Genetically Modified Foods

[Rereumrari]

Why would God give us the knowledge to modify food if he didn't want us to do it?

G-d's given us the knowledge to preform rape, and we don't see him applauding that, now do we?

Well, that depends. A lot of women were taken as sexual prisoners in the OT and God was ok with that. (judging by his lack of reaction.) I don't want to get into a religious debate, though. The point is that if scientific breakthoughs like cloning, stem cell research, and genetic modification are so bad to God, then he wouldn't have made us smart enough to figure out how to do it. As long as we use our knowledge to feed the hungry and cure the sick (something rape can't do.), I don't see the issue.

[Vetalia]

Consumers have every right to be fully informed as to the origin and nature of the products they buy. Hence, GMO foods should be labeled as such. I don't have any inherent issue with GMOs, I do however believe people should be informed regarding their status via labeling so they can make an informed decision.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Consumers have every right to be fully informed as to the origin and nature of the products they buy. Hence, GMO foods should be labeled as such. I don't have any inherent issue with GMOs, I do however believe people should be informed regarding their status via labeling so they can make an informed decision.

They are informed about what the food is.
If they look at their chicken's nutritional values, they will find that this chicken has a lot of omega-3. If they are for some reason opposed to omega-3, or perhaps have too much of it in their diet, they can buy a different chicken.

[Curiosityness]

i couldnt care less, just label it and test it

[Vetalia]

They are informed about what the food is.
If they look at their chicken's nutritional values, they will find that this chicken has a lot of omega-3. If they are for some reason opposed to omega-3, or perhaps have too much of it in their diet, they can buy a different chicken.

They should also know the country of origin, use of antibiotics in its production and any genetic modification used in its production as well as any other factors affecting the process from farm to store.

[Tlaceceyaya]

They are informed about what the food is.
If they look at their chicken's nutritional values, they will find that this chicken has a lot of omega-3. If they are for some reason opposed to omega-3, or perhaps have too much of it in their diet, they can buy a different chicken.

They should also know the country of origin, use of antibiotics in its production and any genetic modification used in its production as well as any other factors affecting the process from farm to store.

Like whether or not a black guy handled it?

[The Corparation]

They are informed about what the food is.
If they look at their chicken's nutritional values, they will find that this chicken has a lot of omega-3. If they are for some reason opposed to omega-3, or perhaps have too much of it in their diet, they can buy a different chicken.

They should also know the country of origin, use of antibiotics in its production and any genetic modification used in its production as well as any other factors affecting the process from farm to store.

Have fun fitting all of that on the box. Although country of origin is already there. The thing about labelling GM food as such is that doing so says exactly nothing. And the average layman lacks the comprehension and know how to make sense of a detailed description. Hell most people don't even glance at the current nutritional info and ingredients list, why would they bother with an eqaully long summary of how the orginisim was made to grow more food for less resources and with less use of pesticides.

[United States of Cascadia]

Man has been genetically modifying organisms since the dawn of agriculture. The difference is that we are much better at it now.

[Vetalia]

Like whether or not a black guy handled it?

Nice strawman, but no...many countries exporting foodstuffs to the U.S. have food production and preparation standards well below those set in the United States and our inspectors can only do so much to ensure adherence of imports to our standards, especially with such a limited budget. For that very reason consumers have every right to know where their food comes from before they buy it.

[The Corparation]

They should also know the country of origin, use of antibiotics in its production and any genetic modification used in its production as well as any other factors affecting the process from farm to store.

Like whether or not a black guy handled it?

We should submit a petition on Whitehouse.gov for this. Demand that GMO and food handled by black people be designated as such as the consumer has a right to know.

[Vetalia]

Have fun fitting all of that on the box. Although country of origin is already there. The thing about labelling GM food as such is that doing so says exactly nothing. And the average layman lacks the comprehension and know how to make sense of a detailed description. Hell most people don't even glance at the current nutritional info and ingredients list, why would they bother with an eqaully long summary of how the orginisim was made to grow more food for less resources and with less use of pesticides.

