Slashdot Mirror
Disease-Resistant Pigs Latest Win For Gene Editing Technology (reuters.com)
schwit1 writes with news that using gene editing technology researchers have bred pigs that do not produce a protein necessary for the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) virus to spread. According to Reuters: "A British animal genetics firm, working with U.S. scientists, has bred the world's first pigs resistant to a common viral disease, using the hot new technology of gene editing. Genus, which supplies pig and bull semen to farmers worldwide, said on Tuesday it had worked with the University of Missouri to develop pigs resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSv). The condition, also known as blue-ear disease, can be fatal as it affects the animals' immune system and costs farmers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. There is no cure. By using precise gene editing, the team from the University of Missouri was able to breed pigs that do not produce a specific protein necessary for the virus to spread in the animals. Their research was published in journal Nature Biotechnology."
This probably is the first step down the road that leads to this.
I think that's a valid concern. They say this:
By using precise gene editing, the team from the University of Missouri was able to breed pigs that do not produce a specific protein necessary for the virus to spread in the animals.
But what's the purpose of that protein in the animal? Surely the only purpose of that protein is not to allow the virus to spread, or else you think that would have a habit of being selected out of the lineage. Surely it has some beneficial purpose that has ensured it stays part of the animal. It seems a little too easy to remove disease by just deleting the part of the animal that the disease uses.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If the pigs don't survive better without the protein, then the improvement will fail in the marketplace. The evaluation of "better" includes balancing the lifespan of the pigs against the death rate of the pigs and the disease. Given that a pig intended for food doesn't need a huge lifespan to begin with, the result will be biased to "fewer dead from disease".
But the complaints about GMO that I was referring to have nothing to do with the life of the O, but the effects on humans eating the O. Usually that is "the insecticide gene in corn poisons humans!" But in this case anti-GMO zealots will be stuck arguing that the LACK of a specific pig protein in the human diet will cause unimaginable harm to humans. As if every muslim (who doesn't eat the pork protein in question) was already being caused unimaginable harm by not eating pork.
There certainly hasn't been enough testing of how the lack of the protein will impact human beings planetwide. There must be testing or it cannot be safe.
What the fuck does it matter if cook a nice pork roast in my oven at 160F?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
so can we make chickens and pigs that don't get the flu? cause i'm sick of getting the flu (pun intended)
I am kosher, so I don't eat pig to start. I don't tell people that they shouldn't eat pig. And if I did eat pig, I would likely not eat this pig.
The problem for me is that the "Unknown" value of the particular gene is "unknown". We know the value in removing it, but not cost involved. There are always tradeoffs, and the unknown tradeoff for me wouldn't be worth it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
A jew doesn't eat pig. Doesn't care if you do.
A muslim doesn't eat pig. Boom!
they say human meat tastes like pork... Maybe they'll breed us for food instead.
to the complaints that this pig will kill us all because it doesn't have something and there hasn't been enough testing of how not eating a specific protein and ...
I find this and all the hoopla about GMO's pretty entertaining. On one hand we are worried sick that GMO that produces extra things will kill us and in this case we are worried that something being missing will do the same.
All this fear is unfounded if you consider how protein is actually metabolized. What really matters is that the protein gets decomposed by your digestive tract into individual amino acids. So unless there is some kind of amino acid not in the provided protein, it doesn't really matter what the protein is, your body will just break it down into it's parts in order to use it anyway.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
" Surely it has some beneficial purpose that has ensured it stays part of the animal."
Yeah... same as your appendix, wisdom teeth, coccyx, body hair, among other parts of YOUR body . You MUST have them. They're CRUCIAL to your survival.
no win.
It seems a little too easy to remove disease by just deleting the part of the animal that the disease uses.
It depends on the path the disease is using. Think about blood type receptors and immune system response. IE this technique will probably work great on some diseases, and not at all on others.
I don't read AC A human right
I see what you're saying, I'm more concerned about the pig than the human though.
Given that a pig intended for food doesn't need a huge lifespan to begin with, the result will be biased to "fewer dead from disease".
