Why dumb people should not vote - Washington votes no to GMO labeling

[DrPizza]

The whole point is to allow the consumer to make the best decision for them.

Then there's no reason to label the food. Whether food is GMO or not is irrelevant to the end consumer who is trying to choose which is the best food to eat.

 

[theeedude]

Fear is a powerful thing. As I pointed out earlier marketing GMOs to end consumers is hard because there is no direct benefit to them.



A little thing called truth? The stickers on cigarettes are fundamentally based on truth, whereas the GMO stickers are meant to imply falsehoods.

Labeling is not always the best policy. Sticking labels that are meant to do nothing other than mislead people is a horrible policy.

GMO can be harmful. You can make genes to produce all kinds of proteins, and there is no guarantee they are all safe for all consumers.
GMO food vendor should list what the modification was, and let consumer research it and decide whether he wants to take a chance on it.

 

[poofyhairguy]

And they wouldn't exist. Nor would a majority of companies.

Agreed, I am not saying these companies shouldn't exist. But they get NO sympathy from me if their way of controlling the GMO brand is to bury it.

Just like GM would have no sympathy from me if it complained that the "crazies" have "poisoned the well" by calling them Government Motors. That is GM's problem, and if they want to keep using the brand and make money off of it they need to spend the money to fix it.

If they were a non-profit or some charity project I would have more sympathy that they don't have the resources for a rebrand.

But for a company that is the cost of doing business. Either fix the problem or figure out a new business model.

 

[xBiffx]

GMO can be harmful.

Water can be harmful. You have proof that current GMO's are harmful or are you just stinking up the place again?

You can make genes to produce all kinds of proteins, and there is no guarantee they are all safe for all consumers.

You could also make farts smell like roses but there is no guarantee anyone would still want to smell them.

GMO food vendor should list what the modification was, and let consumer research it and decide whether he wants to take a chance on it.

GMO's label their products already. You buy seed based on what trait you want in it. As far as food, that trait means nothing once its processed into food so its meaningless and therefore a waste on a food label.

 

[theeedude]

Then there's no reason to label the food. Whether food is GMO or not is irrelevant to the end consumer who is trying to choose which is the best food to eat.

GMO modifies the substances (proteins) produced inside the fruit. If what you eat is not relevant to you, that's fine, you don't speak for everyone. You can just ignore the GMO label anyways, why are you so against it?

 

[nehalem256]

GMO can be harmful. You can make genes to produce all kinds of proteins, and there is no guarantee they are all safe for all consumers.

Sounds no different than any other modification humans have been doing to crops for 1000s of years.

GMO food vendor should list what the modification was, and let consumer research it and decide whether he wants to take a chance on it.

Because the average person who probably can't even balance their checkbook should be responsible for determining food safety? Why do we have this little thing called the FDA again?

 

[theeedude]

Proof?



You could also make farts smell like roses but there is no guarantee anyone would still want to smell them.



They already do. You buy seed based on what trait you want in it.

I am not a farmer, so I don't buy seed, I buy the fruit. Since there is no label, I have no way of knowing what traits were engineered in and whether I want them in my body.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Labeling allows the consumer to decide what they eat.

What possible reason could their be not to label foods?

Then fucking label the Cavendish banana as GMO. That is not a "natural" food. Or what about any corn? None of it is "natural" either.

Look at it this way. Non-GMO cross-breeding will mix thousands of genes. You'll get mutations and genetic drift (along with other evolutionary forces) in addition to the gene you're breeding for. So now you have a crop with the desired trait, but also other genes that were bred for unintentionally. With GMO's you only are injecting the one specific gene you want the trait for.

 

[theeedude]

Sounds no different than any other modification humans have been doing to crops for 1000s of years.



Because the average person who probably can't even balance their checkbook should be responsible for determining food safety? Why do we have this little thing called the FDA again?

So average person will ignore the GMO label and keep on eating. The ones who care will do more research.

