GMO

[h90]

Adding "GMO" doesn't cost millions of Dollars. And keeping it secret because the population is anyway to stupid is cynical. Why do we write the ingredient on it, if the people are anyway to stupid to understand them?

If someone doesn't want to eat GMO than it is their choice, if it the reason is wrong or right.

If something is already labeled, them it's a minor cost for redesigning and printing. Still, that is a cost. I'm more referring to things like produce that don't normally have labels. Labels will have to be manufactured and applied. I don't know if "millions of dollars" is the right order of magnitude, but surely it will be a significant added cost to the grocer. And of course that cost gets passed along to all of us. I don't want to pay extra for my GMO produce because other people don't understand that it's safe. That's bowing to somebody else's ignorance at my expense.

Some don't want to eat pork, others don't want to eat beef and others no GMO. Their choice.

The labels "beef" and "pork" are already there. This would be a more apt analogy if somebody were proposing additional labels on the packages that said "BEEF FROM HOLSTEIN CATTLE" and "BEEF FROM FRANKSTON CATTLE" and all the other dozens of breeds. As with GMO produce, there's no good reason for such labeling and legislation to require it would be wrong.

Well they add at the moment all kind of allergic information. So even you are not allergic you must pay the extra costs.

They label the carbs/sugar/fat/protein, so the fat people who don't care about it must burden the extra costs and actually a lot more as they eat a lot more.

In Europe it gets common to label the name and address of the farmer who produced that piece of pork on most packages in the supermarket. I think it is good.

Costs are minor and you can make all kind of exceptions where it is not reasonable (open (not packed) food, restaurants, small batches of food).

Or make it the other way: If I can assume that everywhere is a GMO except when labeled "GMO-free" that it would be also good.

[attrayant]

And if we're going to apply labels fairly, what about hybridization and mutagenic breeding? These processes involve randomly swapping large amounts of genetic material, or applying bursts of radioactivity or the application of toxic chemicals to encourage rapid and chaotic mutations in the genes of fruits and vegetables, hoping for the best result. We might have to try hundreds or thousands of times in the hopes of producing something viable. The results are random, messy and unpredictable, yet no testing or labeling is required by law and these foods can go to market as "all natural". Hybridization breeding is what gave us today's corn. Ten thousand years ago, that vegetable existed only as a hard and barely edible grass called teosinte.

On the other hand, genetic insertion of a single gene that carries a known trait is more predictable and precise. We know exactly what traits we're breeding into crops when we do it. We know what the result will be. But for some reason these foods are so dangerous or mysterious that they need to be labeled or even banned. Genetic modification merely takes the chaotic and random process of hybrid breeding out of the farm and into the lab where we can bypass ten thousand years of wasted effort and go straight from teosinte to corn in just a few years.

Edited January 18, 2015 by attrayant

[attrayant]

Or make it the other way: If I can assume that everywhere is a GMO except when labeled "GMO-free" that it would be also good.

I'm fine with that, and it's already happening voluntarily without the need for legislation. But it's becoming a bit of a joke lately. Things are being labeled "non-GMO" even when there's no possibility of the product being a GMO in the first place. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you non-GMO salt. That's right, salt. An inorganic, non-living compound. For some reason the marketing department felt the need to let us know that the genetic material of their salt has not been modified in any way.

If that keeps up, a non-GMO label is going to become pretty meaningless soon.

[cdmtdm]

thanks for the links .. ... i take your point re..burden of proof and will state this ...

i believe that without companies such as monsanto, producing the gmo seeds ,that the farming industry as it stands in USA would be non existent ...they are already reliant on farm subsidies to survive and cannot afford additional costs , hence the development of such products .... if you find the time download this documentary KING CORN ... it will explain more of what my angle is ...this also applies to the production of animal meat , the consumers demand cheap food and the only way to provide that is to engage companies such as Monsanto ...again watch these two docos The Future of Food & Food Inc ...

