Fiddling with genes can and will produce unexpected changes in crops with some small number of those being potentially dangerous.
Yes, it can happen, but there is no evidence it is happening, and furthermore, that is why they are tested. Also, it can happen in breeding too, yet no one gets up in arms about that.
And that is not even counting the GM foods that have been intentionally modified to naturally contain pesticides.
That pretty much sums up every plant. A good amount of secondary metabolites are insecticides. Plenty of proteins are too. That argument is only as strong as one's ignorance of plant physiology.
Considering Gilles-Eric Séralini (the guy who wrote this one) also authored several very poor and widely criticized papers (that he ran to the press with while they were being criticized) while being funded by Greenpeace, are you surprised? When the Andrew Wakefield of GMOs asks for a sample, what would you say?
How am I denying information to you when I actually told you exactly how to avoid GE crops? Let me repeat it: there are 8 species in the US that are GE: Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. Avoid those, or buy organic/non-GMO labeled items, and you avoid GE crops. It is that simple. If you refuse to educate yourself and act on that information, then that's your own problem. I never said I want to stop labeling, I say those who wish to do so should be allowed and those who do not want to should not. But it's your right to tell everyone else what they must do hm?
You say want it? There's lots of things I want too. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to them. Instead of rationally explaining why GE crops should be labeled, you just say you want it. Laws should not be based on wants alone. It would be like if a Muslim who was too lazy to read the Quran demanded that everyone label food to cater to their beliefs, and it is just as wrong.
You don't want to put it on your label? Too fucking bad. It's information that I want, so I can avoid your products.
So everyone else should have to pay for your beliefs because you don't want to read how to avoid GE crops on your own. It looks like you are trying to legislate your anti-corporate sentiment.
And if you don't like patents, stop eating all patented food. Pretty inconsistent to act as if only GE is patented. Try to make sure they're not being sprayed with extra pesticides. Wouldn't want to replace Monsanto's horrible world terrorizing (not sure what that means) with something even worse.
I'm not anti-science.
So you accept that genetically engineered crops are safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GE crops? I'd like to know if my produce was picked by migrant labor who are working in exploitative conditions being paid next to nothing, a barbaric practice. I'm not going to demand some labeling scheme though because it does not affect the end product. Just because I want something does not mean I get what I want.
Ingredients describes what is in an item. The nutrition facts describe the nutritional content of an item. This is labeling a particular variety of certain crops. That's a pretty big difference. GE corn is still corn, just like any other variety of corn.
Why *wouldn't* you want to know exactly what is in the food you are eating?
Why wouldn't you want to know anything? There's lots to learn about any given item, food or not, but there is so much that there should be a baseline that is required and everything non-essential should be left to choice. Things like the nutrition facts, ingredients, and allergens should be part of that baseline. The varieties of crops used should not be because they are of no consequence to the end product.
What's more is that labeling GMO foods as such actually increases consumer access to information
So does labeling lots of other things. That doesn't mean it should be forced.
which is one of the fundamental tenets of competition in the free market economy.
Actually, that is access to information, not having that information delivered in a nice package. The information is fairly easy to come by 9I've banged it out bunches of times already on this story), but if you choose not to educate yourself, that doesn't mean it is the responsibility of food producers to tell you.
The pseudo-conservative horde is always up in arms about labeling as being anti-free market when in fact the opposite is true.
Under a free market, people who want labels would create demand for them. A supply would come into being. People would buy and sell at market rates. And this is exactly what has already happened. You can buy organic food all over the place, or find items explicitly marked as non-GMO. Forcing a company to do something because some people something but aren't creating strong enough demand, or because they just want to punish companies they don't like, or because they want to spread some fear to increase the sales of organic food (organic companies are funding this bill by the way) however is a violation of free market principles.
You can be deceptive with a fact. For example, if I put a label on GE corn that says 'Contains pesticide genes' that is both true and deceptive. It is true because genetically engineered corn has a gene for an insecticide in it. It is deceptive because so does non-GE corn (naturally occurring proteins like maysin are insecticidal), however, by not mentioning that, it makes it appear that only the GE one produces insecticides, and ultimately it does not educate or promote science, it simply paints a misleading picture. I think the best case study on using fact to be deceptive is the 'evolution is only a theory' thing some people tried to force in textbooks. It is both a scientific fact that evolution is 'only' a theory, and it is anti-science to put that label there because it singles out one thing in a manner that casts doubt on its validity by preying on the ignorance of those who do not know what a theory really is. Same thing here. Maybe if these people were advocating making known more of a crops genetic history and labeling if things were produced by hybridization (and if so how) what genes they were selectively bred to have, if they were produced by mutagenesis, wide cross, embryo rescue, bud sport selection, induced polyploidy, ect. and the details of those modifications, then it would be fine. But they are singling out a single thing irrationally and inconsistently with no basis to do so besides making it appear as if they are providing consumers with something useful and unique because the average person does not know all the ways we alter crops nor do they know the benefits of genetic engineering.
It is anti-science because it is not meant to inform, but to spread fear uncertainty and doubt (and most likely also make a profit for the organic companies funding the initiative, though strangely its only wrong whenever Monsanto ect. fund things but trying to scare people to make more money is just dandy).
What exactly is anti-science about demanding that ingredients be listed?
Nothing, but that is not what is happening here. Ingredients are already listed. They are demanding that a particular method of crop improvement be labeled, while ignoring all the others, based on political agendas not science.
If anything, it will make it easier to compare the effects of modified and unmodified plants.
You could apply that same logic to any other method of crop improvement (and I'm not just talking about breeding). Why single out one thing?
then there is no downside for the agribusinesses.
And if people made their decisions based on science alone, that would be true. But this (besides having neither scientific nor moral basis) would be sending the message that GE is something specifically demanding of a label,
I see no reason to force it. If people want to, fine, if they don't fine.
I have a right to know what is being claimed as food.
Claimed as food? It is food. And sure, you do have that right. go out and learn about it. No one is stopping you from picking up a book on crop genetics and learning. I think you'd be surprised about just how much we do to food that you don't know about.
As far as raising your own, in many locales veggie gardens are being frowned on. After all, it's an eyesore, right? It's un-American not to consume, right?
No disagreement here. I remain baffled by the people with big open sunny yards who piss money drown the drain every year to maintain that green eyesore then go out and buy fruit s and vegetables that are rather simple to grow at home.
The fact that some in society are to stupid to understand what the label means should have no impact at all on whether I have access to information.
You do have access to it. When I go to a store, I know exactly when I'm buying something with genetically engineered ingredients. But I don't know when I'm buying something produced through many of the other methods of plant improvement.
That's absurd. Censorship is when the government says you can't say something. this is forcing food producers to say something. Do you even know the meaning fo that word?
All of the pro-GMO arguments basically boil down to the fact they don't want the information out there
I want the information out there. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. Avoid these, you avoid GE. Unless you are too lazy to read ten words (or you just want to fearmonger about it) it is that simple. I just don't want it to be forced. Most of the anti-GMO are based on ignorance, laziness, and fear of science. The problem is, people know bugger all about crop genetics, so what you've said seems reasonable. It isn't.
