If people want non-GMO crops, then they should do their research and buy them. Not force labels on everyone else, IMHO.
Just because it's not on a label doesn't mean it's hidden. You can buy non-GMO crops all you want. Amd if companies want to put that label on it, they can.
Mainly because of lack of long term research . . . they don't have time to wait cause they got money to make Kind of like Phen Phen . . Yaz . .and other great scientific changes Rocket River
Well then there are about a million things we need to label. You are basically going to buy a huge label with a little fruit attached to it.
How would a consumer go about tracing down where produce came from? Would they have to buy from special stores just to buy natural food? I don't believe the cost would be at all significant. If it was, business would have an argument, but what cost is there to the consumer if the distributor just labels where the produce is from. As far as other goods, how are you supposed to track down where the ingredients came from? Do you think companies would offer up this information readily and easily? I'm not all scared by GMO products, we are exposed to carcinogens on a daily basis. But, considering that we can't know the long term effects of GMO products, in the meantime, shouldn't the public be privy to that information?
Exactly No proof that GMO's are safe. When were talking about food for millions and billions of people, "innocent" (safe and healthy) - until proven guilty is absolutely not the stance people should be taking IMO, it should be treated the opposite. It's playing a lab rat experiment on hundreds of millions of people, our kids and the future, what happens if that experiment goes bad? Which is, definitely a possibility, because nobody has a damn clue of the long term effects. It's unnecessary to say the least, to take a chance on hundreds of millions of peoples lives with GMO's, when we can grow food naturally, like we always have, no infusion of DNA, no pesticides and poison. Seriously, genetically engineering food, to force it to live after can sprayed ungodly amounts of poison, is what's going. That's full r****d, never go full r****d.
I'm glad the idiots have outed themselves in this thread. Keep fearing what you don't understand, f***tards
Correlation != Causation. There's tons of things that have occurred with higher cancer rates such as the ability to diagnose cancer. My issue with Monsanto is the lawsuits as mentioned and they seem to be a general scumbag company. I'd be way more concerned for something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_adulteration_in_China than worrying about GMOs.
What exactly about GMO's are us idiot-****tards, not understanding? It's just as bad to trust what you don't understand.
. . . . like you understand. But keep trusting BIG CORP . . . they will take GOOD care of you. Rocket River
I trust science as it has improved the lives of billions of people daily. If you don't, you can live in your paleo world. Don't use modern healthcare. Don't use any electronics. Live in ignorance.
If eating healthy means vegetables and low calories, it is socioeconomic and the inherent conscientiousness can probably even be linked to academic and social efficiency that ultimately calibrates wealth and income tracks. Organic food marketing and consumption is also socioeconomic in that it's objectively probably less efficient and more expensive, and has been impressively branded and promoted to upper income individuals. If organic food ever gets subsidized and scalable enough to produce and market to mass retailers, the wealthy will go back to imported or traditional upper end cuisine, or just eat out more.
Groceries are cheaper than fast foods or any other prepared dish. A jar of spaghetti sauce and 48 ounces of dry noodles, or an 8 pack of chicken thighs versus a three course meal at Chili's or even Denny's. I do think there are issues of delayed gratification and self-discipline that link success and wealth to diet.
Exactly. Monsanto has all sorts of ethics problems as a company, but they are independent of the concept of GMOs. GMOs are literally helping to feed billions of people around the world by increasing crop density and resistance to infestations. Without GMO, food production would be a whole lot lower and you'd have less food, higher prices, and a ton more starvation.
Companies that produce non GMO food can advertise it as such if they wish, no? As far as long term effects, there are a lot of foods or processes that could be dangerous long term. We should label something if it proves to be dangerous. Not if we don't know.
I think all food is pretty much labeled why not GMO? What's wrong with the consumer knowing what they are eating? And for all you call people names - the same people who push back against GMO are the same people that have helped the food and your loved ones eat is safe. That wasn't always the case. It wasn't corporations who made sure food was safe to eat. It was the kind of people you are complaining about. I don't see a health hazzard with GMO today. But you don't know where it is going and regulation isn't a bad thing.
Should be labeled with stuff that is actually useful and/or hazardous to health. GMO is not. As for the "same people stuff." You are the same people who are anti-science, anti-progress, and who want to use government to favor certain corporations over others (crony capitalism).