I do not accept that GMO has a role to play in the production of food .

In reference to your links , i give them back to you as propaganda from the pro GMO side ... when the seed company or feed company owns your business, you will say whatever they tell you too ... the doco links i sent you will fill in the gaps ..

I raise the question of a terminater gene that Monsanto has developed , what reason would that have been created other than for commercial gain ? in many states it is illegal to collect your own seeds for next years crops ...why ? is this to benefit the masses because we dont have enough food on the planet ? or to boost the share price ?

[cdmtdm]

And if we're going to apply labels fairly, what about hybridization and mutagenic breeding? These processes involve randomly swapping large amounts of genetic material, or applying bursts of radioactivity or the application of toxic chemicals to encourage rapid and chaotic mutations in the genes of fruits and vegetables, hoping for the best result. We might have to try hundreds or thousands of times in the hopes of producing something viable. The results are random, messy and unpredictable, yet no testing or labeling is required by law and these foods can go to market as "all natural". Hybridization breeding is what gave us today's corn. Ten thousand years ago, that vegetable existed only as a hard and barely edible grass called teosinte.

On the other hand, genetic insertion of a single gene that carries a known trait is more predictable and precise. We know exactly what traits we're breeding into crops when we do it. We know what the result will be. But for some reason these foods are so dangerous or mysterious that they need to be labeled or even banned. Genetic modification merely takes the chaotic and random process of hybrid breeding out of the farm and into the lab where we can bypass ten thousand years of wasted effort and go straight from teosinte to corn in just a few years.

2 trillion head of corn per year grown by US farms , the farmer cannot even go out and eat one without being processed first ...then they produce good old High Fructose corn Syrup and your body rejects its as a toxin ...our body does not recognize it as a safe food source .... all done for commercial gain , to feed animals that dont eat grain ( cows) & provide cheap corn for ethanol / HFCS.... not to supply humanity with food that we dont have ...WE HAVE ENOUGH FOOD !!! we dont need frankenfood ...

[h90]

And if we're going to apply labels fairly, what about hybridization and mutagenic breeding? These processes involve randomly swapping large amounts of genetic material, or applying bursts of radioactivity or the application of toxic chemicals to encourage rapid and chaotic mutations in the genes of fruits and vegetables, hoping for the best result. We might have to try hundreds or thousands of times in the hopes of producing something viable. The results are random, messy and unpredictable, yet no testing or labeling is required by law and these foods can go to market as "all natural". Hybridization breeding is what gave us today's corn. Ten thousand years ago, that vegetable existed only as a hard and barely edible grass called teosinte.

On the other hand, genetic insertion of a single gene that carries a known trait is more predictable and precise. We know exactly what traits we're breeding into crops when we do it. We know what the result will be. But for some reason these foods are so dangerous or mysterious that they need to be labeled or even banned. Genetic modification merely takes the chaotic and random process of hybrid breeding out of the farm and into the lab where we can bypass ten thousand years of wasted effort and go straight from teosinte to corn in just a few years.

Well it is not so easy......this mutagenic breeding are just very small random changes the same as it happens normally in nature. And inserting a single gene (well not a single because also insert a virus) is not as predictable as you may think. A lot of things happen that really no one can understand. A lot friends went into this field and there is a lot of trying the same thing every day and it just doesn't work 99.9 %. It is said it a job which needs the highest resistance to frustration.

And Monsanto is know for very bad business practice. Surely not a responsible company.

I am not against GMO, but lets start first with things we don't eat. Plants for gasoline, tobacco, rubber, animal feed and have a government that looks for rip offs. (selling GMO seeds and the herbicides cheaply in developing countries, after a few years no other plants grow anymore on that land full of herbicides, so they massive rise the prices of the seeds)

[h90]

Or make it the other way: If I can assume that everywhere is a GMO except when labeled "GMO-free" that it would be also good.