Let them label it, and let people make their own decisions.
Done. You can already buy things labeled as non-GMO or organic. You could even take the time to educate yourself on the topic and learn how to avoid GE crops yourself. Just because that information isn't plastered on every item doesn't mean it is hidden. What, do Muslims have no choice about eating Halal because it isn't labeled by law? Do vegans have to eat things derived from animal products because there is no mandatory vegan law?
Unless we have lost all pretense about living in a country where we have freedom
I want the freedom to sell some corn without some ignorant scientifically illiterate activist saying I have to label it as having something unrelated to the end product.
Deliberate sterilization so that corn can no longer be used to seed for the next season
Are you confusing terminator seed with hybrid seed, or are you under the false assumption that terminator seed is actually in use? It's hard to tell which way you're wrong.
Massive die-offs of bees
Worldwide lifespans are also on the up. GE crops must make you live longer! Or does confusing correlation and causation only apply when it is a point being made against GE crops. There is evidence of some insecticides causing CCD. None pointing to GE crops. That was pulled right out of someone's ass.
Evidence of liver damage.
Now that is interesting. I would really like to see the paper that found that. Must be a new paper, because I haven't heard of anything demonstrating that. I hope it is better than the Séralini paper.
I think it's fair to say that those things might be considered "harm to people".
Yeah, but whether or not those things actually happen matters.
And it's been suggested that some "food allergies" are actually allergies to GMO ingredients.
Highly unlikely. That has no evidence and was basically pulled out someone's hindquarters. There are only a few proteins inserted into the GE crops you eat (the cry proteins long used in organic agriculture safely, an altered from of the epsps enzyme that all plants have, the PAT enzyme, two viral coat proteins that are going to be present in much higher concentration in the virus infected non-GE versions).. There is no evidence that they increase allergies. Ironically, there may be an increase in allergies due to new varieties though, but due to breeding, not GE. Pathogenesis-related proteins are good for increasing a plants resistance to disease. They are also a very allergenic class of compounds. Guess what good old fashioned 'safe and proven' breeding has been increasing for the last couple of decades in an effort to produce hardier crops? One of the disadvantages to breeding is that, unlike genetic engineering, you don't always know all the genes you're working with, nor does it require the massive amount of testing and regulatory hurdles that GE does. So I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between newer varieties of GE crops and allergies, but it I would be surprised if there was a causation.
But if people CAN avoid GMO foods
You can do that already. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, papaya. Avoid them, or buy non-GMO/organic items, and you avoid genetic engineering. It isn't hard to learn if those who wish to avoid GE crops take the time to educate themselves. A little knowledge completely negates the need for mandatory labels (which should raise the question of why this movement is not spreading education but is instead trying to make a new law...I'm guessing it has something to do with the funding from organic companies).
Not really, that's just one guy who wrote a self published book full of misrepresentations and distortions. Read what actual scientists have to say about it here. The went through and did a comprehensive take down of that guy's nonsense. Alternatively, this is a fun well cited video. My favorite bit: he claims that transgenes are taken up by gut flora and continue to function, meaning that they could be producing the Bt protein that kills insects (which is totally harmless to humans anyway, but whatever). He cites Netherwood 2004 as proof. That paper's abstract ends with "we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment." So they guy who wrote that site either does not bother to even look at the papers he cites, or he flat out lies. He is also one of the leaders in the anti-GE movement, and is very highly respected and often cited among those who espouse anti-GE sentiment. So what should that tell you?
But either way, if there is nothing wrong then there should be no reason against the labeling.
If there's nothing wrong why should the be labeled? There's tons of things we do to plants that are not dangerous that most people have never heard of, like mutagenesis and doubled haploid hybridization and selection of bud sport mutants. I don't think GE should be singled out. That is just using people's ignorance to scare them about genetic engineering by making it stand out as something different and unique.
If I have a choice between a gmo product that hasn't been in the food supply long enough to know if its okay or not and one that isnt a gmo product, I'd be happy to have the information to make my own informed choices.
That is easy to do already and I'll tell you how. Corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. Eight species have been genetically engineered in the US. Due to the way they are processed, anything containing them that is not labeled as organic or non-GMO contains genetically engineered crops. Now you know how to avoid them if you want, and you can do it without a label. However, they have been in the food supply for a long time, and tested even longer, and there is no reason whatsoever to think they pose any more of a health risk than any other crop.
That having been said, since Dr. Oz recommends avoiding GMO foods
That interview was horribly edited by the way. And somehow, those of us who support genetic engineering are the deceitful ones.
Like this? Besides, why should it be a bad thing if I do not directly benefit? I don't directly benefit from disease resistant hybrids, or tractors, or silos. Why is it bad that GE crops only help the farmer?
used to corner the market on herbicides
You do realize that you can get a generic glyphosate from companies that aren't Monsanto, yes? Also, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. Those herbicide resistant crops are actually a good idea. It used to be to control weeds farmers had to till the soil (which is terrible for your soil quality and causes fertilizer runoff, which causes all sorts of damage in aquatic ecosystems) or spray harsher herbicides. The transgenic systems are a step up from that, contrary to the ill will directed at them. Sure, it is always best to minimize agrochemical usage, but it isn't a choice between one herbicide and no herbicide, it is a choice between herbicide A and herbicide B/ tillage. This is one of those finer points that is often glossed over.
If there was ever a market for "good" GMOs, Monsanto killed it.
The first shot was fired at the Flavr Savr tomato, which was not produced by Monsanto. How, if it is Monsanto's evil deed to blame from the public perception of GE crops, is that the case? GE crops are not demonized because of Monsanto, it is the other way around. Monsanto just put a face on GE. It's a lot easier to demonize a big bad company that by claiming they are suing farmers and making Indians kill themselves than it is to demonize science.
I find it interesting that one of the cornerstone requirements for a working free market - perfect access to full information - is being opposed by entities praising the free market at every turn.
There's a difference between access to information and forcing that it be displayed. It is an easy feat to discover what is and is not GE: Corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. They have been modified to have various cry genes (insect resistance), C4 EPSPS gene (glyphosate tolerance), bar gene (glufosinate tolerance), PRSV CP (resistance to papaya ringspot virus), CMV CP (resistance to cucumber mosaic virus, Cspb (drought tolerance), and NptII (antibiotic resistance marker gene used in the transformation process). That one does not educate themselves does not mean that this information is not out there. A free market only means that the information is available, not that it is delivered in a nice easy convenient package. Furthermore, a free market means freedom to do what you want, including label or not label. under a free market, if there is demand, supply will arise to mean demand, and what do you know we have the organic label and things labeled as non-GE already. The free market already has this covered.
