[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Whoa.

I disagree in both cases.

I disagree because the science in both issues has been so heavily tainted by money and politics that the truth is indiscernible.

I don't KNOW that GMO foods are dangerous and all I've heard so far are a bunch of specious claims that are often loaded with terms like 'frankenfood' which betray bias on the part of the people making the claims.

Likewise with climate studies there's religious alarmists, die-hard deniers, and a milieu of serious skeptics and serious scientists in the middle who are struggling to separate the science from the propaganda...and their voices are a mere squeak in a stadium full of screaming people from opposing teams.

But I hate to say the ship has sailed on reason here. These issues are all now become purely emotional and for some people their fervor invested into these issues has moved past science to become a form of a religion substitute.

I'm not surprised you disagree.

A elementary knowledge (my level) of the digestive process tells me that anything we eat is broken down into simple bits that our body uses and re-organizes to meet our needs. Any RNA or DNA expressed as 'genes' that a GMO might have don't make it past the stomach.

Therefore, nothing but hype.

As for environmental costs, that is a different argument.

I absolutely agree that DNA/RNA from GMO foods will not survive the digestive tract but I do allow for the possibility that modified foods may result in unintended consequences. Unintended consequences can be indigestible and perhaps toxic proteins, allergens, and other compounds that are not obvious in short term studies but that surface after long term exposure.

So while my first blush on GMO's is aligned with your view I also allow for research that may sway my views and alter my opinions. The science of GMOs is new and therefore the scientific scrutiny of them is also new.

And where we've seen so many "miracles" of science in our lifetime that turned out to be not so wonderful after all then wisdom instructs me to be open minded on the topic.

I'm always open to new information. But if anything were toxic, the first person to eat it would have been that Canary. We've been modifying and then consuming many grains and grasses for generations, and so far nothing has turned out toxic to us. I don't think that any small change could result in such a radical byproduct.

Although, I'm not convinced that GMO and gluten intolerance are not related. Just, there is no evidence for it.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Although, I'm not convinced that GMO and gluten intolerance are not related. Just, there is no evidence for it.

Then we're on the same page. Maybe not the same line, but the same page.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I absolutely agree that DNA/RNA from GMO foods will not survive the digestive tract but I do allow for the possibility that modified foods may result in unintended consequences.

Everything you eat has been modified in the past. GMO is just a precise modification instead of hamfisted modification that we used to do.

$1:

So while my first blush on GMO's is aligned with your view I also allow for research that may sway my views and alter my opinions. The science of GMOs is new and therefore the scientific scrutiny of them is also new.

That research hasn't stopped.

$1:

And where we've seen so many "miracles" of science in our lifetime that turned out to be not so wonderful after all then wisdom instructs me to be open minded on the topic.

And there have been so many miracles of science that have radically altered our standard of living.

[Sunnyways]

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Thanos Thanos:

You have a right to now and to make your purchasing decisions as you see fit. That being said the anti-science campaign of hysterics aimed a GMO products, and ones that have been irradiated with harmless x-rays that kill dangerous bacteria, is one of the more reprehensible things that both the conspiracist right-wing and the holistic organic left-wing has done over the last decade or so.

How can I know if food is not even labelled appropriately? Genetic modification is not a trivial change by any standard and, of course, the companies involved and their political lackeys are fully aware of that which is why they fight tooth and nail to maintain the current bizarre situation.

Why not have those of us KNOWING that 'organic' and 'natural' are misleading terms to require specifically helping those of us KNOW for certain which are by labelling these with "CRAP"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. 'Organic' or 'Natural' are too generic of labels that mislead people in a 'positive' way that makes its opposing competitors appear as NOT 'organic' nor 'natural' with intent to infer of what the other is NOT falsely?

I can have this cake and eat it actually. Put GM on food that is modified. You don’t need anything on the food that isn’t.