Understandable, assuming that this is only ever provided to pigs that are going to be slaughtered. Otherwise it kind of feels like developing a cure for cataracts simply by modifying the body to not produce eyes. I doubt it's as dramatic as that, the reason I wanted to post in the first place is the complete lack of information about the specific protein other than apparently it is the protein whose job it is to make sure the pig can get a virus.
In other words, screw the people, I'm more worried about the pigs. If people want to go around slaughtering pigs then I don't really care if they get sick, I'm more worried about the pig living a quality life. Obviously the majority of pigs that are raised for food don't have a great life to begin with, and I wouldn't like to see that quality continue to decrease. Even a pig raised for food deserves a happy life up to the point when we kill it.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
"Some beneficial purpose" != "crucial to survival"
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Well, to start with we couldn't really find the gene that made the protein so we took a handful of genes from another animal that didn't have the protein and just threw them in the pot at random until we got a pig that didn't have the protein and survived for more than a few seconds out of the womb.
As a side effect, female pigs will now have to be slaughtered by extremely well trained butchers under precise conditions, since if the ovaries are nicked they will flood the rest of the body with a deadly neurotoxin.
Seriously, though, I don't have any beef (ha) with this, as they're not adding potentially allergy-triggering or genes that produce some sort of toxin.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I don't know if the "unknown" means anything. Let's say it does. Are you going to only eat 100% pure foods? Basically distilled water and nutritional supplements? I'd wager that any meal you have outside of such processed goods, are just full of unknowns. Bugs in peanut better. Sausage. Did you know there is orange juice in Mountain Dew? That is some of the more common knowledge. Even among the different grains used to make your breads, do you know which grains and if they are all 100% pure? I'd dare say not, even if you made it yourself.
I'll just say it doesn't matter. Travellers to foreign countries face this issue of unknown foods more than the last. The human body is able to take in a wide range of things without too much of a major concern and literally shit out the rest it doesn't need or want.
Now, I can possibly see a concern, iff the lack of the protein causes the meat to become toxic in some manner. I'm sure they'd test for that before serving it on a plate. it is simply obvious things, like having its blood turn to acid or the cells being loaded up with cyanide from a lack of a protein that keeps it in check.
What I'm trying to say, is that you don't really need to worry about the little things, unless you are already not going to bother, because you go to an extreme to avoid such foods already. I'd be more concerned for being a cannibal from eating a sausage from some where that had an accidental limb loss.
the complete lack of information about the specific protein other than apparently it is the protein whose job it is to make sure the pig can get a virus.
No, it is not the "job" of that protein to make sure the pig can host the specific virus. The virus needs that protein to reproduce. Your statement is like saying that the job of a window is so that thieves can break into houses through them.
The protein was there for some other purpose, but apparently since the pigs don't seem hurt by it not being there, it's a truly vestigial remnant of pig evolution.
you think that would have a habit of being selected out of the lineage.
Why should it?
As long as the animal can breed before it dies, thare is hardly any selective pressure.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
CD163 is a relatively well described protein with very detailed functions, mostly on innate immunity. Fortunately innate immunity have many kinds pathways that interconnect and supplement each other (probably because pathogens are very good at interfering with them) so blocking one pathway at the beginning, like in this case, would have very little effect overall and interleukin 6 and 10 (and the rest of the cascade) will be still produced. For the virus of course this lack of CD163 its lethal, but for the pig it may at much represent slightly increased rates of infections of other pathogens, many of those are no longer important since the pigs are not in the wild anymore.
The protein was there for some other purpose, but apparently since the pigs don't seem hurt by it not being there, it's a truly vestigial remnant of pig evolution.
That's what I was getting at - the reporting completely left out all details. I don't know if it's vestigial or not, that's why I'm wondering what the purpose is. The person who replied below seems to have more information about the specific protein though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That's the kind of information that was left out of the article, thanks.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
the complete lack of information about the specific protein other than apparently it is the protein whose job it is to make sure the pig can get a virus.
No, it is not the "job" of that protein to make sure the pig can host the specific virus. The virus needs that protein to reproduce. Your statement is like saying that the job of a window is so that thieves can break into houses through them.
The protein was there for some other purpose, but apparently since the pigs don't seem hurt by it not being there, it's a truly vestigial remnant of pig evolution.