In other words, I want to know what the product is that I'm buying
Question: was the last banana you at produced by tissue culture? What about the last apple you ate? What variety was it Are you sure? It could have been a bud sport mutation. How much of the wheat in the last piece of bread you at was produced by wheat that, at some point in its family history, was altered with radiation (hint: about 80% of the world's wheat was altered this way). The last tomato you ate, were all its genes from Solanum lycopersicum, or were some of them from related Solanum species like S. pimpinellifolium that were used in a back cross program to bring in disease resistance genes? Was the last carrot you ate produced by taking two pollen grains from different plants, doubling their chromosomes to produce plants with identical chromosomes, then crossed to form the hybrid you ate? I could go on, but you get the point. You could fill a book with the stuff most people don't know about their food. Heck, you don't even get to see what variety of crop you are eating half the time (are those blueberries Patriot or Bluecrop or Spartan or what?). If you want to know about what you are eating, genetic engineering is the easy part. Why are you applying your want to know towards it but not everything else? furthermore, why does a mere want determine law and regulation? I'm sure plenty of Muslims want Halal/Haram labels, and plenty of Jews want kosher/non-Kosher labels, and plenty of vegans want vegan/non-vegan labels, but it not be right to force those labels, agree? And they manage to get by just fine
In other words, the parent AC hits it on the head: this bill should be a no-brainer, because I should be able to know what I am buying.
Comments like that demonstrate the most irritating part of this bill. If you know very little about crop genetics, it is a no brainer. Think of it a bit deeper, while considering the full breadth of the topic, and it quickly becomes very murky.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it.
The truth also includes the benefits of genetic engineering. Maybe we should label non-GE having more mycotoxins? Maybe we should label GE soybeans as resulting in reduced carbon emissions? Furthermore, the truth includes many other thing about the crop. Was it blasted with radiation and useful mutation selected, as commonly happens in wheat? Was it treated with a chemical to double its chromosomes, as is used in many hybrid lines? Was it selected from a mutated bud, a common practice in apples? Was it crossed with a wild relative then back crossed to get desirable genes, a hot topic in tomatoes (whose wild relatives can be toxic). That's the truth too. Why isn't that labeled? And don't you think it is deceptive to single out on of those while ignoring everything else? It makes the thing singled out to appear exceptionally unique because many do not know the genetics of the crops they eat. It is especially so if the thing singled out has a history of fearmongering campaigns being directed at it.
Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid
That makes all the difference. Laws should be determined by reason, not whoever can shout the loudest (where do you stand on cannabis legalization and gay marriage?).
hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech
How about the right to speak when and if you want to? No one is opposing labeling. The issue is mandatory labeling. Two different things. If someone is selling GE corn, or a product containing GE soy, why should they be forced to label their product as such? The choice should be up to them.
why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs
Do you honestly think that would work? There are tons of papers published by independent scientists from around the world demonstrating the benefits an safety of GE, and this is very often dismissed by those who oppose GE (and make no mistake, these pro-labeling campaigns are anti-GE) as being part of the corporate conspiracy. There really isn't much the corporations can do at this point with respect to making a their case (not that you should really be listening to what they say anyway). Realistically, if GE food is not labeled, people will say 'Ooh, they don't label it, what are they hiding, it must be bad for you!' and if it is labeled people will say 'Ooh, they have to label it, that must mean it is different somehow, it must be bad for you!' just like when people point to labeling or bans in other countries as evidence that GE crops are dangerous.
It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
No, they're just scaring people about them, thus making them less useful for farmers (whose end goal it to run a business and make a living), which will consequently prevent future advances from genetic engineering, especially for horticultural, minor, and biodiverse crops and small biotech businesses (as well as ones that simply benefit the environment, like Enviropig, which failed because it benefited no one bu the environment and that wasn't worth putting up with the fear mongering), while big companies that sell seed for agronomic crops like Monsanto continue to hold large market shares and likely only lose some sales (after all, did proof that trans fats stop the majority of people from eating them...then again, despite the fact that they are a known danger and GE crops are as close to safe as science can demonstrate, no one has launched any big scare campaigns against the known danger, so I could be wrong about that). I swear, I would not be surprised if one of these days we found out Monsanto was behind this pro-labeling anti-GE nonsense.
You're right, that's why we have different words for them. In one case we insert a single gene, in the other we mix around thousands. And you know what else isn't breeding? Mutageneisis, bud sport selection, and induced polyploidy. And so what if they aren't? Things that aren't breeding should be labeled? Why?
Sorry, but squids and cows don't cross-breed. Neither does E. Coli and corn. It just doesn't happen, man.
Well, technically, it happens. Sure, it doesn't happen how we want it without human manipulation, but you could say the same for every other crop improvement technique. And even if it didn't,I still fail to see the relevance.
Yeah, and if hybrid seed is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via tissue culture is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via induced polyploidy is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via somaclonal variation or mutagenesis is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via doubled haploid hybridization is so great, why not label it? And if Haram food won't send you to hell, why not label it? I could go on, but do you see how easy it is to use that argument? Loaded questions are not good ways to make a point.
They should proudly label their products:
The people who sell the seed do. t is the farmers and food processors who don't? I wonder why? I'll be if I went around telling people that tissue culture causes cancer, people who sell tissue cultured crops like potatoes or bananas wouldn't want to label that either, even if I pulled the cancer thing out of my posterior.
This isn't anti-science but pro-science.
No, it is singling out something because of political reasons. Hey, evolution is only a theory...are creationists pro-science for asking that fact (and it is a fact) be labeled in textbooks? Or are they anti-science by singling out a single thing in a misleading way meant to deceive people due to their ignorance of what the word theory means? Pro-science would be educating people on the genetic history of crops, including the benefits and risks of the methods. Anti-science is singling out one thing because it doesn't fit your beliefs.
I'm as skeptical of revolving doors as anyone, but do you have any evidence he acted unethically?
The GM crops were subsequently approved with no testing, and no testing is required or even allowed to be performed on them
Bullshit. Do you even think about that statement? If that is true, why doesn't Monsanto just release whatever they want? Why is AquaAdvantage having such a tough time with the GE salmon, why can't I buy an Arctic Apple tree, where's the HoneySweet Plum, Golden Rice, or any of the university developed transgenic crops, if there is no need for stringent testing?
You can read more about it here (or hundreds of other sites, use google)
Oh wow, a conspiracy site, didn't see that coming. I love getting my information from people who say Obama isn't a citizen, 9/11 was an inside job, climate change is a hoax, and vaccines cause autism.
This stuff is BAD news for humans.
Please explain to me how the enzyme produced by the C4 EPSPS (the bacterial version of the ESPSP enzyme that all plants have that glyphosate targets that is inserted into Round-Up Ready crops to give them their ability to resist glyphosate) is bad news for humans? Go into all the biochemical nitty gritty if you please.
This isn't about withholding information. The information is freely available to anyone willing to research it. This is about forcing information beyond a rational minimum of information (like nutritional content, ingredients, and allergies) to be displayed, but not all the information, only the information that fits political agendas. Kosher and Halal aren't required to be labeled by law, but that doesn't mean anyone is hiding that information. You don't have to label if something was produced via tissue culture or bud sport selection or mutagenesis or wide crosses either, but that doesn't mean anyone is hiding anything. Why is that a non-issue, yet doing the same for genetic engineering is 'withholding information'?