 

[xBiffx]

Agreed, I am not saying these companies shouldn't exist. But they get NO sympathy from me if their way of controlling the GMO brand is to bury it.

Just like GM would have no sympathy from me if it complained that the "crazies" have "poisoned the well" by calling them Government Motors. That is GM's problem, and if they want to keep using the brand and make money off of it they need to spend the money to fix it.

If they were a non-profit or some charity project I would have more sympathy that they don't have the resources for a rebrand.

But for a company that is the cost of doing business. Either fix the problem or figure out a new business model.

These companies (GMO's) don't bury anything. They are very forthcoming about the information regarding the products they sell. You can thank the USDA for that.

 

[xBiffx]

I am not a farmer, so I don't buy seed, I buy the fruit. Since there is no label, I have no way of knowing what traits were engineered in and whether I want them in my body.

Because knowing that tells you nothing about the food. Those traits don't make it into your body. You are continuing to look very anti-science ridiculous now by making it seem as if though that modified DNA trait is making its way into your body.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Fear is a powerful thing. As I pointed out earlier marketing GMOs to end consumers is hard because there is no direct benefit to them.

As you said, often GMO products cost less. There has never been a more marketable benefit than that. Marketing incompetence is not an excuse.

A little thing called truth? The stickers on cigarettes are fundamentally based on truth, whereas the GMO stickers are meant to imply falsehoods.

What falsehoods are they meant to imply? The label just says what has GMOs in it. There is no corresponding opinion paragraph that says how evil they are.

The only reason you feel there is a "falsehood" regarding the connotation tied to GMO products is because these companies have not done their job in branding GMO. Simple as that.

Like I said, to fix the problem they need to do what the dairy or beef industry did- come together and pool your marketing resources and put it all towards a slick re-education or re-branding campaign.

Labeling is not always the best policy. Sticking labels that are meant to do nothing other than mislead people is a horrible policy.

I don't see what is misleading. There is no value judgement on the labeling.

Transparency is always the best policy, unless you are talking about trade secrets or national defense. If your brand is so shit that if it gets out it damages your business that is your problem, not the consumer or the government.

 

[theeedude]

Then fucking label the Cavendish banana as GMO. That is not a "natural" food. Or what about any corn? None of it is "natural" either.

Look at it this way. Non-GMO cross-breeding will mix thousands of genes. You'll get mutations and genetic drift (along with other evolutionary forces) in addition to the gene you're breeding for. So now you have a crop with the desired trait, but also other genes that were bred for unintentionally. With GMO's you only are injecting the one specific gene you want the trait for.

Non-GMO cross-breeding mixes genes of plant species that are close enough to cross breed. It's not mixing a bacterium's gene in with a plant, like GMO is doing.

 

[cyclohexane]

GMO can be harmful. You can make genes to produce all kinds of proteins, and there is no guarantee they are all safe for all consumers.
GMO food vendor should list what the modification was, and let consumer research it and decide whether he wants to take a chance on it.

I hate to break it to ya, but pretty much all crops are "GMO". You can try to control your plot, but pollination by insects/wind/etc have made them all the same. People who claim to grow "organic" spinach are full of shit.

 

[theeedude]

Because knowing that tells you nothing about the food. Those traits don't make it into your body. You are continuing to look very anti-science ridiculous now by making it seem as if though that modified DNA trait is making its way into your body.

If you knew anything about science, you would know that these traits are in every cell of the plant, so if I eat them, they are going it into my body, along with whatever proteins are produced as a result of these gene modifications.

 

[xBiffx]

Non-GMO cross-breeding mixes genes of plant species that are close enough to cross breed. It's not mixing a bacterium's gene in with a plant, like GMO is doing.

You are a complete idiot. There is no bacterium gene going into a plant that doesn't exist naturally. Wow you look so fucking dumb saying that.

