrations of pesticide poisons. The corporations selling these plants get the government to allow three times greater concentrations of poison and pesticide residues in and on these foods. These foods, of course are blemish free, have good shelf life and bring three times more pesticide poison residues to our dinner tables and to the fast food restaurants.

The corporations who control these genetically engineered foods and crops, control most university research in this area. Only research that will benefit the corporations bottom line are allowed funding. Any research or study that gives results critical to the corporations will be totally dismissed. Public and private universities are heavily supported by these corporations who also have great influence over the university's voices.

Corporations and the government, working together, put products and foods that have not been adequately tested on the market. The American public are guinea pigs for anything corporations want to sell. If you think you are safe, you are mistaken. This is not the twilight zone or some science fiction thriller. It is the United States today where 70% of all processed food on the supermarket shelves contains genetically engineered ingredients.

Monsanto's genetically-engineered BGH (bovine growth hormone) is not allowed to be used in Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Greece and 17 European Countries including, England, France, Germany, Spain Sweden and Denmark. Rats who absorbed this BGH hormone developed immunological reactions, thyroid cysts and prostate abnormalities. Cows given this BGH give milk with elevated levels of the hormone 1 GF-1, which has been linked to increased cancer risks in humans. In Europe people are not buying these genetically engineered foods. Why should we?

In the U.S., Corporations don't want you to have the choice. Genetically engineered foods are not required to be labeled, so you must beware of these freaks of nature, educate yourself as to who is poisoning what foods and support local organically grown foods from family-owned farms.

[camero]

41. Some ways of doing that now for those with the time

Foods with ingredients from this list are GM. It's a UK site but I would assume that it's the same here. A partial list


http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gming.html

Corn/Maize

Corn
Corn Starch
Corn Oil
Modified Starch
Starch
Corn Syrup
Corn Syrup Solids
Dextrose
"Vegetable Oil"

Soya

Hydrolised Vegetable Protein
Soya
Soya Beans
Soya Flour
Soya Oil
Soya Sauce
Lecithin (E322)
Tofu
"Vegetable Oil"

Tomatoes
Tomatoes
Tomato Paste
Tomato Puree
Tomato Sauce

The idea of a monopoly on food supply raise many questions that need to be answered and it's done nothing for world hunger.

http://guerrillanews.com/contaminated/

There are currently over 786 million hungry people on planet Earth. And while few would deny that world hunger is one of the most important issues facing mankind today, if the solution is left to companies like Monsanto, Aventis, Dow, and DuPont, we may face even greater challenges to the security of our global ecosystem.

With the second Green Revolution well under way, the world’s food supply is slowly being transformed by a radically improvised agricultural paradigm. Genetically engineered crops have been introduced into the market without the rigorous testing that many scientists feel is required. The history is instructive:


In 1986, U.S. biotech companies began testing the first genetically engineered food products. In 1993, the FDA declared that GM food was “not inherently dangerous,” which gave a green light to biotech corporations who had been developing GM seeds. One year later, the first GM food product, Flavr Savr tomato, was released to enthusiastic US consumers.


Despite the highly publicized battle over genetically engineered food, many people are still unaware that many of the products they consume on a daily basis are GM. In Contaminated, Fritjof Capra, Paul Hawken and Vandana Shiva explain the evolution of the new biotech agribusiness and its potential dangers to the sustainability of the global food supply.

[redqueen]

44. New Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Food (and Vaccines)Discovered

Only fools gamble without knowing the odds.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0225-01.htm

KUALA LAMPUR, MALAYSIA - February 24 - Data from three groups of studies currently being conducted by the Norwegian Institute for Gene Ecology, in Tromsö, Norway, reveal potentially serious health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods and vaccines. Jeffrey M. Smith, Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, presented a summary of the findings and their implications for human health to delegates at the UN Cartagena Protocol for Biosafety meeting. Smith also presented additional evidence of health dangers from his recently published book, 'Seeds of Deception', including new information that incriminates the genetic engineering of the food supplement L-tryptophan as the cause of an epidemic in the U.S. in the 1980s, which took the lives of about 100 Americans and caused 5-10,000 to fall sick or become disabled. The Norwegian findings are summarized below and are elaborated in accompanying documents.

1. Bt-maize (Dekalb 818 YG), during pollination, may have triggered disease in people living near the maize field in the Philippines.

2. The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) promoter, used in most GM foods, was found intact in rat tissues two hours, six hours, and three days after it was mixed into a single meal, and was also confirmed to be active in human cells.

3. Genetically engineered pox viruses in cell cultures recombined with natural viruses to create new hybrid viruses with unpredictable and potentially dangerous characteristics.

more...

[GoneOffShore]

55. Thanks for posting this

I'm still 'Buying Fresh, Buying Local' and no GM if I can help it.

[redqueen]

61. My pleasure

Smart plan, that. :)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

70. ::sigh::

Institute for Responsible Technology is an advocacy group (adovcating against GMO.) It is not a peer-reviewed journal. I don't buy this report. Why didn't they try to publish it in the scientific lituerature?