This!
Every animal, every plant carries DNA, everything carries proteins. And they can modify via mutation in very similar ways - human intervention or not. There are a lot of genes and proteins that don't have much use, perhaps they did at one time. And viruses often need those genes or proteins to reproduce.
Plus not all animals under completely normal (read non human intervention) have identical gene expression. This is a fundamental process that leads to evolution.
This difference in expression often leads to immunity from particular diseases.
While some times we might breed animals or plants that have this resistance, manipulating a gene to produce an identical effect, isn't going to make porky toxic.
Given that any plant, any animal bred by any means other than cloning might have different genetics, Those who have such an aversion to purity will only be consistent if they settle on a baseline animal or plant, then refuse to eat anything other than cloned versions.
Otherwise the normally reproduced species will have just as much likelihood of being toxic a this terror pig.
just another form of denialism.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Mandatory labels should only be required in cases where there is an actual known problem with something. Voluntary labels can be used right now. In fact, one of the things I had for dinner had a little 'non GMO' label on it. The only reason the anti GMO nuts want mandatory labels is so they can use them to spread FUD.
I find this and all the hoopla about GMO's pretty entertaining. On one hand we are worried sick that GMO that produces extra things will kill us and in this case we are worried that something being missing will do the same.
Fear of the unknown, and refusal to learn. All of these differences in gene expression can and do happen through normal reproduction. Lack of this protein is probably what infers a "natural" immunity in the first place. I'm not certain what the denialists think confers immunity.
tl;dr version. If a person doesn't like this sort of thing, only eat pigs that died of PRRS. Oh - and figure out some way to prevent genetic variability.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"What do you know anout what people are arguing?"
It's been a good news/bad news week for leftists. You're celebrating killing off the Thirty Meter Telescope, but now we're giving you GMO pigs to have a whole new set of nightmares about.
As long as you don't know that there is no problem a mandatory label is what the citizens want. Not giving them that behave handwaving like you is a violation of basic human an civil rights.
I for my part wont eat any GMO food (if I know it is GMO at the first hand), regardless of true or perceived danger until the GMO MAFIA stops interfering with citizens and customers wishes to have said food labeled!
The only reason the anti GMO nuts want mandatory labels is so they can use them to spread FUD.
No, they want it because it is their choice what they eat, not somebody else choice.
But thank you that you dare to chose for me what I should eat. Remind me when we meet in person, that I shove down your throat some kind of food that you most dislike. I'm pretty sure you will figure some way to sue me imediatly.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Maybe the pigs wouldn't be getting the diseases in the first place if they weren't kept cheek-by-jowl in their own filth, in pens where they can't even turn around.
But have no fear, now that there are laws against taking pictures of factory pig farms and the horrific conditions the animals are kept in even from public property, we're all going to be more safe because of genetic engineering.
http://www.greenisthenewred.co...
https://www.aspca.org/animal-c...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Except that you don't know there is no problem with ANYTHING. Therefore that is an impossible request. And, as I pointed out, you CAN buy stuff that explicitly marked non GMO, so if you are so paranoid about it eat only that stuff or stuff labeled organic. Nobody is forcing you to eat anything.
That's what I was getting at - the reporting completely left out all details.
And what I was getting at was that were this specific protein important enough to the life of the pig, then the modified pigs will not survive the market. Farmers aren't going to try raising pigs that won't live long enough to make it to the butcher. They won't buy the modified pigs, and this will become an interesting footnote in the history of gene editing.
But once again, it doesn't matter what the pig thinks about it. You care more about the pigs than the people who eat them, I get it. But the standard argument against GMO is not what it does to the O, it's what effect that O has on the people who eat it.
We have a very very long history of people who eat NO pork. Thus we can be sure that pork that doesn't have a specific protein will NOT have any negative effects on people who eat it, because there are no significant negative effects on all the people who already don't eat it.
I don't know what the "guy below", whoever you are referring to, is talking about. If it's the guy who is talking about blowfish toxins, well, now we can talk about when pigs swim instead of when pigs fly.
What do you know anout what people are arguing?
