• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Comprehensive List of GMO Products

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
A simple phrase such as "Contains at least one GMO" would be a rather simple thing to add to packaging, and it would provide the rather simple information that the food contained therein was made from at least one genetically modified ingredient. This would appease the tree-hugging, anti-science, ingorami (such as myself) with the desired information upon which we can base our own decisions about which items we want to purchase.

All of the brilliant people who perfectly comprehend the effects of all of the genetic modifications, in of all of the approved genetically modified foods, would still be at liberty to purchase all of their favorite foods, even with that piece of information listed on the packaging! The presence of the simple phrase on the package isn't going to give the food cooties, so it will still be perfectly safe (?) to eat! It's very exciting.. I know.
The only reason for labeling nearly all our food as GMO is to imply its bad. Despite their being no reputable evidence showing this.

So instead how about we compromise and label GMO as

"Due to irrational liberal fear of science we must point out this food has been improved by people"

That way you can be happy that it is labeled. But it also makes clear that there is no evidence that GMO is harmful

I am willing to pay more for food to be part of the Control Group. Willing and enthusiastic consumers of GMOs can then be part of the Test Group. We are, in that case, both getting what we want, without much more trouble to food producers than the keeping track of the origins of their ingredients and properly labeling their products.
So you are irrationally afraid?

I don't think every genetic modification made to every food is going to result in a negative health effect. Rather, I do think it very likely that a few genetic modifications made to a few foods probably will have a negative health effect.. and that a minute few might turn out to have a serious, negative health effect.. as the companies profiting from patents on the newly created food genes might either be incapable of perfectly predicting the effects of their modifications (likely, I think), or unwilling to fully and objectively test the effects of their modifications (also likely, I think) because doing so would have a negative effect on profits. Furthermore, I have innate suspicion of the published results of a test which has been conducted by an entity whose profits will be affected by the findings (conflict of interest). Lastly, at least one of the companies, which is performing the genetic modifications, I trust no farther than I can see in the pitch black.
Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm trying to think of a (good) reason why such information should not be included on food packaging for the edification of interested parties. Does anyone have one? (Hint: The grave prediction of a possible increase in paranoia, and the horrifying possibility of orgasms over the results of safety tests don't even come close to qualifying.)
I am trying to come up with one good reason why we should label food as being GMO. Especially when that includes basically all foods.

HINT: Liberal paranoia is not a good reason

HINT2: People have been tampering with food genetics for 1000s of years. Just because we have developed improved methods does not mean that food needs to start be labeled.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
A simple phrase such as "Contains at least one GMO" would be a rather simple thing to add to packaging, and it would provide the rather simple information that the food contained therein was made from at least one genetically modified ingredient. This would appease the tree-hugging, anti-science, ingorami (such as myself) with the desired information upon which we can base our own decisions about which items we want to purchase.

All of the brilliant people who perfectly comprehend the effects of all of the genetic modifications, in of all of the approved genetically modified foods, would still be at liberty to purchase all of their favorite foods, even with that piece of information listed on the packaging! The presence of the simple phrase on the package isn't going to give the food cooties, so it will still be perfectly safe (?) to eat! It's very exciting.. I know.

I am willing to pay more for food to be part of the Control Group. Willing and enthusiastic consumers of GMOs can then be part of the Test Group. We are, in that case, both getting what we want, without much more trouble to food producers than the keeping track of the origins of their ingredients and properly labeling their products.

I don't think every genetic modification made to every food is going to result in a negative health effect. Rather, I do think it very likely that a few genetic modifications made to a few foods probably will have a negative health effect.. and that a minute few might turn out to have a serious, negative health effect.. as the companies profiting from patents on the newly created food genes might either be incapable of perfectly predicting the effects of their modifications (likely, I think), or unwilling to fully and objectively test the effects of their modifications (also likely, I think) because doing so would have a negative effect on profits. Furthermore, I have innate suspicion of the published results of a test which has been conducted by an entity whose profits will be affected by the findings (conflict of interest). Lastly, at least one of the companies, which is performing the genetic modifications, I trust no farther than I can see in the pitch black.

I'm trying to think of a (good) reason why such information should not be included on food packaging for the edification of interested parties. Does anyone have one? (Hint: The grave prediction of a possible increase in paranoia, and the horrifying possibility of orgasms over the results of safety tests don't even come close to qualifying.)
Why don't you want pesticide content and pesticide/fertilizer/land/water usage to be listed on labels? Because those would make GMO foods look better?
 