Not that hard, a standard pack of meat in the US has a good 80-90% of the package being clear cellophane wrapping (which is useless as a determinant for the freshness of meat to begin with). That being said, a simple description that the product in question is genetically modified is sufficient. This is one of the few occasions in which the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" applies...if the GMO products can't compete in the market with labeling requirements, they either need to change public opinion or their production strategies to ensure compliance with informed consumers' demands.

[Vetalia]

We should submit a petition on Whitehouse.gov for this. Demand that GMO and food handled by black people be designated as such as the consumer has a right to know.

Ah yes, because we all know a black person handling food is clearly equivalent to the shoddy and potentially dangerous inadequacies of food production and preparation standards in many nations exporting to the United States.

[The Corparation]

Have fun fitting all of that on the box. Although country of origin is already there. The thing about labelling GM food as such is that doing so says exactly nothing. And the average layman lacks the comprehension and know how to make sense of a detailed description. Hell most people don't even glance at the current nutritional info and ingredients list, why would they bother with an eqaully long summary of how the orginisim was made to grow more food for less resources and with less use of pesticides.

Not that hard, a standard pack of meat in the US has a good 80-90% of the package being clear cellophane wrapping (which is useless as a determinant for the freshness of meat to begin with). That being said, a simple description that the product in question is genetically modified is sufficient. This is one of the few occasions in which the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" applies...if the GMO products can't compete in the market with labeling requirements, they either need to change public opinion or their production strategies to ensure compliance with informed consumers' demands.

The thing is though is that a single line saying "This product was made from a Genetically Modified Organism" says jackshit about how or why that organism was modified. The oft used example of "produced in factory containing black people" provides just as much useful information about the contents of the product. Which is zero.

[Nua Corda]

I was raised to treat them with extreme caution, and avoid them whenever possible. Now, I'm not quite sure what to think. One thing that makes me a bit nervous is that we simply haven't had the time to see what the effects are. It's such a new technology, and one we're eating to boot, that until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they're not harmful, I'm still going to stick with natural foods.

The other issue is that they're a tool for large biotech and food corporations to crush farmers. If the ruling on patenting GMOs was reversed, and companies couldn't sue the pants off farmers for copyright infringement when seed blew into their fields, I'd be more tolerant as well.

But, they should be labeled. I believe that if you're going to sell people something, they have a right to know what's in it, where and how it was made, and how much the person who made it got payed.

[Tlaceceyaya]

I was raised to treat them with extreme caution, and avoid them whenever possible. Now, I'm not quite sure what to think. One thing that makes me a bit nervous is that we simply haven't had the time to see what the effects are. It's such a new technology, and one we're eating to boot, that until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they're not harmful, I'm still going to stick with natural foods.

The other issue is that they're a tool for large biotech and food corporations to crush farmers. If the ruling on patenting GMOs was reversed, and companies couldn't sue the pants off farmers for copyright infringement when seed blew into their fields, I'd be more tolerant as well.

But, they should be labeled. I believe that if you're going to sell people something, they have a right to know what's in it, where and how it was made, and how much the person who made it got payed.

We do know what the effects are. If you successfully give corn a gene for producing omega-3, it'll produce omega-3. This isn't alchemy.

[Vetalia]

The thing is though is that a single line saying "This product was made from a Genetically Modified Organism" says jackshit about how or why that organism was modified. The oft used example of "produced in factory containing black people" provides just as much useful information about the contents of the product. Which is zero.

That's a false equivalency. It doesn't matter why the organism was modified, the point is that the product was made from a GMO compared to a conventional product. A product made in a factory with black workers vs. non-black workers will be entirely the same assuming the standards in place are the same and similarly enforced whereas GMO products are inherently different from non-GMO products.

[Nua Corda]

I was raised to treat them with extreme caution, and avoid them whenever possible. Now, I'm not quite sure what to think. One thing that makes me a bit nervous is that we simply haven't had the time to see what the effects are. It's such a new technology, and one we're eating to boot, that until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they're not harmful, I'm still going to stick with natural foods.