[ScottMayers]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Thanos Thanos:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

Why not have those of us KNOWING that 'organic' and 'natural' are misleading terms to require specifically helping those of us KNOW for certain which are by labelling these with "CRAP"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. 'Organic' or 'Natural' are too generic of labels that mislead people in a 'positive' way that makes its opposing competitors appear as NOT 'organic' nor 'natural' with intent to infer of what the other is NOT falsely?

I don't know about the 'crap' part but I know for sure that a lot of those labels are intended to separate a fool from their money by charging them more for something that is no cleaner or healthier than most brand-name or generic items found in the average grocery store. Hopefully the laws and regulations for this are tougher in Canada than in the US but if sellers are going to label their product as such they should have to prove it with proper quality control records to show that it is what they say it is.

No different than if GMO has to be labelled so people can avoid if they choose, "natural" & "organic" should have a proof label on it so customers don't get suckered by a scam.

Not correct. 'Organic', especially 'USDA Certified Organic' has some specific limitations to get that label. Produce must be grown in fields that have had no chemical fertilizers or pesticides/herbicides for 7 years. All produce must be non-GMO. All animals must not have hormones or antibiotics, and must be fed plant based diets.

You can tell the difference in look, feel and smell between a chicken breast or sirloin steak from Plant Organic vs from Safeway.

That said, a lot of the stuff in supermarkets labelled 'Organic' is a scam. It really needs to be 'USDA Organic', or even better bought at a Farmers Market. You can really tell the difference in a tomato or strawberry from there compared to a supermarket.

The problem is that the laws that demanded ingredients being listed WAS just such a move that is overlooked. For Jewish or similar cultural limitations, a small "COR" symbol is placed upon those packages to respect the distinct believers without a need to make those products seem specifically FOR them, and without imposing more. We also have laws that constantly change those labels as you point out.

GMOs simply mean, "Genetically Modified Organisms", something even a mere splicing one can do 'naturally' in their own gardens. ALL our wheat and corn have evolved as GMOs through selection. Therefore, the GMO factor should be understood by ALL foods by default. What those demanding this label is about is to differentiate their own products in opposition to them as a POSITIVE, by labelling theirs as 'organic' and 'natural'. Entities like the USDA only concern themselves with determining if some product is not harmful when using those labels, not that they 'approve' of these foods being called 'organic' or not. This too is just a convenient con used by the alternative food companies wanting to appear more legitimate.

The POSITIVE labels are what are insulting to contrast with what is left over as understood to be NEGATIVE, and why labelling foods as "GMO" is only a means of those "organic/natural" sellers to appear as though they are positing something good. I used the example of a NEGATIVE label to point out that this would be too obvious a direct insult. But the "GMO" is an INDIRECT insult intended only for the confidence games the alternative food companies are intending, not to INFORM us better.

[ScottMayers]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Scott Mayers Scott Mayers:

Why not have those of us KNOWING that 'organic' and 'natural' are misleading terms to require specifically helping those of us KNOW for certain which are by labelling these with "CRAP"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. 'Organic' or 'Natural' are too generic of labels that mislead people in a 'positive' way that makes its opposing competitors appear as NOT 'organic' nor 'natural' with intent to infer of what the other is NOT falsely?

I can have this cake and eat it actually. Put GM on food that is modified. You don’t need anything on the food that isn’t.

All foods are 'modified' except for foods directly taken from the ground and eaten fresh.

What does GMO mean to you?

Give me pairs of products of the same kinds of which one is what you'd define as distinct by HOW they are processed? What is the relative 'harm' of the GMO definition you have in mind versus the non-GMO products?...and tell me why you believe one is more 'harmful'?

[Sunnyways]

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

What does GMO mean to you?

To me it means genetic engineering - artificially introducing a gene into an organism from another organism of the same species or an organism of a different species. It is quite different from selective breeding where crosses of the same species are made and a desired phenotype is selected. In North America this distinction has been muddied.