Most commercial applications of genetically modified food have been developed to benefit the producer, not the consumer
So what? Have you gotten any direct benefits from silos or tractors (besides in terms of cost)? What is wrong with somethng only benefiting farmers and/or the environment (and if you don't think GE crops benefit the environment, thing again: they facilitate no-till agriculture, which prevents fertilizer runoff and reduces carbon emissions).
and the consumer has a right to know about it when it's occurred
But why is it only GE and not everything else? Selective breeding, various types of hybridization, somaclonal variation and mutagenesis, induced polyploidy, sport selection, wide crosses, and embryo rescue, ect all get a free pass? What about everything else you could say about a crop, like where it was grown, what fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, plant growth regulators, ect were applied? Hell, most things don't even label the variety name, let alone the genetic history or a crop.
People should be allowed to know what the modification made was, and then choose whether or not they wish to consume food possessing that modification. If we're talking about increased Beta Carotene levels in Golden Rice, I suspect most consumers won't have a problem with it. If we're talking about soybeans and corn that have been modified to survive repeated direct spraying with Glyphosate - more people will probably opt out of eating that.
What about Clearfield wheat or any of the other non-GE crops bred for herbicide resistance? Why should that get a free pass? And what if I want to know the conventionally bred genes found in my non-GE food? It is very inconsistent to single out one method of crop improvement and ignore the rest. And do you think non-GE corn should have a label informing that it had more pesticides than an insect resistant GE corn? Somehow I can't imagine the movement for a label like that being so popular.
This thing is anti-science for the same reason those 'Warning: Evolution is only a theory' labels were anti-science. No one is denying that evolution is only a theory, but you know damned well the point of that was not to inform, it was to cast doubt on the validity of evolution (because how many people are going to respond by saying 'Only a theory like gravity'?). This is the same thing. They are singling something out because of political controversy, not science. Well, and profit of course. While it is true that Monsanto and others are funding the anti-side, organic businesses (and Mercola the homeopath and anti-vaxxer, so you know where the directors of this movement stand on science) are funding the pro, and what a fortunate coincidence, they don't use GE crops.
And by the way, do you want to know how to tell if something s GE or not? I always know if I'm eating something that is GE. Corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. That's it. If something has those in it, its probably GE. You want to avoid GE, avoid those, or buy organic or things labeled non-GMO (like things certified via the Non-GMO Project). Millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, and vegans get by without special labels just by educating themselves. Anyone who wants to avoid GE crops does not deserve a special law because they will not take responsibility for their own lifestyles and educate themselves.
I was thinking more of the bud sports used in grafting. Sometimes plants produce a branch with a spontaneous mutation that has a useful trait, like an apple that fruits differently, a pale grape, or an earlier peach. These mutants are grafted for their useful traits, and because of this, even though there is only one umbrella variety, like Gala, there can be multiple different strains of sports used in different orchards (like Gale Gala or Ultima Gala). I don't see how something horticulturalists have been taking advantage of for who knows how long is news.
What gets me the politicians who want to spend money on keeping cartels out and securing the border and all that, but then never mention the elephant in the room that is the connection between prohibition, the cartels, and the other boarder problems caused by the cartels. The government creates one problem, then instead of proposing an end policies that create that problem, which cost loads of money (and of course has that toll on life and liberty), they want to spend more money attempting to fix some of the damage the War on Drugs has caused. Then many of these same people claim to be anti-big government and in opposition to government waste & over spending.
It seems that almost every year, some "approved" medical treatment is recalled.
Out of how many that are not? And what alternative would you like, testing them so thoroughly people call them a failed institution for never allowing anything through (which I've heard people say)? You are dealing with substances that are biologically active in humans and given to thousands of people, and you expect the law of large numbers to never crop up? Medical science is not perfect, and nothing the FDA does is going to make it so. It sounds a bit callous to say that, but it is the truth.
Meanwhile - other "drugs" such as quinine, which have been in use worldwide for millenia are suddenly regulated, and taken off the market, so that some bunch of freaks can properly "research", then market quinine.
And why should they get a free pass, if they're going to be sold as medicine? And it isn't like they did it at random (23 people died it seems...hey, weren't you just complaining about drugs that hurt people?)
How 'bout all that food on the market, full of growth hormones, antibiotics, pink slime, and genetically engineered crap?
Antibiotics I'll give you. The other three just creep you out. FDA shouldn't be there to 'protect' you from fears and creepiness.
No one is saying to fully trust Monsanto, or Syngenta, or Bayer, or any other multinational, nor is anyone saying that a monopoly on seeds is a good thing, although contrary to many claims that has not occurred, though ironically anti-GMO sentiment is helping Monsanto and other companies get there (what do you think having such high fear induced regulations that only large companies have the money to overcome does for competition? Monsanto must be loving the opposition to GMOs.). Of course you should be skeptical of them, but not so skeptical that you reject an overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of some vocal fringe. At that point skepticism becomes something else. Pretty much everyone in the relevant fields (save a few outliers oft quoted by biased cherrypicking anti-GE groups) agrees that GE crops are safe and that they have been beneficial, and no one has put forward a plausible mechanism for why inserting a gene is intrinsically going to suddenly make a crop dangerous. It's a case of strong science versus mostly nonsense. To reject the science simply because a corporation benefits makes as much sense as rejecting science because its implications would hurt corporations (like some of the controversy around climate change).
The whole anti-GE thing, at least the current form of it (I mean, there was legitimate scientific concern in the days before the Asilomar conference) was basically fabricated by activists with nothing else better to do (like when Jeremy Rifkin pulled the dangers of the Flavr Savr tomato straight out of his ass), and now we've got people who cite studies that say the exact opposite of their claims like this weasel (who isn't just some nobody but one of the big names in anti-GE). Meanwhile, the dangers of every other form of plant improvement (and like genetic engineering, they all have potential dangers [ever head of the Lenape potato or high psoralens photodermatitis inducing celery) get a free pass (and I'm not saying they are exceptionally dangerous just that it is horribly inconsistent to give GE such excessive scrutiny but ignore everything else). It really isn't much different than the 'controversies' over evolution, vaccines, or climate change.
So yeah, its good to skeptical, especially of big corporations, but skepticism does not mean you reject proof when you get it nor does it mean every piece of FUD has merit.
Appeal to nature. Even if your first point weren't horribly uninformed nonsense, it still wouldn't mean that genetic engineering is bad. It times past we couldn't isolate viruses kill them and inject them right into our veins, but that doesn't mean vaccines are bad either, and fallacies are especially bad when applied to highly studied topics.
because frankly some of the shit they are coming up with can't even be truly classified as plant anymore.
So a new protein suddenly changes what kingdom something is in? That's ridiculous. I guess that makes you a virus since humans need a viral transgene to develop the placenta.
Slashdot Mirror
Fiddling with genes can and will produce unexpected changes in crops with some small number of those being potentially dangerous.
Yes, it can happen, but there is no evidence it is happening, and furthermore, that is why they are tested. Also, it can happen in breeding too, yet no one gets up in arms about that.
