It's pretty obvious when someone is using a wheel or fire. Their benefits are obvious. So, no, I wouldn't. The use of GMOs is not so obvious, so I want a better marker with better regulation, including liability for when something goes wrong with them.
This isn't a question of unsubstantiated beliefs. Well over 80% of Americans surveyed, across the political spectrum, want labeling. If a customer wants to know if food contains a particular ingredient, he only has to look at the label. If he wants to know if food contains GMO, he has to hunt the information down.
The introduction of GMOs into the food supply was authorized not by law, but by a regulatory agency, probably one captured by the industry it serves.
As to the court challenges on this topic (no creationism as your indirect put-down might imply), there seems to be a fairly evident bias in the courts to favor commercial interests over public interests.
My main concern is this: If I make a mistake manufacturing a thing, I can stop production and change the design. GMOs don't have an off switch. You can't just stop their reproduction. I'm also concerned that GMO promoters think it's okay to turn millions of people into unwitting lab rats. But that's okay as long as a few patent holders get their money, right?
Thank you for your sobering analysis. I recall that there was quite a bit of controversy regarding the inclusion of GMOs within the meaning of the term, "organic". I guess they got that through.
GMOs aren't just a little thing. There is an enormous profit incentive that has shown up in our legislatures as "lobbying". It's no secret that this business is highly profitable and there is an element of risk involved. In the Farm Bill under consideration of Congress now, there is a rider purporting to provide Monsanto with immunity from suite in the event that there is damage from their crops.
So GMOs are better? How are they better? I've done my own research into why they're not, but since you're saying that forcing mutations is the norm and using that to justify GMOs, surely you can point out why that would be better or safer.
Thanks for the perspective on land use. Very interesting. I suppose there are some subsidies in Costa Rica that support the meat and dairy industries, but not so for the veggies, is that right?
Then why put labels on the food at all? Why identify the contents? Your argument doesn't hold water when it comes to what the customer wants. Shouldn't consumers have a choice in the matter?
Oh, wait. You simply know better because you're "more informed" and you'll simply make it happen by fiat. Even if the scientific evidence is entirely in favor of GMOs, people still deserve to know if the food they eat contains it.
If there weren't so much money behind the promotion of GMOs, I might think differently. But the greed behind the private monopolies of companies like Monsanto suggest that safety is not the reason why GMOs aren't labeled.
The forces at work to put GMO crops into the market is every bit as political as the movement to have the food produced from the same crops labeled. Your suggestion that the desire to have GMO labeling on food is merely a political movement makes it no less important.
Look, remove the incentive with patents and we'll see how important it really is to the companies that want to "feed the world.
You're right, I could educate myself and I do. But most people would like a guide. Here's a sample: "His survey found that 91 percent of people want GMOs labeled, while 81 percent "strongly favor" such labeling." http://www.rodale.com/gmo-labeling
But then again, the will of the people doesn't matter, does it? Corporate profits are more important, aren't they?
The idea that GMOs are going to help feed millions of people is a canard. Stop growing cows and you'll have the grain you need to feed everyone.
You are making an assumption that GMOs are not harmful. Take the new leaf potato. Has a protein that disables the digestive systems of insects that eat the leaves on the potato plant. Harmless, right?
How long will we have to wait to find out the damage it does to the environment? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? And if it were found to damage the environment who will pay for the damage?
This isn't just about human safety. Jefferson said that we should not be tyrants of the land. GMOs are an example of the ultimate tyranny of the land.
The companies that want royalties on the patents they secured on their inventions should be proud enough to label it. Their decision to hide it draws suspicion. Therefore, it should be labeled.
Fear. You mean like asbestos? Cigarettes? Global warming?
How long do you want to wait to learn that GMOs damage the environment? Humans?
Who will accept liability for the damage done? Who will assign it when everyone who caused the problems related to GMOs are long gone and have made their money?
No need for a disinterested third party to verify the ingredients in processed food, either, eh? Who needs standard weights and measures? Let's just throw them out.
You miss the point entirely. Consumers want to make a choice regardless of whether they cause harm or not. Even if their fears are unfounded, it is still a modification of the food.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty obvious when someone is using a wheel or fire. Their benefits are obvious. So, no, I wouldn't. The use of GMOs is not so obvious, so I want a better marker with better regulation, including liability for when something goes wrong with them.
Thus the problem with GMOs. No control. The seed becomes the bomb.
I see. So you know there are risks, but those other people who are against GMOs are holding an untenable position? Purely ideological, right?
Oh, so it hasn't been proven that GMOs harm the environment?
This isn't a question of unsubstantiated beliefs. Well over 80% of Americans surveyed, across the political spectrum, want labeling. If a customer wants to know if food contains a particular ingredient, he only has to look at the label. If he wants to know if food contains GMO, he has to hunt the information down.