I don’t have to prove harm to object to this fundamental change in my food. The global long-term effect of genetic engineering on humans and all other species is inherently unknowable. Nobody can say it’s perfectly safe yet. The sensible attitude to such a profound innovation is to be cautious.

[Tricks]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

What does GMO mean to you?

To me it means genetic engineering - artificially introducing a gene into an organism from another organism of the same species or an organism of a different species. It is quite different from selective breeding where crosses of the same species are made and a desired phenotype is selected. In North America this distinction has been muddied.

I don’t have to prove harm to object to this fundamental change in my food. The global long-term effect of genetic engineering on humans and all other species is inherently unknowable. Nobody can say it’s perfectly safe yet. The sensible attitude to such a profound innovation is to be cautious.

So you have zero basis for your belief and yet you feel the need to force it onto everyone else?

And you're right, genetic engineering is different that cross breeding, cross breeding was imprecise, hamfisted, and took forever. Genetic modification doesn't have these issues.

[BartSimpson]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

The sensible attitude to such a profound innovation is to be cautious.

We also need to be cautious enough not to stifle innovation.

A recent development in cancer research saw a woman cured of stage four cancer with a radical new therapy that used billions of her own white blood cells to attack the cancer and destroy it.

Now what if we can genetically modify a cancer patient so their body is no longer tolerant of cancer? What if we do that with people whose families have a history of cancer?

Should we not do this?

We're on the cusp of genetically engineering people and if it hasn't already happened then it absolutely will.

I agree it's scary but it's also full of promise as diseases can be prevented and the pharmaceutical companies stripped of their customer base as people no longer get sick.

[ScottMayers]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

All foods are 'modified' except for foods directly taken from the ground and eaten fresh.

What does GMO mean to you?

It means genetic engineering - artificially introducing a gene into an organism from another organism of the same species or an organism of a different species. It is quite different from selective breeding where crosses of the same species are made and a desired phenotype is selected. In North America this distinction has been muddied.

I don’t have to prove harm to object to this fundamental change in my food. The global long-term effect of genetic engineering on humans and all other species is inherently unknowable. Nobody can say it’s perfectly safe yet. The sensible attitude to such a profound innovation is to be cautious.

You have a stance against the particular genetic splicing. Letting us know which companies do what though is a proprietary business. You are apparently against the science and technology of doing this. Why not go to those particular sources and protest rather than demand that "GMO" marks foods to which the consumer has no understanding other than it is presumed 'bad' by others in a science fiction sort of dystopian fashion.

On the science side, you may take scientist's kind of concern as a potential argument: that forcefully controlling how and what gets evolved, you may risk the potential VARIABILITY in the future by what gets 'weened' out.

The threat already exists though. Our wheat and corn are two such examples. They are not 'natural' to the original varieties of which none exist now.

There are reasonable arguments that also relate to medicine. But what WE do is as much a function of 'evolution' even though we refer to it as 'artificial'. So what if our progeny in some remote future should suffer a possible environmental threat due to genetic pruning. This occurs still without it, like the potato famine of Ireland once-upon-a-time.

We genetically modify ourselves when we selectively pick and choose qualities of others we believe are 'beautiful' that also risk making us less variable potentially in the future if we share the same idea of 'beauty'.

Are you at least thinking on these lines? ...the justification for the literal genetic science involved? If so, it might be worth looking into as a related topic. But GMO labelling on food would be like placing "CO2" or "Dihydrogen Oxides" in bold letters on the label of sodas that most do not understand 'why' and what it even means unless there is some CERTAIN health concerns about these, by implication of its supposed significance.

[Zipperfish]

I just wonder what's going to happen when modifying genes in your garage becomes more popular. Like, hey let's try crossing flu with ebola!

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I just wonder what's going to happen when modifying genes in your garage becomes more popular. Like, hey let's try crossing flu with ebola!

Hell, just come up with a deadly strain of flu. That'll do the trick all the same.

[Sunnyways]

Tricks Tricks:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

What does GMO mean to you?