And that is not even counting the GM foods that have been intentionally modified to naturally contain pesticides.
That pretty much sums up every plant. A good amount of secondary metabolites are insecticides. Plenty of proteins are too. That argument is only as strong as one's ignorance of plant physiology.
Considering Gilles-Eric Séralini (the guy who wrote this one) also authored several very poor and widely criticized papers (that he ran to the press with while they were being criticized) while being funded by Greenpeace, are you surprised? When the Andrew Wakefield of GMOs asks for a sample, what would you say?
And once that get dull, you can personally insult every single being in the universe in alphabetical order.
How am I denying information to you when I actually told you exactly how to avoid GE crops? Let me repeat it: there are 8 species in the US that are GE: Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. Avoid those, or buy organic/non-GMO labeled items, and you avoid GE crops. It is that simple. If you refuse to educate yourself and act on that information, then that's your own problem. I never said I want to stop labeling, I say those who wish to do so should be allowed and those who do not want to should not. But it's your right to tell everyone else what they must do hm?
You say want it? There's lots of things I want too. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to them. Instead of rationally explaining why GE crops should be labeled, you just say you want it. Laws should not be based on wants alone. It would be like if a Muslim who was too lazy to read the Quran demanded that everyone label food to cater to their beliefs, and it is just as wrong.
You don't want to put it on your label? Too fucking bad. It's information that I want, so I can avoid your products.
So everyone else should have to pay for your beliefs because you don't want to read how to avoid GE crops on your own. It looks like you are trying to legislate your anti-corporate sentiment.
And if you don't like patents, stop eating all patented food. Pretty inconsistent to act as if only GE is patented. Try to make sure they're not being sprayed with extra pesticides. Wouldn't want to replace Monsanto's horrible world terrorizing (not sure what that means) with something even worse.
I'm not anti-science.
So you accept that genetically engineered crops are safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GE crops? I'd like to know if my produce was picked by migrant labor who are working in exploitative conditions being paid next to nothing, a barbaric practice. I'm not going to demand some labeling scheme though because it does not affect the end product. Just because I want something does not mean I get what I want.
Ingredients describes what is in an item. The nutrition facts describe the nutritional content of an item. This is labeling a particular variety of certain crops. That's a pretty big difference. GE corn is still corn, just like any other variety of corn.
Why *wouldn't* you want to know exactly what is in the food you are eating?
Why wouldn't you want to know anything? There's lots to learn about any given item, food or not, but there is so much that there should be a baseline that is required and everything non-essential should be left to choice. Things like the nutrition facts, ingredients, and allergens should be part of that baseline. The varieties of crops used should not be because they are of no consequence to the end product.
What's more is that labeling GMO foods as such actually increases consumer access to information
So does labeling lots of other things. That doesn't mean it should be forced.
which is one of the fundamental tenets of competition in the free market economy.
Actually, that is access to information, not having that information delivered in a nice package. The information is fairly easy to come by 9I've banged it out bunches of times already on this story), but if you choose not to educate yourself, that doesn't mean it is the responsibility of food producers to tell you.
The pseudo-conservative horde is always up in arms about labeling as being anti-free market when in fact the opposite is true.
Under a free market, people who want labels would create demand for them. A supply would come into being. People would buy and sell at market rates. And this is exactly what has already happened. You can buy organic food all over the place, or find items explicitly marked as non-GMO. Forcing a company to do something because some people something but aren't creating strong enough demand, or because they just want to punish companies they don't like, or because they want to spread some fear to increase the sales of organic food (organic companies are funding this bill by the way) however is a violation of free market principles.
You can be deceptive with a fact. For example, if I put a label on GE corn that says 'Contains pesticide genes' that is both true and deceptive. It is true because genetically engineered corn has a gene for an insecticide in it. It is deceptive because so does non-GE corn (naturally occurring proteins like maysin are insecticidal), however, by not mentioning that, it makes it appear that only the GE one produces insecticides, and ultimately it does not educate or promote science, it simply paints a misleading picture. I think the best case study on using fact to be deceptive is the 'evolution is only a theory' thing some people tried to force in textbooks. It is both a scientific fact that evolution is 'only' a theory, and it is anti-science to put that label there because it singles out one thing in a manner that casts doubt on its validity by preying on the ignorance of those who do not know what a theory really is. Same thing here. Maybe if these people were advocating making known more of a crops genetic history and labeling if things were produced by hybridization (and if so how) what genes they were selectively bred to have, if they were produced by mutagenesis, wide cross, embryo rescue, bud sport selection, induced polyploidy, ect. and the details of those modifications, then it would be fine. But they are singling out a single thing irrationally and inconsistently with no basis to do so besides making it appear as if they are providing consumers with something useful and unique because the average person does not know all the ways we alter crops nor do they know the benefits of genetic engineering.
It is anti-science because it is not meant to inform, but to spread fear uncertainty and doubt (and most likely also make a profit for the organic companies funding the initiative, though strangely its only wrong whenever Monsanto ect. fund things but trying to scare people to make more money is just dandy).
What exactly is anti-science about demanding that ingredients be listed?
Nothing, but that is not what is happening here. Ingredients are already listed. They are demanding that a particular method of crop improvement be labeled, while ignoring all the others, based on political agendas not science.
If anything, it will make it easier to compare the effects of modified and unmodified plants.
You could apply that same logic to any other method of crop improvement (and I'm not just talking about breeding). Why single out one thing?
then there is no downside for the agribusinesses.
And if people made their decisions based on science alone, that would be true. But this (besides having neither scientific nor moral basis) would be sending the message that GE is something specifically demanding of a label,
I see NO reason not to label GMO.
I see no reason to force it. If people want to, fine, if they don't fine.
I have a right to know what is being claimed as food.
Claimed as food? It is food. And sure, you do have that right. go out and learn about it. No one is stopping you from picking up a book on crop genetics and learning. I think you'd be surprised about just how much we do to food that you don't know about.
As far as raising your own, in many locales veggie gardens are being frowned on. After all, it's an eyesore, right? It's un-American not to consume, right?
No disagreement here. I remain baffled by the people with big open sunny yards who piss money drown the drain every year to maintain that green eyesore then go out and buy fruit s and vegetables that are rather simple to grow at home.
The fact that some in society are to stupid to understand what the label means should have no impact at all on whether I have access to information.
You do have access to it. When I go to a store, I know exactly when I'm buying something with genetically engineered ingredients. But I don't know when I'm buying something produced through many of the other methods of plant improvement.
What you want amounts to censorship
That's absurd. Censorship is when the government says you can't say something. this is forcing food producers to say something. Do you even know the meaning fo that word?
All of the pro-GMO arguments basically boil down to the fact they don't want the information out there
I want the information out there. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. Avoid these, you avoid GE. Unless you are too lazy to read ten words (or you just want to fearmonger about it) it is that simple. I just don't want it to be forced. Most of the anti-GMO are based on ignorance, laziness, and fear of science. The problem is, people know bugger all about crop genetics, so what you've said seems reasonable. It isn't.