Ummm, because I read their arguments. I know what the standard arguments against GMO are because they come up every time some new GMO issue comes up.
99% od the anti GMO front only want two things: a) don't let get GMOs go wild b) lable food that contains GMOs
So you are completely ignorant of the arguments they make in support of those demands. Why does food made with GMO need labels? It's not because they worry about how great the GMO products will be for them, it's because they think they will be harmed by them and don't want to eat them.
For some strange readon the GMO Mafias pull every string availbale to prevent those two things becoming law.
There is no law against labeling products that either do or do not contain GMO components. You don't need a law to do it.
As long as you don't know that there is no problem a mandatory label is what the citizens want.
You cannot prove a negative, so you are demanding the impossible. Can you prove that crops raised by left-handed Methodists do not cause cancer? If you want to avoid GMO, then you are free to buy any of the thousands of products voluntarily labeled "non-GMO". But you have no right to use the force of law to impose your anti-science agenda on others.
???
They are using RNA, the pigs genome is unaltered, the offspring will be still "natural" pigs, the treated pigs in a few months will go back to expressing the protein and again will be vulnerable to PRSSV. People have to stop reading "genetic" as "permanent".
"There are a lot of genes and proteins that don't have much use, perhaps they did at one time. And viruses often need those genes or proteins to reproduce"
Exactly! IOW they just patch an ancient vulnerability and the malware has no chance anymore.
Exactly.
Hence we need it labled, pretty simple.
Waiting till a definite problem is known, is to late...
But you have no right to use the force of law to impose your anti-science agenda on others.
Why do you consider your right not put a label on it higher than my right to put a label ln it?
So you nave a right I don't have? That is bollocks.
Why do you actually care if my wish/demand is followed? Are you a multi billion investor into GMOs? No? So why do you care and limit my liberties? You gain nothing if my demand that GMOs are labeled are denied. Except perhaps perverted joy that I did not get my will. So again: what the funk do you care? Why are putting stones in front of us who want changes? It does affect your life at all!!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is no law against labeling products that either do or do not contain GMO components. You don't need a law to do it.
Ofc you need a law.
Or how to get labes on the GMO food?
If people don't wan't to eat it, but have no chance to figure which produces contain GMO food, you obviously need a law.
That is a no brainer. If there wasn't an pro GMO MAFIA lobbying your law makers, you had laws demanding labels since 25 years.
But good luck with your anti social attitude. Why do you care what other people want if it costs you nothing?
There is a old saying, be and let be. Obviously you are unwilling to let other people be. So, you might be one of the first lined up the next revolution. You follow the mobs lobbying instead of letting citzens descide for them selves, so you are considered to be allied with the mob.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"There are a lot of genes and proteins that don't have much use, perhaps they did at one time. And viruses often need those genes or proteins to reproduce"
Exactly! IOW they just patch an ancient vulnerability and the malware has no chance anymore.
Damn - that's a really good analogy!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Exactly. Hence we need it labled, pretty simple.
By that argument you just have to label everything, since you can't prove that there is no problem with any of our foods... nearly all of which have been extensively genetically modified via selective breeding within the last few decades. Many of them with mutagen-enhanced selective breeding, which is far scarier than carefully targeted genetic editing.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Again, you can't say that ANYTHING has 'no problems'. So why single out GMO as requiring labeling? Do you think that the organic sprouts you buy today have the exact same genome as those which you bought last year, or that next year will be the same as this year? If so, you are an idiot. If not, then why don't THOSE genetic differences require a label?
In this case you say that we don't know there aren't any problems with the modification, so it must be labeled. That means you must think there is a chance that the modification makes the food dangerous. But what if that modification happened naturally? What if it happened through organic methods like radio or chemical mutagenesis? Now it is suddenly safe? Maybe we should just print the exact genome of EVERYTHING on the label so geniuses like you can make sure they are safe.
As for 'rights' - nobody is trying to FORCE anyone to do anything except you. That is the right you don't have. As for why I care - it is because I have an interest in keeping my food costs as low as possible.
No, you do NOT need a law. There are labels RIGHT NOW, with no law, that explicitly state either non GMO or Organic. Use your brain for a change and make the giant leap that everything NOT so labeled is GMO. Is that really so hard?