The other issue is that they're a tool for large biotech and food corporations to crush farmers. If the ruling on patenting GMOs was reversed, and companies couldn't sue the pants off farmers for copyright infringement when seed blew into their fields, I'd be more tolerant as well.

But, they should be labeled. I believe that if you're going to sell people something, they have a right to know what's in it, where and how it was made, and how much the person who made it got payed.

We do know what the effects are. If you successfully give corn a gene for producing omega-3, it'll produce omega-3. This isn't alchemy.

I'm pretty sure messing with genetics is just not that simple. There's been talk of promoting antibiotic resistance in bacteria, decrease in nutritional value, vastly increased potential for allergies, and any number of things. There's never been any studies done reguarding the long term effects on rats or other animals, let alone humans.

[The Corparation]

I was raised to treat them with extreme caution, and avoid them whenever possible. Now, I'm not quite sure what to think. One thing that makes me a bit nervous is that we simply haven't had the time to see what the effects are. It's such a new technology, and one we're eating to boot, that until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they're not harmful, I'm still going to stick with natural foods.

The other issue is that they're a tool for large biotech and food corporations to crush farmers. If the ruling on patenting GMOs was reversed, and companies couldn't sue the pants off farmers for copyright infringement when seed blew into their fields, I'd be more tolerant as well.

But, they should be labeled. I believe that if you're going to sell people something, they have a right to know what's in it, where and how it was made, and how much the person who made it got payed.

1)Humans have been breeding crops and animals selectively for thousands of years, selecting what traits they wanted and choosing to let them be passed on. We've been genetically modifying organisms for the entire time we've had agriculture. The only thing that's changed is we no longer have to wait several generations to get a strain of wheat that is resistant to X disease, and immune from x pesticide (Which allows for much less of x pesticide to be used) Here's a pcitrue of corn

ON the left is what Corn used to look like. On the right is what the result of genetically modifying a species similar to the one on the right to gave us. Its easier to cultivate, provides more food, and is more nutritious. The human population is increasing exponentially, GMO will allow us to make sure that the amount of food we're getting from a given bit of land goes up to help feed that population.

2)Not really going to argue with this one. Monasto really screws the farmer over, but its still not a reason to not genetically engineer better food.
3)What information does the label; "Made from a Genetically Modified Organism" tell you? Becuase I get jack shit from it. Doesn't tell me what the modifications where, which company modified it, why they made those changes, or any other bit of useful information.

[United States of Cascadia]

Not that hard, a standard pack of meat in the US has a good 80-90% of the package being clear cellophane wrapping (which is useless as a determinant for the freshness of meat to begin with). That being said, a simple description that the product in question is genetically modified is sufficient. This is one of the few occasions in which the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" applies...if the GMO products can't compete in the market with labeling requirements, they either need to change public opinion or their production strategies to ensure compliance with informed consumers' demands.

The thing is though is that a single line saying "This product was made from a Genetically Modified Organism" says jackshit about how or why that organism was modified. The oft used example of "produced in factory containing black people" provides just as much useful information about the contents of the product. Which is zero.

More importantly, there is not a single farmed plant that is not genetically modified, after all, selective breeding is the very definition of genetic modification. The only difference is modern methods are significantly faster than selective breeding.

[Vetalia]

More importantly, there is not a single farmed plant that is not genetically modified, after all, selective breeding is the very definition of genetic modification. The only difference is modern methods are significantly faster than selective breeding.

And much more intensive and rapid with unknown long-term consequences. There's a big difference between 10,000 years of selective breeding and compressing that same progress into 10 years' worth.

[Nua Corda]

I was raised to treat them with extreme caution, and avoid them whenever possible. Now, I'm not quite sure what to think. One thing that makes me a bit nervous is that we simply haven't had the time to see what the effects are. It's such a new technology, and one we're eating to boot, that until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they're not harmful, I'm still going to stick with natural foods.