I'm fine with that, and it's already happening voluntarily without the need for legislation. But it's becoming a bit of a joke lately. Things are being labeled "non-GMO" even when there's no possibility of the product being a GMO in the first place. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you non-GMO salt. That's right, salt. An inorganic, non-living compound. For some reason the marketing department felt the need to let us know that the genetic material of their salt has not been modified in any way.

If that keeps up, a non-GMO label is going to become pretty meaningless soon.

I think I saw the non-GMO salt.....Also on sugar or spirits it doesn't make any sense. I think it won't need any legislation. But maybe a global logo and standard for non GMO, Halal, Organic, etc.

(If possible I buy Organic, I would not have much problems with GMO, I avoid halal meat products).

[h90]

And if we're going to apply labels fairly, what about hybridization and mutagenic breeding? These processes involve randomly swapping large amounts of genetic material, or applying bursts of radioactivity or the application of toxic chemicals to encourage rapid and chaotic mutations in the genes of fruits and vegetables, hoping for the best result. We might have to try hundreds or thousands of times in the hopes of producing something viable. The results are random, messy and unpredictable, yet no testing or labeling is required by law and these foods can go to market as "all natural". Hybridization breeding is what gave us today's corn. Ten thousand years ago, that vegetable existed only as a hard and barely edible grass called teosinte.

On the other hand, genetic insertion of a single gene that carries a known trait is more predictable and precise. We know exactly what traits we're breeding into crops when we do it. We know what the result will be. But for some reason these foods are so dangerous or mysterious that they need to be labeled or even banned. Genetic modification merely takes the chaotic and random process of hybrid breeding out of the farm and into the lab where we can bypass ten thousand years of wasted effort and go straight from teosinte to corn in just a few years.

2 trillion head of corn per year grown by US farms , the farmer cannot even go out and eat one without being processed first ...then they produce good old High Fructose corn Syrup and your body rejects its as a toxin ...our body does not recognize it as a safe food source .... all done for commercial gain , to feed animals that dont eat grain ( cows) & provide cheap corn for ethanol / HFCS.... not to supply humanity with food that we dont have ...WE HAVE ENOUGH FOOD !!! we dont need frankenfood ...

Our body doesn't reject High Fructose corn Syrup. Actually complete opposite the body gets nicely fat on it, so it process it very successfully.

You may have enough food, but half Africa has to little meat and protein in their diet, even in many Asian countries is a problem. Even in some regions in Thailand they worry and try hard to push the milk at school as some kids only eat rice. Look at the milk and meat price in Thailand and look how much money poor people in Thailand have. And that is Thailand.....Look at Myanmar, Cambodia, Lao....not Africa but still not enough high quality food, just cheap carbs.

[cdmtdm]

no your wrong, your body rejects it as a sugar and stores its as a toxin in your fat cells .....you are missing the point , we produce enough food to feed the world population and more if needed , its just not distributed as it should be , due to money .... just consider how much rejected fresh produce is thrown away daily because it may not look the perfect size or color ... its our system that is wrong ,,, which is why i argue also against GMO crops its only for corporate financial gain not to feed the starving...

[Issangeorge]

Another article against GMOs, I think at the present time they are better to be avoided, unfortunately without labelling how can we? http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/17/new-study-finds-a-very-strong-correlation-between-gmos-and-two-dozen-diseases/

[h90]

no your wrong, your body rejects it as a sugar and stores its as a toxin in your fat cells .....you are missing the point , we produce enough food to feed the world population and more if needed , its just not distributed as it should be , due to money .... just consider how much rejected fresh produce is thrown away daily because it may not look the perfect size or color ... its our system that is wrong ,,, which is why i argue also against GMO crops its only for corporate financial gain not to feed the starving...

No, Fructose from no matter what source is not stored as toxin (which toxin??) in fat cells. If you eat too much fructose, you get fat, or you get even a fatty liver if you eat extreme amounts. But overeating on fructose (coke) has the same effects if it is organic fructose, GMO made or chemical synthesized.

