That's not for you, some monsanto representative or some monsanto founded scientist to say. It's for the people to say, and when more then half of the population believes GMO's to be unsafe, it is their right to know whether or not it's in their food at the least. [QUOTEWith safety concerns widespread, Americans almost unanimously favor mandatory labels on genetically modified foods. And most say they'd use those labels to avoid the food. Barely more than a third of the public believes that genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Instead 52 percent believe such foods are unsafe, and an additional 13 percent are unsure about them. That's broad doubt on the very basic issue of food safety. Nearly everyone, moreover — 93 percent — says the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified, or "bio-engineered" (this poll used both phrases). Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare. Fifty-seven percent also say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified. That puts the food industry in a quandary: By meeting consumer demand for labeling, it would be steering business away from its genetically modified products.][/QUOTE] - abc conducted poll http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567
Moar polls, I know how you guys love poll's. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling#
Q You mean the same people who are scientists and are concerned about things like....I don't know...CLIMATE CHANGE! Dude, seriously? You are just being silly now. GMO isn't just about safety, it's about the future of food. Imagine that every time you want to grow a tomato having to pay Monsanto a dollar just for the right to grow that tomato, because they basically used superior DNA to wipe out all other tomatoes and put a patent on that DNA? People have the right to know where the products they buy come from. Just like you know where the shirt you are wearing comes from. And everything else. There's nothing wrong with people knowing where things they use come from. Why would you be against that? Oh, because Monsanto and friends are scared that no one will buy their food! What a pity. Honestly, I have no problem buying a genetically engineered tomato. I buy them all the time. I know it's safe. I can tell which ones are GMO and which ones are not. But I do think that's a choice people have a right to make on their own, and not one you should try to hide from people.
How many of those people do you think know the science of GMOs or know anything about the research either way? The last thing I want is the government making decisions based on irrational fears of people who really know very little about a particular subject instead of sound facts and science. Doing things out of irrational fear is how you end up with terrible laws and regulations. The largest state in the country just voted on this issue pretty recently and voted down the requirement. If it's such a popular thing, people should demand their representatives either put it in law or allow them to vote on it. I suspect you'll find much less support if/when that happens, just like in California.
Why are the fears irrational? There are no sound facts and science on the safety of GMO's, that is where the completely rational fear is coming from. I keep hearing people say we are hiding behind irrational fear, but the truth is, I think you guys are blindly approving GMO's based off what you hear from monsanto, a company, that's goal is profit, and not human and environmental health. Why should I blindly approve GMO's? There is nothing ethical about GMO's, there is absolutely no need for GMO's, please name a actual need for the genetic engineering of our food. There are already multiple negatives to gmo's being reported, organ damage, infertility and environmental damage are problems that have been buzzing for a while now, but are not acknowledged by many in this thread. Why do you think GMO's have been banned in multiple countries? What are the need for GMO's? Why should I blindly believe monsanto's word's on GMO's safety? (A giant company focused on profit and not my well being). Why are problems like environmental damage and organ damage not being acknowledged?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oPvkZv5MfRw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
1. Why do you think the only research on GMOs are from Monsanto? There is plenty of independent research on the safety of GMOs. Problems "buzzing" is very different from actual problems. 2. The purpose of GMO is the same as that of irrigation and other improved agricultural practices over the centuries and milleniums: increased crop yield. The need for GMOs is to make food more accessible to people. We have a ton of starvation in the world and a rapidly increasing population - increased crop yield through science and technology is the primary way to address that. Could you produce as much food without GMO? Sure. Just as you could without irrigation or pesticides or anything else. It would just be far more expensive and use far more land, which means consuming more of the environment and less access by the poor. People being scared of GMO is like people connecting vaccines and autism and thus not getting their kids vaccinated. All the science and research is against them but they just believe it because it sounds reasonable. And it works fine until you have a measles outbreak because a bunch of people made terrible decisions based on irrational fear.
Genetically modified food can mean a lot of things...like the grapefruit, a hybrid of an Indonesian pomelo and a Jamaican orange. Patents? Like the Ruby Red grapefruit (1929) that was created with mutation breeding with radioactive exposure to the seeds? If you've ever eaten a grapefruit, you've eaten a genetically modified food. And if you ever ate a Ruby Red, you've eaten one that's been patented. But I guess instead of bothering to understand agriculture, I'll rally for less crop diversity and higher food prices and let all the poor people starve to death while I overpay for produce that I think is organic at Whole Foods.