Let them label it, and let people make their own decisions.
Done. You can already buy things labeled as non-GMO or organic. You could even take the time to educate yourself on the topic and learn how to avoid GE crops yourself. Just because that information isn't plastered on every item doesn't mean it is hidden. What, do Muslims have no choice about eating Halal because it isn't labeled by law? Do vegans have to eat things derived from animal products because there is no mandatory vegan law?
Unless we have lost all pretense about living in a country where we have freedom
I want the freedom to sell some corn without some ignorant scientifically illiterate activist saying I have to label it as having something unrelated to the end product.
Deliberate sterilization so that corn can no longer be used to seed for the next season
Are you confusing terminator seed with hybrid seed, or are you under the false assumption that terminator seed is actually in use? It's hard to tell which way you're wrong.
Massive die-offs of bees
Worldwide lifespans are also on the up. GE crops must make you live longer! Or does confusing correlation and causation only apply when it is a point being made against GE crops. There is evidence of some insecticides causing CCD. None pointing to GE crops. That was pulled right out of someone's ass.
Evidence of liver damage.
Now that is interesting. I would really like to see the paper that found that. Must be a new paper, because I haven't heard of anything demonstrating that. I hope it is better than the Séralini paper.
I think it's fair to say that those things might be considered "harm to people".
Yeah, but whether or not those things actually happen matters.
Given the lack of testing
What about these hundreds of studies?
And it's been suggested that some "food allergies" are actually allergies to GMO ingredients.
Highly unlikely. That has no evidence and was basically pulled out someone's hindquarters. There are only a few proteins inserted into the GE crops you eat (the cry proteins long used in organic agriculture safely, an altered from of the epsps enzyme that all plants have, the PAT enzyme, two viral coat proteins that are going to be present in much higher concentration in the virus infected non-GE versions).. There is no evidence that they increase allergies. Ironically, there may be an increase in allergies due to new varieties though, but due to breeding, not GE. Pathogenesis-related proteins are good for increasing a plants resistance to disease. They are also a very allergenic class of compounds. Guess what good old fashioned 'safe and proven' breeding has been increasing for the last couple of decades in an effort to produce hardier crops? One of the disadvantages to breeding is that, unlike genetic engineering, you don't always know all the genes you're working with, nor does it require the massive amount of testing and regulatory hurdles that GE does. So I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between newer varieties of GE crops and allergies, but it I would be surprised if there was a causation.
But if people CAN avoid GMO foods
You can do that already. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, papaya. Avoid them, or buy non-GMO/organic items, and you avoid genetic engineering. It isn't hard to learn if those who wish to avoid GE crops take the time to educate themselves. A little knowledge completely negates the need for mandatory labels (which should raise the question of why this movement is not spreading education but is instead trying to make a new law...I'm guessing it has something to do with the funding from organic companies).
Not really, that's just one guy who wrote a self published book full of misrepresentations and distortions. Read what actual scientists have to say about it here. The went through and did a comprehensive take down of that guy's nonsense. Alternatively, this is a fun well cited video. My favorite bit: he claims that transgenes are taken up by gut flora and continue to function, meaning that they could be producing the Bt protein that kills insects (which is totally harmless to humans anyway, but whatever). He cites Netherwood 2004 as proof. That paper's abstract ends with "we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment." So they guy who wrote that site either does not bother to even look at the papers he cites, or he flat out lies. He is also one of the leaders in the anti-GE movement, and is very highly respected and often cited among those who espouse anti-GE sentiment. So what should that tell you?
But either way, if there is nothing wrong then there should be no reason against the labeling.
If there's nothing wrong why should the be labeled? There's tons of things we do to plants that are not dangerous that most people have never heard of, like mutagenesis and doubled haploid hybridization and selection of bud sport mutants. I don't think GE should be singled out. That is just using people's ignorance to scare them about genetic engineering by making it stand out as something different and unique.
If I have a choice between a gmo product that hasn't been in the food supply long enough to know if its okay or not and one that isnt a gmo product, I'd be happy to have the information to make my own informed choices.
That is easy to do already and I'll tell you how. Corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. Eight species have been genetically engineered in the US. Due to the way they are processed, anything containing them that is not labeled as organic or non-GMO contains genetically engineered crops. Now you know how to avoid them if you want, and you can do it without a label. However, they have been in the food supply for a long time, and tested even longer, and there is no reason whatsoever to think they pose any more of a health risk than any other crop.
That having been said, since Dr. Oz recommends avoiding GMO foods
That interview was horribly edited by the way. And somehow, those of us who support genetic engineering are the deceitful ones.
real benefits to customers
Like this? Besides, why should it be a bad thing if I do not directly benefit? I don't directly benefit from disease resistant hybrids, or tractors, or silos. Why is it bad that GE crops only help the farmer?
used to corner the market on herbicides
You do realize that you can get a generic glyphosate from companies that aren't Monsanto, yes? Also, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. Those herbicide resistant crops are actually a good idea. It used to be to control weeds farmers had to till the soil (which is terrible for your soil quality and causes fertilizer runoff, which causes all sorts of damage in aquatic ecosystems) or spray harsher herbicides. The transgenic systems are a step up from that, contrary to the ill will directed at them. Sure, it is always best to minimize agrochemical usage, but it isn't a choice between one herbicide and no herbicide, it is a choice between herbicide A and herbicide B/ tillage. This is one of those finer points that is often glossed over.
If there was ever a market for "good" GMOs, Monsanto killed it.
The first shot was fired at the Flavr Savr tomato, which was not produced by Monsanto. How, if it is Monsanto's evil deed to blame from the public perception of GE crops, is that the case? GE crops are not demonized because of Monsanto, it is the other way around. Monsanto just put a face on GE. It's a lot easier to demonize a big bad company that by claiming they are suing farmers and making Indians kill themselves than it is to demonize science.
I find it interesting that one of the cornerstone requirements for a working free market - perfect access to full information - is being opposed by entities praising the free market at every turn.
There's a difference between access to information and forcing that it be displayed. It is an easy feat to discover what is and is not GE: Corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. They have been modified to have various cry genes (insect resistance), C4 EPSPS gene (glyphosate tolerance), bar gene (glufosinate tolerance), PRSV CP (resistance to papaya ringspot virus), CMV CP (resistance to cucumber mosaic virus, Cspb (drought tolerance), and NptII (antibiotic resistance marker gene used in the transformation process). That one does not educate themselves does not mean that this information is not out there. A free market only means that the information is available, not that it is delivered in a nice easy convenient package. Furthermore, a free market means freedom to do what you want, including label or not label. under a free market, if there is demand, supply will arise to mean demand, and what do you know we have the organic label and things labeled as non-GE already. The free market already has this covered.