It is exactly the same molecule.

On the system I have to agree....Actually in many places in Africa they plant soya for export instead of crops the local population would need to eat. soya brings $$. Locals are poor. Corrupt governments, capitalism, evil mega big companies.....You are right on this. It will be the same with or without GMO.

[cdmtdm]

no your wrong, your body rejects it as a sugar and stores its as a toxin in your fat cells .....you are missing the point , we produce enough food to feed the world population and more if needed , its just not distributed as it should be , due to money .... just consider how much rejected fresh produce is thrown away daily because it may not look the perfect size or color ... its our system that is wrong ,,, which is why i argue also against GMO crops its only for corporate financial gain not to feed the starving...

No, Fructose from no matter what source is not stored as toxin (which toxin??) in fat cells. If you eat too much fructose, you get fat, or you get even a fatty liver if you eat extreme amounts. But overeating on fructose (coke) has the same effects if it is organic fructose, GMO made or chemical synthesized.

It is exactly the same molecule.

On the system I have to agree....Actually in many places in Africa they plant soya for export instead of crops the local population would need to eat. soya brings $$. Locals are poor. Corrupt governments, capitalism, evil mega big companies.....You are right on this. It will be the same with or without GMO.

that is one of the functions of the liver ... fructose is treated as a toxin by the liver dr mercola has many good articles on HFCS and explains the process well

[attrayant]

I raise the question of a terminater gene that Monsanto has developed , what reason would that have been created other than for commercial gain?

It's late so I'm not going to spend much more effort on this, but I just wanted to address this myth that keeps coming up in these debates. Monsanto did not develop the terminator seed. It was developed by another company and Monsanto acquired the patent for the technology when they bought that company. Monsanto says right on their web site:

Myth: Monsanto sells Terminator seeds.

Fact: Monsanto has never commercialized a biotech trait that resulted in sterile or Terminator seeds. Sharing the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment, with no plans or research that would violate this commitment.

in many states it is illegal to collect your own seeds for next years crops ...why?

It's not just illegal "in many states", it's illegal everywhere that a farmer has bought a patented seed technology and signed an agreement promising that he won't collect the seeds.

When a farmer wants to buy seed from a biotech company, they are also buying a license to use the seed. The reason a license is necessary is because there is intellectual property involved. If they don't like the terms, then they shouldn't buy from Monsanto, simple as that. If enough farmers agree and they all start disliking the terms of Monsanto's license agreements, that creates a demand for non-Monsanto seed which another seed company can fill and grab that market share.

In much the same way that you or I agree to patent and licensing statements when we buy a DVD and are bound by terms that say we won't make copies of it and sell it on the street. If you dislike these arrangements, then your problem is with patent/trademark/copyright laws, not with the person or company who sold you the property.

Before bringing up any more issues, I suggest you read this recent thread on the same topic:

Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition

A lot of your questions have already been asked and answered in that thread, and I feel like I'm repeating myself in this thread.

is this to benefit the masses because we dont have enough food on the planet ? or to boost the share price ?

Why can't it be both? You say "boost the share price" as if that were a bad thing. That's what publicly-traded companies are supposed to do.

[attrayant]

Mercola is a quack of the highest order. His web site ranks right of there along with Natural News as one of the biggest peddlers of pseudoscience on the internet. He's anti-vax and anti-fluoride. He has been smacked-down by the FDA at least three or four times for making false or misleading statements. But just for you, I went there and searched for high fructose corn syrup. Here are the top three hits:

• How High Fructose Corn Syrup Damages Your Body
• High-Fructose Corn Syrup
• High Fructose Corn Syrup Even Worse than We've Been Told

I scanned these articles and none of them contain the word "liver" or "toxin", so perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a link to whatever article you were using to support your liver/toxin claim.