First, The Non-GMO Project (the biggest non GMO organization out) is a non-profit organization. I think people are genuinely concerned with there health, and not with making big bucks at the expense of the environment, animal and human health like monsanto and other big gmo company's. Why are they not real? I posted a interview, inside the interview is a man quoting tens of studies done, showing the health risk of GMO's. All you have done is told me there not real, I can't just form my opinion based off of what Mr. Clutch says. Please, if you have the time, and a open mind, watch the interview and listen to the studies, then tell me your opinion of them, and or rebuttal with your own video or studies. GMO's do not increase crop yields, and are quite unreliable. There is, plenty of science, independent studies, saying gmo's cause organ damage, infertility with mice, hamsters etc. If you guys have the time, and truly interested in learning about both sides of GMO controversy, have time and an open mind, please watch the Interview I posted. I would to see your opinions [/QUOTE]
Actually, it's for empirical evidence to say. People don't get to decide the truth simply based on their feelings. The truth is the truth. It isn't subject to the whims of capricious, uninformed fools, or perfidious, rapacious corporations. That you think public sentiment is a valid way to decide what is real is actually really disturbing to me. "People" think the moon landings were fake, that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government, that evolution is false, and that global warming is a scam perpetrated by "big science" to take over the world.
What is democracy? Are you saying that basically all of America's sentiments do not matter when it comes to such basic things as forcing the labeling of potentially harmful foods that us Americans will unknowingly be eating? My point is, when 90% of people agree that they want gmo's labeled, It's not Mr. Clutch, Monsanto, or anybody else's right to deny it. The fact that you think public sentiment isn't valid disturbs me.
Labling is irrelevant. You stated that if the people thought they were dangerous, they were, in fact, dangerous. They are dangerous or not, independent from the opinion of people. There are absolutely times when the will of the people is directly contradicted. That is why the Supreme Court ruled as it did in Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, which were both ridiculously unpopular. If Americans decided that Jews were evil and needed to all be killed, it would still remain against the law. Read de Tocqueville on "The Tyranny of the Majority". This is basic stuff when it comes to democracy. Generally speaking, if you wish to force a remedy on someone you have to prove actual damages - I.e. you have to establish an actual danger, not just the fear of a danger that can't be demonstrated to exist.
I see what your saying. Thing is, when it comes to mass production of food for millions of people, I think it should be treated the opposite. Guilty until proven innocent. In my opinion, when it comes to such radical things, such as a single company (companies goals are profit, and not health, safety) genetically modifying millions of peoples food, until, until it's proven to be absolutely 100% safe, healthy and necessary (It definitely hasn't, quite the opposite if you ask me) It simply shouldn't be allowed. But, it has been allowed, and now we are arguing over such a essential need as of having the food at LEAST labeled. It's a disaster.
Hold on - what does it being a non-profit have to do with anything? The NRA is a non-profit. It gets most of its funding from gun manufacturers and gun owners. Do you think it's just interested in everyone's well-being, or in the interests of its funders? Non-profit does not equal "genuinely concerned with health" or anything else. Of course it increases crop yield. If you make a plant disease resistant ... and thus entire fields aren't wiped out by said disease, you have increased crop yield. What do you think the purpose of GMO is?
Food has been bred and modified going back thousands of years. As noted by an earlier poster, are you OK with eating a grapefruit? Wheat today - even the "non-GMO" stuff, is completely different than wheat 2000 years ago and didn't exist back then - why are you OK eating that? What makes GMO different from all the other cross-breeding and things we've been doing for centuries?
This is true, still, think for a second. Who's behind against non gmo's? Soccer moms, local farmers, health advocates. Not gigantic companies, right? Of course it increases crop yield. If you make a plant disease resistant ... and thus entire fields aren't wiped out by said disease, you have increased crop yield. What do you think the purpose of GMO is? [/QUOTE] It doesn't increase crop yield, and that's the truth. Hypotheticals of disease are irrelevant.
Historically, FDA has drawn a line between food and drugs. For drugs, you have to prove they are safe before you can bring them to market. For food, you can bring it to market, until it is proven unsafe. This is why people who make the stuff in the vitamin isle label their products "dietary supliments". So the FDA won't mandate labeling, but Congress could pass a law requiring labeling, as long as it just indicates GMO's, instead of something like, "Warning! This S**t will kill you!". That having been said, I think all the high fructose corn syrup, fat, and excessive salt they use in processed food to mask bad flavors from processing is the real danger. There is ample proof that those are dangerous. As I already stated, I think GMO'S are a danger, just not the one that you think.
Hybrids and genetically modifying food is not the same, hybrids betweens fruits and vegetables happen naturally in nature all the time, genetically engineering a pesticide into a vegetable would never happen in nature. Genetically modifying food and natural plant evolution is not the same. Anyways, modifying, or even creating a hybrid crop, turning healthy foods into unhealthy and dangerous, will never be okay.