Again, the push for labels is NOT so people who want to eat only non GMO foods can do that (they can already do that if they are capable of thought), it is to spread FUD. The anti GMO nuts think if they get the labeling it will scare everyone off of GMO (why would they have to label it if it wasn't bad), and farmers will stop using GMO like they did in Europe. And Europe spends TWICE as much on food as a percentage of income than the US does. And THAT is the reason your 'doesn't cost you anything' line is bullshit.
The problem with a label like "No GMO" is that it isn't just a statement of fact that there aren't any GMOs in the product. You don't voluntarily put labels on a product with negative information. Putting "No GMO" on some products is the equivalent of putting "GMO" on all of the GMO products since the lack of a "No GMO" label implies a GMO product. The "No GMO" label implies that it's somehow better than the GMO counterpart. This would be a false claim unless you can show it to be true. Therefore, the label is problematic. Imagine I sold tomatoes that said "Made without manure fertilizer." Well there would be no difference in the produced tomato if I used manure or if I used an artificial fertilizer. But that label would imply that my tomatoes are better. And to make that kind of claim you have to prove it. You can't bring a GMO crop to market without approval. But once you get that approval, makers of non-GMO competitors can't imply that your product is worse. That doesn't mean that they can't compete. Produce is often branded and people like certain brands. The "Tasti-Lee" tomatoes are very popular. And they don't make any claims. Their product just looks and tastes better to many people.
So we can just synthesize that protein in a lab and add it back to the meat during the curing stage. Everybody is happy.
Rot. If people have been stuffing themselves with something since horny hats were all the rage then we know.
Choosing the fattest & most docile pigs to breed from is one thing, but all the champagne & chocolates in the world would not cause one to screw a glow worm.
Changing the source and recompiling isn't the same as poking around in the binary.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You already have a choice: buy some farm land and grow your own damn food.
You seem to be confused. Your lack of critical thinking ability is probably tied to your diet. I'd start taking some supplements or something.
The phrase "your rights end where mine begin" applies here. You have a right to know what you're eating, but you have no general right to force anyone to tell you. If you want to be sure, grow your own food.
Right so if I do some mutagenic enhanced breading (to speed things up) with DNA profiling till I get a pig with a mutated version of the CD163 protein that makes it unsuitable for the PRRS you would be happy with that because it is entirely "natural"?
Instead they have gone in with the Cas9/CRISPR gene editing, have precisely targeted the gene for this protein and disabled it. The CD163 protein is well understood, the gene for encoding it is know and the result of that is that it can be targeted and removed with complete precision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
EVERYTHING you previously knew about gene editing is now totally out the window with the new techniques based around Cas9. It is impossible to overstate how game changing the new Cas9 based gene editing and disabling technologies are. There is a Nobel prize for Medicine coming for this.
Final thought for the day is everything food stuff that you consume has had it's genetic material altered by man. Even fish caught out the ocean have suffered selective pressures that have effected their genomes.
I doubt that all non GMO Food is labeld "non GMO".
And as foreigner in the US, how should I know that?
, it is to spread FUD. The anti GMO nuts think if they get the labeling it will scare everyone off of GMO
You are thinking that not they. Big difference.
And Europe spends TWICE as much on food as a percentage of income than the US does. :D You see, comparing averages with averages makes no sense. But keep ranting.
Yes, because we like qualitiy food. Or because the average income is lower
And THAT is the reason your 'doesn't cost you anything' line is bullshit
No it is not. All food is labeled anyway. Have a line "contains genetic modified X" incurs no extra cost.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If you sell me stuff, I definitely have the right that you honestly tell me what is inside and don't sell me intentionally or inintenionally something I don't want.
