anti-vaccers usually white, rich, and private schooled

[Brainonska511]

I think simply noting that something is GMO and by whom is probably sufficient. As far as allergies, I don't expect my government to protect me from everything. I am capable of figuring out if I have a problem and altering inputs to isolate the cause. Government cannot possibly do that; people are far too diverse, genetically and in other environmental conditions.

As a rule, corporations fighting simple and inexpensive labeling requirements have reasons for spending that money. While I personally have nothing against GM food, their actions make me wonder what they know that I don't.

Why do you expect more out of GMO foods but not out of conventionally bred foods? The lenape potato comes to mind as an example of conventional breeding going awry. Government can't protect you from everything, but research has given the medical community a decent idea of what things will cause allergies and which things won't. And not all GMOs have a new protein introduced (see: Arctic Apple and Simplot's new potato). You're proposing holding one set of safe food production to a higher standard not required of more conventionally produced foods.

Why do you think it would be cheap to label? Is there going to be a threshold amount that triggers labeling? It's not simply slapping a label on stuff and calling it a day. You'd have to track and segregate foods (and threshold requirements to trigger labeling would determine how well you need to segregate foods in storage and transport), which would increase production costs. Frequently, farmers grow both GMO and non-GMO stuff, use the same equipment on both, etc...

And what would trigger labeling? Does sugar from GMO sugar beets count as GMO? It's chemically identical to sugar from sugar cane plants that are not GMO. What about other highly refined products - oils, etc... that contain no genetic or protein material from the original plant?

The real reason they fight labeling is due to all the misinformation and it would increase their costs. It's not because they have something to hide - what do they gain if they were poisoning the customers of their customers (that seems like a great business plan)? And under the law, you can't compel unnecessary speech, and arguably, stating whether something is GMO or not has nothing to do with safety, ingredients, and allergenic information currently required on foods.

 

[TheSlamma]

GMO foods is not just about allergies.

In my yard I have one of the last 80 American Elm trees in the Denver area (Note the number and it is dropping still) and it is constantly under attack from European Elm scale, the owners before me sprayed it year after year with the same chemicals that people have been using for 40 years now. Well less than 1% of scale population is immune to those chemicals.. and what did they do? they bred to large numbers and now can drink that chemical up and keep on going. The only effective thing on our scale now is to release lady beetles on them during their crawler stage, so a full circle right back to mother natures way. As a side note within 1 weeks time they get so fat from feeding they fall out of the tree.

Round up ready plants have the same problem, now we are seeing "superweeds" that are immune to glyphosate and along the way spraying round up is also harmful to 5 species of beneficial insects and that was at EPA tested amounts, with increased amounts of chemical due to the superweeds it will be even more toxic.

I want to be able to do my best not to support the use of those round up ready products or anything else with the same impacts on the ecosystem.

How come humans think that when we genetically modify something that all evolution comes to a halt around us?

 

[werepossum]

Why do you expect more out of GMO foods but not out of conventionally bred foods? The lenape potato comes to mind as an example of conventional breeding going awry. Government can't protect you from everything, but research has given the medical community a decent idea of what things will cause allergies and which things won't. And not all GMOs have a new protein introduced (see: Arctic Apple and Simplot's new potato). You're proposing holding one set of safe food production to a higher standard not required of more conventionally produced foods.

Why do you think it would be cheap to label? Is there going to be a threshold amount that triggers labeling? It's not simply slapping a label on stuff and calling it a day. You'd have to track and segregate foods (and threshold requirements to trigger labeling would determine how well you need to segregate foods in storage and transport), which would increase production costs. Frequently, farmers grow both GMO and non-GMO stuff, use the same equipment on both, etc...

And what would trigger labeling? Does sugar from GMO sugar beets count as GMO? It's chemically identical to sugar from sugar cane plants that are not GMO. What about other highly refined products - oils, etc... that contain no genetic or protein material from the original plant?

The real reason they fight labeling is due to all the misinformation and it would increase their costs. It's not because they have something to hide - what do they gain if they were poisoning the customers of their customers (that seems like a great business plan)? And under the law, you can't compel unnecessary speech, and arguably, stating whether something is GMO or not has nothing to do with safety, ingredients, and allergenic information currently required on foods.