MrColin

Platinum Member
May 21, 2003
2,403
3
81
Part of the reason all foods have GMO ingredients is because of Monsanto's patent trolling. For seed producers its impossible to keep GMO pollen out of your fields. Monsanto then goes around testing for markers of their patented genes in other people's crops and sues them out of business.

Not all GMOs are bad theoretically, there will be very little independent research to evaluate their safety as doing so spells doom for the researchers' careers. Back in the early days when BST came out, People pushed for legislation to require labeling in the state of WI. The Monsanto lobbyists kicked in to high gear and WI ended up with a law requiring milk to be labeled with a sticker stating (falsely) that there was no difference in quality of milk produced with BST. In reality there is a pretty noticeable difference. Obama put a Monsanto exec in charge of the FDA. Its all downhill from here.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,604
17
81
Part of the reason all foods have GMO ingredients is because of Monsanto's patent trolling. For seed producers its impossible to keep GMO pollen out of your fields. Monsanto then goes around testing for markers of their patented genes in other people's crops and sues them out of business.

Not all GMOs are bad theoretically, there will be very little independent research to evaluate their safety as doing so spells doom for the researchers' careers. Back in the early days when BST came out, People pushed for legislation to require labeling in the state of WI. The Monsanto lobbyists kicked in to high gear and WI ended up with a law requiring milk to be labeled with a sticker stating (falsely) that there was no difference in quality of milk produced with BST. In reality there is a pretty noticeable difference. Obama put a Monsanto exec in charge of the FDA. Its all downhill from here.
That's the kind of crap that corrupts systems. The SEC, the FDA, and others.
Put the regulated party, or close friends of theirs, in charge of the regulating. What could possibly go wrong with that?:whiste:


"Dear heroin addicts: Please stop using heroin. It's illegal and unhealthy, and you really shouldn't do it."
There, problem solved without a hitch. That was sure easy.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Part of the reason all foods have GMO ingredients is because of Monsanto's patent trolling. For seed producers its impossible to keep GMO pollen out of your fields. Monsanto then goes around testing for markers of their patented genes in other people's crops and sues them out of business.
I used to work for Monsanto. I moved on, partly because I hate Monsanto for business and employee relation reasons. But what you just said is complete and utter bullshit. Its true that pollen spreads, its also true that Monsanto conducts testing when they think there has been a patent infringement. Only when there is irrefutable evidence that a farmer stole their seed do they take action. It is very easy to spot the difference between pollen blowing around and a farmer planting a bag of seed they didn't pay for.

Please stop spreading lies. Monsanto is definitely a pain in the ass business with the most slithery, shit smelling lawyers but you don't have to go around lying about it to show that.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
I used to work for Monsanto. I moved on, partly because I hate Monsanto for business and employee relation reasons. But what you just said is complete and utter bullshit. Its true that pollen spreads, its also true that Monsanto conducts testing when they think there has been a patent infringement. Only when there is irrefutable evidence that a farmer stole their seed do they take action. It is very easy to spot the difference between pollen blowing around and a farmer planting a bag of seed they didn't pay for.

Please stop spreading lies. Monsanto is definitely a pain in the ass business with the most slithery, shit smelling lawyers but you don't have to go around lying about it to show that.
Didn't pay for? As in they stole it from the Monsanto Seed Store?
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
The only way that is possible is if the farmers were 50 miles from the nearest Monsanto farm no where near truck routes yet still had the Monsanto gene.

In other words a small fraction of them "stole" the seeds because they are all over the Midwest near highways traveled by Monsanto trucks.

A good friend of mine has stated he joined the military only because his farm was fucked over a Monsanto lawsuit. There was nothing else to do after his chances of running the farm went up in smoke. Instead of turning the farm into a Monsanto farm his dad said fuck them. They had been using their own seeds for generations.

How much of that is true is unknown but he seemed pretty pissed when the conversation came up (why did you join, I joined bc of, etc) and he is a big corn fed mfer.

I'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories but given the lawsuits brought up by Monsanto on local farmers give pretty blatant examples of shady shit.
 

lowrider69

Senior member
Aug 26, 2004
422
0
0
If people want to eat Monsanto's crap let them. This is probably the same people who think mainstream news and mainstream science(and their reports on certain subjects) is legit, lmao. The general public lives in the dark ages, but they have iPads and lots of "information", most of which is garbage.

People need to pull their their heads out of their asses. Read up on Monsanto, follow the money.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY