Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by yllus, Jan 6, 2013.
Politicizing science is never going to lead to the actual truth.
My father is extremely passionate against GMO crops, personally I have mixed feelings.
I don't like holding back scientific progress on one hand, but on the other I can see the dangers. And I don't know how comfortable I am with corporations being able to run rampant across the genomes of nature.
No one should have a problem with GM, I can see them having a problem with what changes have been made if they are not for the better. But to be against GM just because it's GM is just stupid. I am all for GM foods and the continued advancements.
considering that all crops have been genetically modified to yield the best possible specimen (either through genetic engineering or through selective breeding), the term "genetically modified" is ambiguous at best. every crop has been genetically modified at one point or another in history.
I think you could label food by which corps create it, that would let me know who I wanted to support with my money.
So don't label it GMO, just label it Monsanto.
So basically your wanting to label it has nothing to do with potential harm of GMO, but your hatred of Monsanto.
Glad to see the truth is finally out.
No hatred but I don't like their business practices and would prefer not to support them by buying their products.
I'm just trying to compromise to a solution I think labeling GMO, foods GMO is a grand idea.
I want to choose to only eat food that was picked by a female, not food that was picked by males. I think my food should be labeled so I can be given that choice. If I want to avoid crops that were picked by males, do you think I should not be given the choice?
You have no answer. Because if you say, "yes", you look like a moron. If you say "no, that's stupid, because it doesn't matter whether a male or female picked the food" - that EXACTLY the point everyone else has been making about GMO food - IT DOESN'T MATTER.
It does not matter to you.
To those it does matter to, shouldn't they have the option?
Maybe kosher foods matter to jews?
Maybe halal foods matter to muslims?
If jews, muslims, vegans,,, can be informed about the foods they choose to eat, why cant people who want to avoid GMO have the option?
But because it does not matter to you, it does not matter to anyone?
I think GMO food safety is one of those things that we may not know true impact for generations. And that impact could very well be nothing at all. I think GMOs are the only option for food as population increases.
But your the only person I've heard say they want to know which sex picked their food meanwhile in California they had to outspend massively to not label.
It seems to me that of consumers by large amounts want it labeled they should label it. Whether it makes sense in the safety if it or not.
Then maybe those that it matters to should find a company who sells niche products that fit their lifestyle/opinions - just like Jews do with Kosher items. If there is a market for NON-GMO then maybe someone should jump on it and make the products... oh wait... They do - http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/ Sheesh....
Is food labeled as non-kosher?
No. Special food is labeled as kosher
As I pointed out several times 100% organic is GMO-free.
Why should General Mills have to track the GMO-status of its cheerios ingredients to appease fear mongers? If you want GMO-free buy 100% organic problem solved.
What is your basis for thinking it will have an impact at all?
I agree non GMO producers should label there stuff non GMO.
I don't know if it will or won't no clue at all. However genetics is poorly understood overall understanding the impacts has to reflect that fact.
Regular food has been a lot longer the GMO.
Why should everyone else have to change because a company releases a niche product?
They don't have to, it be a really good idea and differentiate, they would probably sell more.
So if they create say a new breed of apples through traditional hybrid processes are you going to avoid that apple for 40 years until its effects are known?
No not at all, but that's a choice I get to make.
What is missing is the possibility of an entirely foreign gene with a survival advantage finding its way into organisms which could then throw ecology under the bus. After all we aren't talking random insertion of random DNA. This needs to be better understood and there's not much said about it. What's the probability? Who knows, but ruling it out as "unscientific" is more than a bit foolish. Chestnut blight, dutch elm disease, kudzu, starlings, zebra mussels- the list goes on and on.
A great post. Here's an article and a link to a Nature article that agrees with you.
hahahaaaa...look who is talking!!
So your argument is that purposefully inserting a known genetic sequence is somehow inherently more dangerous than random genetic sequence being randomly inserted?
And couldn't the same kind of super plant arise through hybridization, random mutation, etc?
So basically you just hate Monsanto, and it has nothing to do with food safety.
I recommend you purchasing 100% Organic foods that will be free of Monsanto. But every food corporation should not be required to track the monsanto content of their food to appease irrational people like you.