However you live in a world where the only consumer rights seem to be: free refunds afte XMass. Luckily in my world food vendors are already oblieged to label most GMO food. You, see: I have that right. But you have not. That you don't want the same rights I have, is beyond me :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is no way to know from the limited information in the article if the protein is important or not, or even if it is porcine, or some gene inserted from a virus. I know Humans have 30 copies of the gene for Reverse transcriptase, an emzyme only used by retroviruses,
Farmers are pretty conservative, Mega-Ag can do a lot of advertising and social-validation campaigns that make it seem like everybody is jumping on the new latest-greatest thing, but Farmer's tend to wait until the County Extension Agent can point them to a couple Operations with good results in the real world locally. I see Farmers still using mouldboard plows from the 50's while their neighbor is using low-till, one pass tillage.
Farmers don't care about their livestocks lifespan, if they live long enough to hit market weight they're happy.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
So what if not all non-GMO food is labeled? Nothing is stopping the manufacturers from labeling it as such. If enough people cared about non-GMO then there would be a significant economic benefit to labeling.
Are you seriously suggesting the US should change its labeling laws to please FORIEGN anti-GMO nuts? No thanks.
I would back off my claims of FUD if one of the antis would ever give a reason that did not involve FUD. Every one of their reasons is some sort of restatement of 'They could be dangerous, but we don't have any way of knowing'. If you can find anything other than Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in that statement please let us know what it is.
Rot. If people have been stuffing themselves with something since horny hats were all the rage then we know.
But they haven't, that's the point. Fruits and vegetables in particular have been very heavily modified.
Choosing the fattest & most docile pigs to breed from is one thing, but all the champagne & chocolates in the world would not cause one to screw a glow worm.
Cross-species gene transfer is common. Mating is far from the only mechanism to achieve it.
Changing the source and recompiling isn't the same as poking around in the binary.
To use your analogy, gene editing is changing the source and recompiling, while selective breeding (especially mutagen-enhanced selective breeding... you do know what that is, right? Dosing individuals with high levels of mutation-inducing chemicals or radiation to accelerate the process?) is akin to randomly flipping bits of the binary, then looking to see if the code still runs, and if it works better in some way.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Humans with a deletion in CXCR5 are resistant to HIV infection. Their immune systems don't work *quite* as well in a few situations - parasitic infections, if I recall correctly - but mostly, they're fine.
Some genes encode receptors that are mostly redundant - other pathways can compensate for them if they're gone. I haven't looked at what they deleted, but my guess is it's one of those receptors. Will the pigs be as healthy as their counterparts without gene editing? I don't know, but my guess is that the scientists who did this weren't complete idiots, and didn't choose a target blindly. It's probably better on the whole for farmed pigs to be resistant to the disease. There could be unanticipated side effects, of course, but if they're too bad, then we can just not raise those pigs.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
As long as you don't know that there is no problem a mandatory label is what the citizens want. Not giving them that behave handwaving like you is a violation of basic human an civil rights.
No, it isn't. If you choose to buy something that doesn't say whether or not it's made with GMOs - something which has been approved by your local regulatory agency - that's your choice. Your rights are not being violated. If you want to know, buy something that tells you one way or the other. Your complaint is analogous to someone complaining that they don't know what fields the wheat in their bread came from.
Furthermore, I'm not choosing what you should eat for you. You are doing that, and there are options labeled "no GMO".
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
If you sell me stuff, I definitely have the right that you honestly tell me what is inside and don't sell me intentionally or inintenionally something I don't want.
No, you don't. You have the right to buy what you want, and you have the legal right to not be lied to about what you're buying. However, they aren't under an obligation to tell you absolutely everything. If they don't want to tell you the exact temperature that can of beans was pasteurized at, and you really want to know, they can either tell you or not. If them not telling you is a deal-breaker for you, then don't buy it. In addition, how can you demand that they not unintentionally sell you something you don't want? How does that make sense to you?
However you live in a world where the only consumer rights seem to be: free refunds afte XMass. Luckily in my world food vendors are already oblieged to label most GMO food. You, see: I have that right. But you have not. That you don't want the same rights I have, is beyond me :)
Again, that's not a right. It's a law, but those two things are quite different.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
If people don't want to eat it, they can buy the stuff that's labeled "GMO free". If they want to eat it, they can buy something that's labeled as containing GMOs. If they don't care, then they'll buy something with a label one way or the other, or no label. If enough people don't want to eat GMOs, then companies will - and do - make products that don't contain them, and market them as such.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You saying you'd eat Monsanto Corn with bio-engineered pesticides built in because you don't really know if it will kill you so you'll assume it won't? And you are saying that the bees disappearing is a complete coincidence to the introduction of mass deployed crops that have said pesticides built in? Because Monsanto said it was safe?
