Compared to coke? Its much better for you. I used the juice/soda as a comparison because thats what the person I was responding to was using. Personally, I drink filtered water from the tap.
it's fine if people want to consume GMO's and roundup ready plants, that's their prerogative... they just need to let people know for the people that choose not to eat it. Just because you aren't sick now doesn't mean you won't have complications in 20 years. Sure does seem like a strange coincidence that more people are sick and medicated for a lot more reasons in todays advanced medicine vs 20-30 years ago.
Do you have proof that GMO are detrimental to health? How do you attribute a sickness developed over 20 years with millions of contributing factors to eating a GMO? People live longer compared to 20-30 years ago. Healthcare is more expanded. People are seeking medical attention more than they were 20-30 years ago. There are so many reasons that today's advanced medicine is treating more people than 20-30 years ago. But no, let's attribute that to GMO.
You don't **** with nature and food. The whole natural selection argument is bull ****, you aren't immediately infusing new and random DNA/RNA and who knows what into our food at lab from a company trying to make money when naturally picking the biggest and healthiest veggie in your garden, its not the same. The "It's going to feed the world" argument is BS, like another already mentioned, there is plenty of food to feed the world, money is the single reason behind the starvation of a billion. When it our food, nature, our bodies and lives (we are what we eat), you don't let some ****ing huge company looking for $$ and profit alter it or control it.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rAL_AMdMXqY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I feel the same. Although, I think it should be labeled as GMO. People have a right to know what they're ingesting, or at least know it's not completely natural. It may not cause any issues whatsoever, but I should be able to make a conscious decision whether or not they want to ingest such foods. Do you agree?
Why couldn't the distributor label it? If we're talking about produce, what's difficult about HEB putting up a label above the lettuce that says GMO. They already do so for Organic foods (which is kind of a joke as there isn't really a standard use of the term "organic."). For other foods, it's not like the small farmer is producing the product. They are selling their fresh product to a manufacturer who then puts it into a box or bag anyways...so why can't they just add an additional three letters? They are already printing the nutritional label. Does anyone know if the nutritional label is mandatory? I'm sure I could find out easily, but maybe someone knows off the top of their head. I took a Politics of Food in America class in college, don't think we ever discussed that, but it's been almost 5 years since I was in college... Mr. Clutch, I get what you're saying, it's unfair to burden the producer. But isn't it equally unfair to the consumer?
As I am looking for more information on the projected cost to small farmers to label their foods, I am seeing that Monsanto has sued many small farmers for trying to label their food non-GMO. So they likely can afford the labeling. Were you speaking to the cost of actually labeling or the cost to the business from the consumer's reaction to such a label? If it's the latter, don't consumers have a right to dictate the market? If we don't like a product, we shouldn't be forced to buy it. We agree there right?
When it comes down to burdening a business or burdening the consumer . . . . . many will always side with business. Rocket River
The costs get passed down to consumers. This labeling idea burdens everybody except businesses who produce non-GMO crops. It's interesting to see what businesses support the labels. Have you thought of that?
I don't see how not including labels burdens consumers. Costs get passed down. Some distributors may just stop distributing this produce. That would be another burder on consumers along with the higher costs. The label is meant as a negative on whatever it's placed on, even though there's no scientific evidence that GMO is harmful. We have to draw the line somewhere on labels. It should actually be useful and based on sound scientific theory.