In other words, I want to know what the product is that I'm buying
Question: was the last banana you at produced by tissue culture? What about the last apple you ate? What variety was it Are you sure? It could have been a bud sport mutation. How much of the wheat in the last piece of bread you at was produced by wheat that, at some point in its family history, was altered with radiation (hint: about 80% of the world's wheat was altered this way). The last tomato you ate, were all its genes from Solanum lycopersicum, or were some of them from related Solanum species like S. pimpinellifolium that were used in a back cross program to bring in disease resistance genes? Was the last carrot you ate produced by taking two pollen grains from different plants, doubling their chromosomes to produce plants with identical chromosomes, then crossed to form the hybrid you ate? I could go on, but you get the point. You could fill a book with the stuff most people don't know about their food. Heck, you don't even get to see what variety of crop you are eating half the time (are those blueberries Patriot or Bluecrop or Spartan or what?). If you want to know about what you are eating, genetic engineering is the easy part. Why are you applying your want to know towards it but not everything else? furthermore, why does a mere want determine law and regulation? I'm sure plenty of Muslims want Halal/Haram labels, and plenty of Jews want kosher/non-Kosher labels, and plenty of vegans want vegan/non-vegan labels, but it not be right to force those labels, agree? And they manage to get by just fine
In other words, the parent AC hits it on the head: this bill should be a no-brainer, because I should be able to know what I am buying.
Comments like that demonstrate the most irritating part of this bill. If you know very little about crop genetics, it is a no brainer. Think of it a bit deeper, while considering the full breadth of the topic, and it quickly becomes very murky.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it.
The truth also includes the benefits of genetic engineering. Maybe we should label non-GE having more mycotoxins? Maybe we should label GE soybeans as resulting in reduced carbon emissions? Furthermore, the truth includes many other thing about the crop. Was it blasted with radiation and useful mutation selected, as commonly happens in wheat? Was it treated with a chemical to double its chromosomes, as is used in many hybrid lines? Was it selected from a mutated bud, a common practice in apples? Was it crossed with a wild relative then back crossed to get desirable genes, a hot topic in tomatoes (whose wild relatives can be toxic). That's the truth too. Why isn't that labeled? And don't you think it is deceptive to single out on of those while ignoring everything else? It makes the thing singled out to appear exceptionally unique because many do not know the genetics of the crops they eat. It is especially so if the thing singled out has a history of fearmongering campaigns being directed at it.
Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid
That makes all the difference. Laws should be determined by reason, not whoever can shout the loudest (where do you stand on cannabis legalization and gay marriage?).
hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech
How about the right to speak when and if you want to? No one is opposing labeling. The issue is mandatory labeling. Two different things. If someone is selling GE corn, or a product containing GE soy, why should they be forced to label their product as such? The choice should be up to them.
why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs
Do you honestly think that would work? There are tons of papers published by independent scientists from around the world demonstrating the benefits an safety of GE, and this is very often dismissed by those who oppose GE (and make no mistake, these pro-labeling campaigns are anti-GE) as being part of the corporate conspiracy. There really isn't much the corporations can do at this point with respect to making a their case (not that you should really be listening to what they say anyway). Realistically, if GE food is not labeled, people will say 'Ooh, they don't label it, what are they hiding, it must be bad for you!' and if it is labeled people will say 'Ooh, they have to label it, that must mean it is different somehow, it must be bad for you!' just like when people point to labeling or bans in other countries as evidence that GE crops are dangerous.
It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
No, they're just scaring people about them, thus making them less useful for farmers (whose end goal it to run a business and make a living), which will consequently prevent future advances from genetic engineering, especially for horticultural, minor, and biodiverse crops and small biotech businesses (as well as ones that simply benefit the environment, like Enviropig, which failed because it benefited no one bu the environment and that wasn't worth putting up with the fear mongering), while big companies that sell seed for agronomic crops like Monsanto continue to hold large market shares and likely only lose some sales (after all, did proof that trans fats stop the majority of people from eating them...then again, despite the fact that they are a known danger and GE crops are as close to safe as science can demonstrate, no one has launched any big scare campaigns against the known danger, so I could be wrong about that). I swear, I would not be surprised if one of these days we found out Monsanto was behind this pro-labeling anti-GE nonsense.
GMO is not cross-breeding.
You're right, that's why we have different words for them. In one case we insert a single gene, in the other we mix around thousands. And you know what else isn't breeding? Mutageneisis, bud sport selection, and induced polyploidy. And so what if they aren't? Things that aren't breeding should be labeled? Why?
Sorry, but squids and cows don't cross-breed. Neither does E. Coli and corn. It just doesn't happen, man.
Well, technically, it happens. Sure, it doesn't happen how we want it without human manipulation, but you could say the same for every other crop improvement technique. And even if it didn't,I still fail to see the relevance.
Yeah, and if hybrid seed is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via tissue culture is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via induced polyploidy is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via somaclonal variation or mutagenesis is so great, why not label it? And if food produced via doubled haploid hybridization is so great, why not label it? And if Haram food won't send you to hell, why not label it? I could go on, but do you see how easy it is to use that argument? Loaded questions are not good ways to make a point.
They should proudly label their products:
The people who sell the seed do. t is the farmers and food processors who don't? I wonder why? I'll be if I went around telling people that tissue culture causes cancer, people who sell tissue cultured crops like potatoes or bananas wouldn't want to label that either, even if I pulled the cancer thing out of my posterior.
This isn't anti-science but pro-science.
No, it is singling out something because of political reasons. Hey, evolution is only a theory...are creationists pro-science for asking that fact (and it is a fact) be labeled in textbooks? Or are they anti-science by singling out a single thing in a misleading way meant to deceive people due to their ignorance of what the word theory means? Pro-science would be educating people on the genetic history of crops, including the benefits and risks of the methods. Anti-science is singling out one thing because it doesn't fit your beliefs.
I'm as skeptical of revolving doors as anyone, but do you have any evidence he acted unethically?
The GM crops were subsequently approved with no testing, and no testing is required or even allowed to be performed on them
Bullshit. Do you even think about that statement? If that is true, why doesn't Monsanto just release whatever they want? Why is AquaAdvantage having such a tough time with the GE salmon, why can't I buy an Arctic Apple tree, where's the HoneySweet Plum, Golden Rice, or any of the university developed transgenic crops, if there is no need for stringent testing?
You can read more about it here (or hundreds of other sites, use google)
Oh wow, a conspiracy site, didn't see that coming. I love getting my information from people who say Obama isn't a citizen, 9/11 was an inside job, climate change is a hoax, and vaccines cause autism.
This stuff is BAD news for humans.
Please explain to me how the enzyme produced by the C4 EPSPS (the bacterial version of the ESPSP enzyme that all plants have that glyphosate targets that is inserted into Round-Up Ready crops to give them their ability to resist glyphosate) is bad news for humans? Go into all the biochemical nitty gritty if you please.
This isn't about withholding information. The information is freely available to anyone willing to research it. This is about forcing information beyond a rational minimum of information (like nutritional content, ingredients, and allergies) to be displayed, but not all the information, only the information that fits political agendas. Kosher and Halal aren't required to be labeled by law, but that doesn't mean anyone is hiding that information. You don't have to label if something was produced via tissue culture or bud sport selection or mutagenesis or wide crosses either, but that doesn't mean anyone is hiding anything. Why is that a non-issue, yet doing the same for genetic engineering is 'withholding information'?