Just wondering where you draw the line, if at all?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
At which point everything would be so inundated with labels you'd be unable to see the product.
Why single out GMO? Why not label that this product came from a new farm, with no proven track record? Why not label that they used radiation mutation to breed this pig? Why not label that the plastic wrapping isn't proven BPA-free? Why not label that the glue in the labels isn't proven to not cause cancer? Why not label that label overload present on this package can cause depression, anxiety, and paranoia, since that seems very likely to me to at least be true? Why not label that there's no proven track record of there not being a bridge troll hiding under this piece of pork?
Mandated labels are there to warn of a known or predicted danger, not to satisfy your need for advocacy. You're free to stick "non-GMO" labels on your organic food if you want, but you can't *force* GMO producers to label unless there's an identified safety issue.
Hah, an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. Humans haven't had "natural food" since the invention of agriculture.
So you are assuming that everything must have a purpose. Allow me to introduce you to my mother-in-law.
Some things are mildly superfluous, like the spleen. Others are completely superfluous, like the appendix and coccyx. To assume everything isn't superfluous until proven otherwise would be a illogical as assuming the opposite.
Learn to love Alaska
Mandatory labels shouldn't include ingredients lists, or nutritional information then. But The People want them. Why do you hate democracy?
Learn to love Alaska
And until the labeling is mandatory, it's rarely regulated. So you can have non-organic GMO food labeled "organic" without violating any rules or law. Organic isn't defined in law. No, you can't fraudulently put a 3rd party certification of organic on it you didn't earn, but that's a different thing. I haven't looked at whether it's legal to call GMO food non-GMO. But, as GMO isn't defined in law in regards to food labeling, non-GMO would be similarly undefined, thus not actionable.
That's the point for people calling for mandatory labels. In the US, until something is mandatory, it's unregulated.
Like seatbelts. Before seatbelts were mandatory, those who had them pretended they added to safety. THey were weak, elastic, and poorly mounted. In some cases, the seat belt was less safe than if they had none, but they could label the car as coming with "seat belts" because, before regulated, they were undefined. Once defined (and regulated), they were uniform and worked much better. Comparisons between "with" and "without" made a clear distinction. But that could only happen *after* regulation.
Nobody is forcing you to eat anything.
So I should be able to cook human meat, and sell it in a store as pork. After all, you are against labeling so someone knows what they are getting. Or can I just call it "animal meat". After all, properly labeling long pig is just going to lead to FUD against cannibalism.
Learn to love Alaska
Nice strawman, take long to construct? In case you didn't know, there are actual problems associated with poor nutrition, which is why we have mandatory nutritiion information. And there are actual problems with some ingredients, such as allergies and sensitivities, which is why the ingredients are listed.
But there are an awful lot of things that 'people want to know' that are NOT mandatory. These are not mandatory because there are no known health issues associated with them. This includes things like: is the food kosher or halal (or gasp! tref), was this cow fed with corn or grass, exactly what breed of pig was this, whether the tomato was harvested by immigrants, whether the sprouts were fertilized only with unicorn poop, etc. GMO belongs firmly in this second category.
If enough people don't want to eat GMOs, then companies will - and do - make products that don't contain them, and market them as such.
This is obviously not true, as 90% -- depending on country -- of the populace don't want GMO food. Companies don't care as long as they make a profit. Especially in the USA.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If they don't want to tell you the exact temperature that can of beans was pasteurized at, and you really want to know, they can either tell you or not.
This has nothing to do with GMO ingredients.
Regarding the right, yes I have it. There are basic human right charters, you know. It is not explicitly mentioned that I have a right to be not touched by GMO but it is a no brainer and easy conducted from all health related and life quality rights. E.g. I have the freedom to chose if I eat pig or not. Hence food contains labels: contains meat or products from pigs. Why should GMO be different?
Again, that's not a right. It's a law, but those two things are quite different.