The introduction of GMOs into the food supply was authorized not by law, but by a regulatory agency, probably one captured by the industry it serves.
As to the court challenges on this topic (no creationism as your indirect put-down might imply), there seems to be a fairly evident bias in the courts to favor commercial interests over public interests.
My main concern is this: If I make a mistake manufacturing a thing, I can stop production and change the design. GMOs don't have an off switch. You can't just stop their reproduction. I'm also concerned that GMO promoters think it's okay to turn millions of people into unwitting lab rats. But that's okay as long as a few patent holders get their money, right?
Thanks for the clarification. Interesting to hear that the farmers are not welcoming these GMO seeds with open arms.
Thank you for your sobering analysis. I recall that there was quite a bit of controversy regarding the inclusion of GMOs within the meaning of the term, "organic". I guess they got that through.
Carl Sagan was right. http://memegenerator.net/instance/32511409
GMOs aren't just a little thing. There is an enormous profit incentive that has shown up in our legislatures as "lobbying". It's no secret that this business is highly profitable and there is an element of risk involved. In the Farm Bill under consideration of Congress now, there is a rider purporting to provide Monsanto with immunity from suite in the event that there is damage from their crops.
Why would that be if this is just a little thing? http://truth-out.org/news/item/10210-the-monsanto-rider-are-biotech-companies-about-to-gain-immunity-from-federal-law
So GMOs are better? How are they better? I've done my own research into why they're not, but since you're saying that forcing mutations is the norm and using that to justify GMOs, surely you can point out why that would be better or safer.
Sure. You can always take an extreme position to prove your point. Who can argue against that?
Thanks for the perspective on land use. Very interesting. I suppose there are some subsidies in Costa Rica that support the meat and dairy industries, but not so for the veggies, is that right?
Then why put labels on the food at all? Why identify the contents? Your argument doesn't hold water when it comes to what the customer wants. Shouldn't consumers have a choice in the matter?
Oh, wait. You simply know better because you're "more informed" and you'll simply make it happen by fiat. Even if the scientific evidence is entirely in favor of GMOs, people still deserve to know if the food they eat contains it.
If there weren't so much money behind the promotion of GMOs, I might think differently. But the greed behind the private monopolies of companies like Monsanto suggest that safety is not the reason why GMOs aren't labeled.
The forces at work to put GMO crops into the market is every bit as political as the movement to have the food produced from the same crops labeled. Your suggestion that the desire to have GMO labeling on food is merely a political movement makes it no less important.
Look, remove the incentive with patents and we'll see how important it really is to the companies that want to "feed the world.
You're right, I could educate myself and I do. But most people would like a guide. Here's a sample: "His survey found that 91 percent of people want GMOs labeled, while 81 percent "strongly favor" such labeling." http://www.rodale.com/gmo-labeling
But then again, the will of the people doesn't matter, does it? Corporate profits are more important, aren't they?
This is really simple. Put a label on the food to identify it as genetically modified. Thou dost protest too much. Why so much resistance?
Or you could take the time to explain it to the people so that they can make an informed decision.
The idea that GMOs are going to help feed millions of people is a canard. Stop growing cows and you'll have the grain you need to feed everyone.
You are making an assumption that GMOs are not harmful. Take the new leaf potato. Has a protein that disables the digestive systems of insects that eat the leaves on the potato plant. Harmless, right?
How long will we have to wait to find out the damage it does to the environment? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? And if it were found to damage the environment who will pay for the damage?
This isn't just about human safety. Jefferson said that we should not be tyrants of the land. GMOs are an example of the ultimate tyranny of the land.
The companies that want royalties on the patents they secured on their inventions should be proud enough to label it. Their decision to hide it draws suspicion. Therefore, it should be labeled.
The problem then becomes the prohibition against labeling a product as "GMO-free". Which way do you want it?
I agree with some of your points, but "buyer beware" can only go so far.
Fear. You mean like asbestos? Cigarettes? Global warming?
How long do you want to wait to learn that GMOs damage the environment? Humans?
Who will accept liability for the damage done? Who will assign it when everyone who caused the problems related to GMOs are long gone and have made their money?
Agreed.
This is not just a question of fear. It's a question of honesty. Even if they are completely safe, labeling should be the rule not the exception.
No need for a disinterested third party to verify the ingredients in processed food, either, eh? Who needs standard weights and measures? Let's just throw them out.
Suit yourself. You can't tell consumers they don't get to know what's in their food without consequences.
The customer is always right. You should know that by now.
You miss the point entirely. Consumers want to make a choice regardless of whether they cause harm or not. Even if their fears are unfounded, it is still a modification of the food.
Let them have it.