Most commercial applications of genetically modified food have been developed to benefit the producer, not the consumer
So what? Have you gotten any direct benefits from silos or tractors (besides in terms of cost)? What is wrong with somethng only benefiting farmers and/or the environment (and if you don't think GE crops benefit the environment, thing again: they facilitate no-till agriculture, which prevents fertilizer runoff and reduces carbon emissions).
and the consumer has a right to know about it when it's occurred
But why is it only GE and not everything else? Selective breeding, various types of hybridization, somaclonal variation and mutagenesis, induced polyploidy, sport selection, wide crosses, and embryo rescue, ect all get a free pass? What about everything else you could say about a crop, like where it was grown, what fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, plant growth regulators, ect were applied? Hell, most things don't even label the variety name, let alone the genetic history or a crop.
People should be allowed to know what the modification made was, and then choose whether or not they wish to consume food possessing that modification. If we're talking about increased Beta Carotene levels in Golden Rice, I suspect most consumers won't have a problem with it. If we're talking about soybeans and corn that have been modified to survive repeated direct spraying with Glyphosate - more people will probably opt out of eating that.
What about Clearfield wheat or any of the other non-GE crops bred for herbicide resistance? Why should that get a free pass? And what if I want to know the conventionally bred genes found in my non-GE food? It is very inconsistent to single out one method of crop improvement and ignore the rest. And do you think non-GE corn should have a label informing that it had more pesticides than an insect resistant GE corn? Somehow I can't imagine the movement for a label like that being so popular.
This thing is anti-science for the same reason those 'Warning: Evolution is only a theory' labels were anti-science. No one is denying that evolution is only a theory, but you know damned well the point of that was not to inform, it was to cast doubt on the validity of evolution (because how many people are going to respond by saying 'Only a theory like gravity'?). This is the same thing. They are singling something out because of political controversy, not science. Well, and profit of course. While it is true that Monsanto and others are funding the anti-side, organic businesses (and Mercola the homeopath and anti-vaxxer, so you know where the directors of this movement stand on science) are funding the pro, and what a fortunate coincidence, they don't use GE crops.
And by the way, do you want to know how to tell if something s GE or not? I always know if I'm eating something that is GE. Corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. That's it. If something has those in it, its probably GE. You want to avoid GE, avoid those, or buy organic or things labeled non-GMO (like things certified via the Non-GMO Project). Millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, and vegans get by without special labels just by educating themselves. Anyone who wants to avoid GE crops does not deserve a special law because they will not take responsibility for their own lifestyles and educate themselves.
I was thinking more of the bud sports used in grafting. Sometimes plants produce a branch with a spontaneous mutation that has a useful trait, like an apple that fruits differently, a pale grape, or an earlier peach. These mutants are grafted for their useful traits, and because of this, even though there is only one umbrella variety, like Gala, there can be multiple different strains of sports used in different orchards (like Gale Gala or Ultima Gala). I don't see how something horticulturalists have been taking advantage of for who knows how long is news.
What gets me the politicians who want to spend money on keeping cartels out and securing the border and all that, but then never mention the elephant in the room that is the connection between prohibition, the cartels, and the other boarder problems caused by the cartels. The government creates one problem, then instead of proposing an end policies that create that problem, which cost loads of money (and of course has that toll on life and liberty), they want to spend more money attempting to fix some of the damage the War on Drugs has caused. Then many of these same people claim to be anti-big government and in opposition to government waste & over spending.
It seems that almost every year, some "approved" medical treatment is recalled.
Out of how many that are not? And what alternative would you like, testing them so thoroughly people call them a failed institution for never allowing anything through (which I've heard people say)? You are dealing with substances that are biologically active in humans and given to thousands of people, and you expect the law of large numbers to never crop up? Medical science is not perfect, and nothing the FDA does is going to make it so. It sounds a bit callous to say that, but it is the truth.
Meanwhile - other "drugs" such as quinine, which have been in use worldwide for millenia are suddenly regulated, and taken off the market, so that some bunch of freaks can properly "research", then market quinine.
And why should they get a free pass, if they're going to be sold as medicine? And it isn't like they did it at random (23 people died it seems...hey, weren't you just complaining about drugs that hurt people?)
How 'bout all that food on the market, full of growth hormones, antibiotics, pink slime, and genetically engineered crap?
Antibiotics I'll give you. The other three just creep you out. FDA shouldn't be there to 'protect' you from fears and creepiness.
No one is saying to fully trust Monsanto, or Syngenta, or Bayer, or any other multinational, nor is anyone saying that a monopoly on seeds is a good thing, although contrary to many claims that has not occurred, though ironically anti-GMO sentiment is helping Monsanto and other companies get there (what do you think having such high fear induced regulations that only large companies have the money to overcome does for competition? Monsanto must be loving the opposition to GMOs.). Of course you should be skeptical of them, but not so skeptical that you reject an overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of some vocal fringe. At that point skepticism becomes something else. Pretty much everyone in the relevant fields (save a few outliers oft quoted by biased cherrypicking anti-GE groups) agrees that GE crops are safe and that they have been beneficial, and no one has put forward a plausible mechanism for why inserting a gene is intrinsically going to suddenly make a crop dangerous. It's a case of strong science versus mostly nonsense. To reject the science simply because a corporation benefits makes as much sense as rejecting science because its implications would hurt corporations (like some of the controversy around climate change).
The whole anti-GE thing, at least the current form of it (I mean, there was legitimate scientific concern in the days before the Asilomar conference) was basically fabricated by activists with nothing else better to do (like when Jeremy Rifkin pulled the dangers of the Flavr Savr tomato straight out of his ass), and now we've got people who cite studies that say the exact opposite of their claims like this weasel (who isn't just some nobody but one of the big names in anti-GE). Meanwhile, the dangers of every other form of plant improvement (and like genetic engineering, they all have potential dangers [ever head of the Lenape potato or high psoralens photodermatitis inducing celery) get a free pass (and I'm not saying they are exceptionally dangerous just that it is horribly inconsistent to give GE such excessive scrutiny but ignore everything else). It really isn't much different than the 'controversies' over evolution, vaccines, or climate change.
So yeah, its good to skeptical, especially of big corporations, but skepticism does not mean you reject proof when you get it nor does it mean every piece of FUD has merit.
its scary because no matter how hard we worked in centuries past we couldn't cross corn with a starfish, or fruit with squid
Yeah, nature could never mix aphid with fungus or sea slug with algae or witchweed and sorghum, right?
and THAT is why GMO is scary
Appeal to nature. Even if your first point weren't horribly uninformed nonsense, it still wouldn't mean that genetic engineering is bad. It times past we couldn't isolate viruses kill them and inject them right into our veins, but that doesn't mean vaccines are bad either, and fallacies are especially bad when applied to highly studied topics.
because frankly some of the shit they are coming up with can't even be truly classified as plant anymore.
So a new protein suddenly changes what kingdom something is in? That's ridiculous. I guess that makes you a virus since humans need a viral transgene to develop the placenta.