[cdmtdm]

thanks you have exposed yourself as another pig with his nose firmly in the trough .... , do your own research i dont have time to do yours .... he is a quack anyway remember ,,,, history is filled with quacks ,,,, remember what a quack Henry Ford was ? what about Tesla ? Edison ?

the rest of your post is just dribble and typical of a keyboard warrior thats never grown anything in his life .....

report back after you watch the docos ...thats a good boy ...

[h90]

thanks you have exposed yourself as another pig with his nose firmly in the trough .... , do your own research i dont have time to do yours .... he is a quack anyway remember ,,,, history is filled with quacks ,,,, remember what a quack Henry Ford was ? what about Tesla ? Edison ?

the rest of your post is just dribble and typical of a keyboard warrior thats never grown anything in his life .....

report back after you watch the docos ...thats a good boy ...

Ford, Tesla, Edison were technician not selling cures.

[h90]

no your wrong, your body rejects it as a sugar and stores its as a toxin in your fat cells .....you are missing the point , we produce enough food to feed the world population and more if needed , its just not distributed as it should be , due to money .... just consider how much rejected fresh produce is thrown away daily because it may not look the perfect size or color ... its our system that is wrong ,,, which is why i argue also against GMO crops its only for corporate financial gain not to feed the starving...

No, Fructose from no matter what source is not stored as toxin (which toxin??) in fat cells. If you eat too much fructose, you get fat, or you get even a fatty liver if you eat extreme amounts. But overeating on fructose (coke) has the same effects if it is organic fructose, GMO made or chemical synthesized.

It is exactly the same molecule.

On the system I have to agree....Actually in many places in Africa they plant soya for export instead of crops the local population would need to eat. soya brings $$. Locals are poor. Corrupt governments, capitalism, evil mega big companies.....You are right on this. It will be the same with or without GMO.

that is one of the functions of the liver ... fructose is treated as a toxin by the liver dr mercola has many good articles on HFCS and explains the process well

So where is natural fructose, lets say from some organic apple treated different than GMO fructose?

And no it is not treated as toxin, it is treated as food. It get only a problem if you eat too much of it. But also water, salt honey, etc etc are dangerous if eating too much of it.

[cdmtdm]

thanks you have exposed yourself as another pig with his nose firmly in the trough .... , do your own research i dont have time to do yours .... he is a quack anyway remember ,,,, history is filled with quacks ,,,, remember what a quack Henry Ford was ? what about Tesla ? Edison ?

the rest of your post is just dribble and typical of a keyboard warrior thats never grown anything in his life .....

report back after you watch the docos ...thats a good boy ...

Ford, Tesla, Edison were technician not selling cures.

GMO is not a cure it is Bio Tech ....

[cdmtdm]

we need fructose in very small qty, if at all ...any overdose of it in any form will see the liver treat it as a Toxin ... why ? because excess amounts of fructose leads to disease ..hence your liver treats it as such ,,,

[h90]

thanks you have exposed yourself as another pig with his nose firmly in the trough .... , do your own research i dont have time to do yours .... he is a quack anyway remember ,,,, history is filled with quacks ,,,, remember what a quack Henry Ford was ? what about Tesla ? Edison ?

the rest of your post is just dribble and typical of a keyboard warrior thats never grown anything in his life .....

report back after you watch the docos ...thats a good boy ...

Ford, Tesla, Edison were technician not selling cures.

GMO is not a cure it is Bio Tech ....

yes different than Mercola

[h90]

we need fructose in very small qty, if at all ...any overdose of it in any form will see the liver treat it as a Toxin ... why ? because excess amounts of fructose leads to disease ..hence your liver treats it as such ,,,

No we don't need fructose at all. We don't need any carbohydrates, like we don't need many other things. They are just food. An overdose of just about anything leads to diseases. So what is your argument?

It is just with apples and carrots you won't be able to eat harmful amounts of fructose. It is the amount. But it doesn't matter if you eat too much fructose from organic honey or from GMO Corn Fructose syrup.

That you get problems by eating too much sugar (no matter which sugar) is known since centuries and has nothing to do with GMO.