As soon as there is a law: it is a right. no brainer. That the right existed beforehand and that a law needed to be made so the infringers finally recognize my rights, is a shame.
With your argumentation, you have no right of living. But luckily there is a law that punishes killing humans. Actually, I'm not sure: is it explicitly forbidden to kill humans or is there only the threat of punishment, if you do?
Again: bottom line it is simply ridiculous and hilarious that people who seem not to care about GMO, care if there is a label on it, why? What is your rational?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
whops, wrong topic, never mind.
If they don't want to tell you the exact temperature that can of beans was pasteurized at, and you really want to know, they can either tell you or not. This has nothing to do with GMO ingredients.
Correct, but it does have to do with your claim that you "have the right that you honestly tell me what is inside and don't sell me intentionally or inintenionally something I don't want". It's a comparison.
Regarding the right, yes I have it. There are basic human right charters, you know. It is not explicitly mentioned that I have a right to be not touched by GMO but it is a no brainer and easy conducted from all health related and life quality rights. E.g. I have the freedom to chose if I eat pig or not. Hence food contains labels: contains meat or products from pigs. Why should GMO be different?
It's not a no-brainer. If you're in public, you don't have a right to not be touched by a GMO. You have the right to decide whether you want to eat GMOs, of course, but nobody said they have to make it easy for you. You also have the right to not eat food prepared by anyone who's left-handed or has red hair, but they don't have to put that on the label. If it means a lot to you, figure it out.
Again, that's not a right. It's a law, but those two things are quite different. As soon as there is a law: it is a right. no brainer. That the right existed beforehand and that a law needed to be made so the infringers finally recognize my rights, is a shame.
I'm going to chalk this up to English not being your native tongue. Just because someone is legally obligated to tell you something doesn't mean you had a right to know about it beforehand. English makes that distinction quite well.
With your argumentation, you have no right of living. But luckily there is a law that punishes killing humans. Actually, I'm not sure: is it explicitly forbidden to kill humans or is there only the threat of punishment, if you do?
What? How do you get "you have no right to life" from anything I said? People have certain rights; inalienable rights never involve people having to give them to you. They often require other people to protect your use of them, sadly (hence, police).
Again: bottom line it is simply ridiculous and hilarious that people who seem not to care about GMO, care if there is a label on it, why? What is your rational?
I don't care if companies label things one way or another, as long as they're honest. I don't think there's good enough scientific evidence to mandate labels, however. There's clearly a public interest in requiring nutrition labels and allergy warnings, but there is no such case for mandating GMO labeling. I think doing so is meaningless, because "GMO" covers a really broad range of modifications, and being pro/anti GMO as a whole is silly.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
If enough people don't want to eat GMOs, then companies will - and do - make products that don't contain them, and market them as such. This is obviously not true, as 90% -- depending on country -- of the populace don't want GMO food. Companies don't care as long as they make a profit. Especially in the USA.
[citation needed]
In the US, there are tons of products that say "GMO free" on them. Some people buy them for various reasons, most of which I disagree with, but they're perfectly within their rights to do so. Plenty of other people don't care one way or the other, and don't look for the label.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
The left want the science of the telescope to go ahead. It's the conservative loonitarians who think eminent domain shouldn't be used against private land owners.
You should have used "liberal" The definition has been reduced to "anyone I don't like", with no regards to politics or anything else.
Learn to love Alaska
But there are an awful lot of things that 'people want to know' that are NOT mandatory.
Again, "the people" want something that you don't think they deserve to know. Why don't we just bypass the whole democracy thing, since you find it inconvenient, and appoint you Benevolent Emperor (we hope) for Life?
As you say, people want to know. And it does no harm to "know", yet you are opposed to information and democracy. Yes, I know you'll object. But with my tone and implications, not with the facts. Your opinion doesn't trump fact. The Fact is, people want ingredients listed. And we have it. So add "GMO" as something to be listed as an ingredient. Simple, easy, and what the people want.
Learn to love Alaska
Eminent domain is not a factor in the TMT controversy. The TMT was supposed to be built in a public reserve area administered by University of Hawaii, specifically for astronomy.