[redqueen]

73. As is stated in the press release...

The studies are ongoing and not yet published, but Traavik says, “Publication of results typically requires a waiting period of up to one year or more. With such evidence of possible human health impacts of foods already on the market, we believed that waiting to report our findings through publication would not be in the public’s interest.” Traavik acknowledged that unpublished results areconsidered preliminary, but the findings, he said, are considered reliable and warrant immediate investigation.

[Mr.Green93]

60. starting with peas

[redqueen]

66. The Best Kept Secret of GM Crops

This seems a bit old, but contains interesting information nonetheless.

on edit: I've added some emphasis in the hopes of attracting some meaningful responses from any of the pro-GM people here.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/secretGMcrops.php

There is a large literature on gene silencing, in which the transgenes remain in the genome, but are not expressed. More serious, from the safety point of view, is structural instability, the tendency for the transgenic DNA to come loose, to rearrange or become lost in part or in whole in successive generations <2,3>. This could change the transgenic line in unpredictable ways in terms of health and environmental risks. And it will increase the chance of transgenic DNA being taken up by unrelated species to make new combinations with their genetic material. That’s referred to as horizontal gene transfer and recombination. Transgenic DNA can spread to every species that interact with the transgenic plant, in the soil, in the air, in the mouth and gut and the respiratory tracts of animals including human beings.

New viruses and bacteria that cause diseases could be generated, and antibiotic resistance marker genes could spread to the pathogens. Transgenic DNA may also get into human cells and insert into the human genome; and a large body of evidence from so-called gene therapy experiments have amply demonstrated this does occur <4>. The constructs used in gene therapy are very similar to those used in transgenic plants, and one main side-effect of transgenic DNA inserting into human genome during gene therapy is cancer.

Despite that, our regulators have not required biotech companies to provide molecular evidence of stability. ACRE’s latest guidelines for industry put out for public consultation asks industry to provide molecular evidence of genetic stability over one generation only <5>, which is derisory. We need data for at least five successive generations <6>. No such data have come forward from the companies. On the contrary, companies have been allowed to hide under ‘commercial confidentiality’.

I am putting to you twelve reasons why trangenic DNA is different from natural DNA, and is more likely to spread by horizontal gene transfer and recombination, both by design and otherwise. I hope you will refute these point by point.

more....

[treepig]

87. funny funny stuff

actually, the context is what's humorous.

basically, what you describe is the growing understanding that genomes are extremely dynamic (and that makes perfect sense if you spend 0.5 seconds looking at all the different types of life that has evolved from a common precursor). any gene is subject to the various "instabilities" that you describe. so of course, once a "trans-gene" is introduced into an organism, it becomes subject to the same biological forces as all other genes.

but why is that spread of a "foreign" gene - which already exists in the environment - any more sinister than the spread of other naturally occurring genes? if you stop to think about it, why hasn't the "foreign" gene already run rampant throughout nature, sowing death and destruction in it's wake?

hint: natural selection trumps genetic diversity every time. if you come across a graduate of the kansas school system, perhaps he or she can explain basic evolutionary biology to you . . .

[redqueen]

105. It's very likely that the strain is still unstable

but hey, you don't care about the consequences, right? You seem to think that it doesn't matter if an unstable genome is released into the food supply, with unpredictable results... why?

[treepig]

120. and you don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept

that every plant currently in the food supply has an "unstable genone"

that's because if something is alive - including you - it has an unstable genome!! gawd only knows all of the consequences of these "naturally-occurring" unstable genomes - two of the more obvious are the development of cancer in people, and the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. these two events occur because people and bacteria, in the complete absence of 'man-made' genetic manipulation have unstable genomes!!!!

now you come along with alarmist-sounding rhetoric about gm crops with unstable genomes - well yeah of course a gm crop is going to have an unstable genome simply because every single living organism ranging from the tiniest bacterium to largest whale - HAS AN UNSTABLE GENOME. in this respect, a gm crop is exactly the same as natural crops - so wtf exactly are all the consequences that i should be so mightily concerned about???

[redqueen]

142. Interesting

You're consistently arrogant and condescending, yet you display a stunning lack of knowledge about the facts you wish to sound so knowledgeable about.

This information is posted above:

...the tendency for the transgenic DNA to come loose, to rearrange or become lost in part or in whole in successive generations...

Are you seriously saying to everyone here, that "every single living organism ranging from the tiniest bacterium to largest whale - HAS AN UNSTABLE (TRANSGENIC) GENOME"

Do you really think that transgenic genomes behave exactly identically to their naturally occurring counterparts?

[KittyWampus]

72. Okay GM Apologists, Please Show Us Where Mankind Has Planted

fields of corn where EVERY PLANT HAD THE SAME EXACT genetic make up with NO variation whatsoever.

Previously, our crops had minute genetic differences so that if some insect or disease struck at least SOME of the crop would survive.

Raising crops of Master Race plants is endangering our food supply. One disease mutation could wipe out an entire years crop with no survivors left with a gene to withstand the new disease.

And this nonsense about feeding starving people is a load of PUBLIC RELATIONS CRAP.