Conventionally bred foods don't need labels because except for heirloom foods, ALL available food in conventionally bred cultivars. As for tracking, all food components need to be tracked anyway, else when there is contamination we can't locate its source.

 

[Brainonska511]

GMO foods is not just about allergies.

In my yard I have one of the last 80 American Elm trees in the Denver area (Note the number and it is dropping still) and it is constantly under attack from European Elm scale, the owners before me sprayed it year after year with the same chemicals that people have been using for 40 years now. Well less than 1% of scale population is immune to those chemicals.. and what did they do? they bred to large numbers and now can drink that chemical up and keep on going. The only effective thing on our scale now is to release lady beetles on them during their crawler stage, so a full circle right back to mother natures way. As a side note within 1 weeks time they get so fat from feeding they fall out of the tree.

Round up ready plants have the same problem, now we are seeing "superweeds" that are immune to glyphosate and along the way spraying round up is also harmful to 5 species of beneficial insects and that was at EPA tested amounts, with increased amounts of chemical due to the superweeds it will be even more toxic.

I want to be able to do my best not to support the use of those round up ready products or anything else with the same impacts on the ecosystem.

Monoculture doesn't mean what you think it means - by definition, any field where they are growing food crops is going to be monoculture - how else are you going to take advantage of economies of scale and industrial machinery to harvest? Plus, there is more than one "variety" of round-up ready corn and there is plenty of genetic diversity in corn (unlike bananas, which are effectively clones of one another).

Also, "superweeds" is kind of a bs term meant to scare people. The reality is, it's evolution in action. Inappropriate use of one pesticide in some cases is driving evolution of weeds in some areas just like inappropriate use of antibiotics helps to create an environment in which resistant bacteria can thrive. And other non-GMO plants have herbicide resistance problems - look at Clearfield crops (resistant to imidazolinone): that particular pesticide is responsible for far more resistant weeds than roundup is. But we don't hear anything about that for some reason... (maybe because they aren't GMO...).

Using integrated pest management, following application labels, and crop rotation within a growing year or between years will do wonders for combating weed problems (and many farmers already do this) - because different weeds thrive in different fields. It's also the push behind the development of Dow's Enlist Duo system - combining 2,4-D resistance with glyphosate resistance. Just like in treating cancer and bacterial infections, using two modes of action to keep weeds down will inhibit the development of new resistant weeds.

Regardless, the use of GMO crops has actually dropped the amount of chemical pesticides farmers have had to use while increasing yields. If the regulatory barriers weren't absurdly high, I'm sure you'd see more GMO varieties developed - both those oriented towards the production side (like pest resistance traits) and towards the consumer side (current examples include Non-browning apples, nutrient-enhanced plants...).

 

[Brainonska511]

Conventionally bred foods don't need labels because except for heirloom foods, ALL available food in conventionally bred cultivars. As for tracking, all food components need to be tracked anyway, else when there is contamination we can't locate its source.

Conventionally bred foods include foods made through chemical and radiation mutagenesis. These cause orders of magnitude more mutations than the insertion of one to ten genes with the GMO process. Why you dismiss labeling is rather absurd.

For example, ruby red grapefruits - originally made through radiation mutagenesis, along with hundreds more common fruits and vegetables
www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ove-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/

And the earlier link the the lenape potato again shows that method of breeding is relatively irrelevant in determining safety. A German man was killed by zuchinni that was grown in someone's garden. All natural zuchinni - probably bred in such a way that toxic genes were turned back on.

As for tracking: there is tracking and there is segregation. Tracking and food segregation are related but not one in the same. And again, what determines whether something gets a label? What if there is no DNA or proteins left in the final product?

 

[bshole]

I am shocked and appalled. I cannot believe this.

ROFLMAO!!!! Best eva!!!! Thank you for that. That is a milk out of the noser...

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam's head will explode when hearing of these large progressive fear centers.
That or either existence will be denied.

I just hit two keys at the same time that caused the rather lengthy reply to this to disappear. I will just say now, them, that you are wrong.