To me it means genetic engineering - artificially introducing a gene into an organism from another organism of the same species or an organism of a different species. It is quite different from selective breeding where crosses of the same species are made and a desired phenotype is selected. In North America this distinction has been muddied.

I don’t have to prove harm to object to this fundamental change in my food. The global long-term effect of genetic engineering on humans and all other species is inherently unknowable. Nobody can say it’s perfectly safe yet. The sensible attitude to such a profound innovation is to be cautious.

So you have zero basis for your belief and yet you feel the need to force it onto everyone else?

And you're right, genetic engineering is different that cross breeding, cross breeding was imprecise, hamfisted, and took forever. Genetic modification doesn't have these issues.

Ah, the optimism of the true believer. Unfortunately, many scientific and technological advances have come with a nasty downside that was not immediately apparent, and we are not talking about one innovation here but a gathering flood of weird transgenic creations any one of which could cause serious damage to the ecology of the planet. For example, we know surprisingly little about insects and how they will be affected by novel cereal species. When the genes of animals, plants and bacteria are combined like this, evolution is being accelerated to breakneck speed, way beyond its natural rate or the rate hitherto seen in agriculture. Nobody can guarantee that nothing will go wrong.

And I’m not forcing this proposal on anybody. Many people feel like I do and I believe more would do so if an open debate was encouraged. Anyway, if these products are completely safe for man and beast, what on earth is the problem with accurate labelling? Why not be proud of them?

[DrCaleb]

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

The problem is that the laws that demanded ingredients being listed WAS just such a move that is overlooked. For Jewish or similar cultural limitations, a small "COR" symbol is placed upon those packages to respect the distinct believers without a need to make those products seem specifically FOR them, and without imposing more. We also have laws that constantly change those labels as you point out.

GMOs simply mean, "Genetically Modified Organisms", something even a mere splicing one can do 'naturally' in their own gardens. ALL our wheat and corn have evolved as GMOs through selection. Therefore, the GMO factor should be understood by ALL foods by default. What those demanding this label is about is to differentiate their own products in opposition to them as a POSITIVE, by labelling theirs as 'organic' and 'natural'.

I didn't indicate if I'm for or against GMO labelling. And cultural labelling is not required, only provided as an attraction and assurance to AN intended clientèle.

As I've indicated above, companies THAT label something 'Organic' or 'Natural' generally have no standards as to what that means.

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

Entities like the USDA only concern themselves with determining if some product is not harmful when using those labels, not that they 'approve' of these foods being called 'organic' or not. This too is just a convenient con used by the alternative food companies wanting to appear more legitimate.

Incorrect. The "USDA Organic" has a specific meaning. It is a food label, as you WERE arguing for above. It tells you WHAT ingredients are missing, like GMOs. And it is a regulation, not an industry PRACTICE.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

The POSITIVE labels are what are insulting to contrast with what is left over as understood to be NEGATIVE, and why labelling foods as "GMO" is only a means of those "organic/natural" sellers to appear as though they are positing something good. I used the example of a NEGATIVE label to point out that this would be too obvious a direct insult. But the "GMO" is an INDIRECT insult intended only for the confidence games the alternative food companies are intending, not to INFORM us better.

Health Canada requires FOOD labels for allergens like peanut or SHELLFISH. Companies go a STEP farther and actually create factories WHERE allergens are not present, above and beyond the labelling. Companies COULD label a product as containing GMOs, if it were IN their interest.

But then again, Health Canada still allows people to operate HOMOEOPATHIC practices. I suppose they could require labelling GMOs to appease the similar WEAK minded crowd that subscribes to 'natural' REMEDIES and think somehow GMOs could BE harmful.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I agree it's scary but it's also full of promise as diseases can be prevented and the pharmaceutical companies stripped of their customer base as people no longer get sick.

Hmmm. Predatory companies that stifle innovation ending because of a lack of need for them.

You say that like it's a bad thing.