 

[bshole]

It's the same with non-GMO foods; they'll be sure to point out their "non-GMO" credentials. Sure, you aren't going to see it in a Wal-Mart, but go into any of the higher end food stores, and every other package has "organic, hormone free, free range, non-GMO, made from corn exclusively grown by hippies using only water and love" on it. And it only costs 3 times as much as the "terrible, awful, clinically proven to be identical" GMO foods! That's a STEAL!

I spent a year on a farm in Nebraska where we had free range chickens. My mom would pull their heads off with a board, dump them in hot water and make us pluck them.

The chicken I had back then may be "clinically proven to identical" the chickens we have now, but I would swear on a Bible that the best chicken I ever ate was the free-range chicken on that farm. Even after all these decades I still remember how awesome that chicken was.

I do know this for a fact, tomatoes in the super market are just plain awful. The only decent tomatoes I ever get have to be home grown in my backyard. Why did they genetically alter tomatoes to have absolutely no flavor?

 

[poofyhairguy]

These companies (GMO's) don't bury anything. They are very forthcoming about the information regarding the products they sell. You can thank the USDA for that.

Then why do they spend so much money lobbying against labels that identify when their "superior" products are part of a food item?

If they were truly transparent and did their job with marketing they would WANT labels that say "this is GMO!" because if they did it right from the beginning GMO would be a good thing.

People aren't luddites about computers like they are GMO products. Computers can do terrible things, yet many Americans have a few in their home.

The difference?

The tech companies that control the PC brand, starting with IBM, actually did their job marketing-wise. They put the facts out there, they sold the benefit, and now people who are anti-computer are considered to be crazy.

THAT is how you should operate. Not hiding in the dark, praying they never find out that their cars, pacemakers, washing machines and watches have a computer inside.

 

[theeedude]

You are a complete idiot. There is no bacterium gene going into a plant. Wow you look so fucking dumb saying that.

Whatever you say, ignoramus. 🙄

Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx

Genetically modified crops – also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), GE crops or biotech crops – include one or more genes from another organism, such as a bacterium or other microbe or other plant species.

Maybe you should stick to commenting on topics you have a clue about, which would really crimp down on your postings.

 

[nehalem256]

Non-GMO cross-breeding mixes genes of plant species that are close enough to cross breed. It's not mixing a bacterium's gene in with a plant, like GMO is doing.

And? Are you saying there are no known plant species that produce harmful proteins or chemicals?🙄

 

[Texashiker]

Then there's no reason to label the food. Whether food is GMO or not is irrelevant to the end consumer who is trying to choose which is the best food to eat.

Then a shoe made in vietnam, china or mexico is irrelevant to the end consumer.

But personally, I would like to have a say as to where my money goes.

 

[nehalem256]

If you knew anything about science, you would know that these traits are in every cell of the plant, so if I eat them, they are going it into my body, along with whatever proteins are produced as a result of these gene modifications.

Seems like it should be easy for anti-GMO zealots to find dangerous GMO-produce then huh?

Simply analyze the proteins and chemicals contained within. I wonder why they aren't doing this?

 

[theeedude]

I hate to break it to ya, but pretty much all crops are "GMO". You can try to control your plot, but pollination by insects/wind/etc have made them all the same. People who claim to grow "organic" spinach are full of shit.

Not necessarily. A lot of GMO is to make plants resistant to pesticides they are sprayed with. Organic farming doesn't use pesticides, so it provides no genetic advantage to pesticide resistant GMO foods to overtake the native species.

 

[xBiffx]

Whatever you say, ignoramus. 🙄

Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx


Maybe you should stick to commenting on topics you have a clue about, which would really crimp down on your postings.

Those bacterium genes are also naturally occurring in plants which contradicts your "nature is better" bullshit. That was the point you were trying to make. These genes aren't unnaturally occurring which blows a hole in you trying to make GMO look bad for having those genes.

 

[xBiffx]

Organic farming doesn't use pesticides, so it provides no genetic advantage to pesticide resistant GMO foods to overtake the native species.

Again, bullshit from the anti-science loon.