The other issue is that they're a tool for large biotech and food corporations to crush farmers. If the ruling on patenting GMOs was reversed, and companies couldn't sue the pants off farmers for copyright infringement when seed blew into their fields, I'd be more tolerant as well.

But, they should be labeled. I believe that if you're going to sell people something, they have a right to know what's in it, where and how it was made, and how much the person who made it got payed.

1)Humans have been breeding crops and animals selectively for thousands of years, selecting what traits they wanted and choosing to let them be passed on. We've been genetically modifying organisms for the entire time we've had agriculture. The only thing that's changed is we no longer have to wait several generations to get a strain of wheat that is resistant to X disease, and immune from x pesticide (Which allows for much less of x pesticide to be used) Here's a pcitrue of corn

ON the left is what Corn used to look like. On the right is what the result of genetically modifying a species similar to the one on the right to gave us. Its easier to cultivate, provides more food, and is more nutritious. The human population is increasing exponentially, GMO will allow us to make sure that the amount of food we're getting from a given bit of land goes up to help feed that population.

2)Not really going to argue with this one. Monasto really screws the farmer over, but its still not a reason to not genetically engineer better food.
3)What information does the label; "Made from a Genetically Modified Organism" tell you? Becuase I get jack shit from it. Doesn't tell me what the modifications where, which company modified it, why they made those changes, or any other bit of useful information.

1) There's a huge difference between selective breeding and direct genome manipulation. Simply put, selective breeding allows natural forces to modify the plant... well, naturally. Whereas direct manipulation is done by people who may have an imperfect knowledge (we still have a lot to learn about genetics), don't really know what they're doing... etc.

3) I should think that would be obvious: it tells you that a private corporation tampered with it on a basic level. Food companies will ad sugar to school milk to make kids drink more of it, peddle "diet" sodas which give you diabetes, and all manner of other nasty things to make a profit. When it comes to what I put in my body, I don't trust them much farther than I can throw them. How do I know they're not purposefully removing the nutrition from it so that it doesn't make you full, and you buy more? Or modifying it to be addictive? You get the point.

[The Corparation]

More importantly, there is not a single farmed plant that is not genetically modified, after all, selective breeding is the very definition of genetic modification. The only difference is modern methods are significantly faster than selective breeding.

And much more intensive and rapid with unknown long-term consequences. There's a big difference between 10,000 years of selective breeding and compressing that same progress into 10 years' worth.

And that difference of course is that you cna double or triple how much food you're getting out of the crop in 10 years rather than 10,000, and at the same time drastically reduce the amount of toxic pesticide you have to use to kill weeds and bugs, plus include vital diseases resistances. How is this a bad thing?

[Nua Corda]

And much more intensive and rapid with unknown long-term consequences. There's a big difference between 10,000 years of selective breeding and compressing that same progress into 10 years' worth.

And that difference of course is that you cna double or triple how much food you're getting out of the crop in 10 years rather than 10,000, and at the same time drastically reduce the amount of toxic pesticide you have to use to kill weeds and bugs, plus include vital diseases resistances. How is this a bad thing?

Well, the weeds and bugs are developing resistance to the pesticide. So, more will have to be added anyway.

[Alekera]

And that difference of course is that you cna double or triple how much food you're getting out of the crop in 10 years rather than 10,000, and at the same time drastically reduce the amount of toxic pesticide you have to use to kill weeds and bugs, plus include vital diseases resistances. How is this a bad thing?

Well, the weeds and bugs are developing resistance to the pesticide. So, more will have to be added anyway.

Plus the internal pesticides tend to kill the pollinators...

[Vetalia]

And that difference of course is that you cna double or triple how much food you're getting out of the crop in 10 years rather than 10,000, and at the same time drastically reduce the amount of toxic pesticide you have to use to kill weeds and bugs, plus include vital diseases resistances. How is this a bad thing?

I think it's important to note that I don't oppose genetic modifications of crops by any stretch of the imagination.

However, I do believe prudence in their application and use and information of the consumer as to these products is important.