Some farmer in Africa who has been planting the same yams for many generations and now has some disease attacking his yams can try:

planting a different staple crop entirely
crop rotation
looking for a workable organic disease control

[Paragon]

76. Yeah, what a bunch of PUBLIC RELATIONS CRAP

[redqueen]

84. How about a response to post #66? n/t

[Paragon]

93. Sure, I'll research it tonight and put out a press release in the morning

:wtf:

[sangh0]

95. So Paragon has no info

What a surprise!!

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

109. So why do you oppose the labelling of GM foods?

Anything?

[redqueen]

101. It's very sad to me

that these people, who want so badly to convince everyone else that they know so much, are willing to gamble the health of the planet on their credulousness.

[Paragon]

108. It's sadder to me

that you think we're a threat to the planet.

It's been here a LOT longer than we have.

[sangh0]

110. So why not label GM foods as GM?

If there's no threat, then let people decide if they want it.

[Delano]

124. They NEVER answer this question.

They can't, so they never will.

[Paragon]

127. Asked and answered.

Most of what you already consume is GE, so items that aren't you can find labelled as organic or in the organic section of your foodmart.

Never mind the fact that the jury is still WAY out on the "dangers" of GE foods.

There, happy?

By the way, the FDA still hasn't come to an agreement on standards for all the "low/net carbs" crap that's being pushed, either.

[Delano]

128. You consider any food that has a cross-pollinated ingredient to be GM.

What advocates are calling for is a label that SAYS:

"This product contains GM soybeans, GM tomatoes and GM corn"

Please stop trying to cloud the issue with semantic games!

And what you posted is NOT a good reason for not labeling. You HAVEN'T answered the question at all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

138. No, you didnt answer the question.

the question was: So why not label GM foods as GM?


In order to answer that question, you would have to provide one or more justifications for not to labelling GM foods as GM.



Your answer: Most of what you already consume is GE, so items that aren't you can find labelled as organic or in the organic section of your foodmart.

Never mind the fact that the jury is still WAY out on the "dangers" of GE foods.

There, happy?

By the way, the FDA still hasn't come to an agreement on standards for all the "low/net carbs" crap that's being pushed, either.


Conspicuously absent from your 'answer' is a justification for not labelling GM foods as GM. All you've done is point out the fact that they are now not labelled.

[redqueen]

114. You read post #66

Why do you not take these threats seriously?

[Crunchy Frog]

119. It's also been here alot longer

than nuclear weapons have. Your point?

[KittyWampus]

99. And Posting An Emotionally Wrenching Photo Means Exactly What?

that the little black boy's black parents can't survive without white man's superior seed crop?

You actually proved my point... and didn't refute what I said.

[Crunchy Frog]

117. So, this person is starving

because of a lack of GM foods produced by biotech corporations. Can you provide any links that demonstrate a direct connection, or are you just trying to use a shocking picture in lieu of a cogent argument?

[texastoast]

103. Consumers have a right to know

What are the GMO advocates so afraid of? What's the big deal? Why not label?

I already know all the answers to these questions. They are merely rhetorical.

[Canuckistanian]

131. If it's so much better, why not label?

It would be a great marketing move, right? Show it off, promote it!
And the people who choose not consume it have their way, too.

My problem is, that GMO's are basically UNTESTED for every single minute detail that might be important.

Remember DDT, Thalidomide and Fen-Phen? These were all touted as miracle substances, well tested and regulated. GMO's don't even have that.

[damnraddem]

112. I'm not against GM foods, not convinced they're dangerous --

but the consumer should have the info from which to make a choice.

[Crunchy Frog]

121. Wow, so many people so threatened

by people wanting to be informed about the food that they consume.:shrug:

And if I want to choose what or what not to eat, then I'm responsible for all the starving people in Africa. I never realized that consumer choice was such an evil thing.:eyes:

[Eurobabe]

129. ethically I just have a problem with it

so sue me. and then fuck off.

[Delano]

134. With GM foods? With labeling them?

You might want to be a bit clearer so the people who are being told to fuck off will know who they are...

[JanMichael]

133. Personally I believe people have the right to know about what they consume

That's not just limited to GM foods, it's anything that we can measure or that we know about.

What's so bad about knowledge?

[mountainvue]

135. Just

look for Kraft.:)

[Solon]

136. Two things concern me the most...

One is the lack of regulation of agribusiness in general from the Government, no offense to anyone here, but Monsanto does not have anyone but thier own interests at heart. I thought we learned that lesson back at the end of the 19th and into the 20th century, look at how many people were KILLED by the actions of the 'altrustic' corporations.

The second is, I am not comfortable that corporations can hold patents on living organisms, that holds a precedent that to me is ten times worse than 1984. What is going to happen when genetic modifications of the human species are patented? In the medical field, genetic therapy has great potential, but also can be abused. Let's say that a medical corporation found the genetic code that makes people vulnerable to heart disease, they isolate, and then modify it with a retrovirus, and then the Patent Office gives them a patent for the modification. So let's say you have your genetic code modified by this retrovirus, assuming you already don't have kids, how much are they going to charge you to have them? Remember this gene is hereditary now, the corporation would be within its rights to sue you for having a child without their permission because you used a patented gene. Does anyone thing that patenting living organisms or genetic material is a good idea?