GMO irony

[triplepurpose]

It's not just before GMO, chemical mutagens and radiation/nuclear mutagens are still quire popular and they are AOK to be labeled organic in many places as long as the newly created mutated plants are grown organically...

Just because such practices may be allowed under current "organic" labelling regulations doesnt mean that one has to think they are a good idea either. just because i would prefer to grow organically myself and see less GE cropping in favor of organic practices generally doesnt mean i have to also condone everything that every other OG farm or breeder does. Nor am i alone. a lot of OG and more sustainably minded breeders arent too keen on these practices any more than certain GE practices.

its not black and white, but with all due respect throwing out red herrings arguments like those into a debate doesnt help anything either imho...

 

[MeepBeep]

its not black and white, but with all due respect throwing out red herrings arguments like those into a debate doesnt help anything either imho...

Calling it a 'red herring' when it's very much relevant and tightly related and intertwined to the topic begin discussed doesn't help either...

When one is talking about genetically modified organisms the exact definition is not universally accepted by all... I fully understand that the GMO are devil crowd likes to define GMO to only one kind of genetic modification for convenience of making it easier to demonize a particular type of science... I personally believe chemical and radiation modifications should also be included in any conversation of modified crops, these are not selectively bred plants, they are artificially mutated in a lab into something different...

Personally I find precise genetic splicing with a specific goal to be a mush less haphazard method with lower risk then nuking something or soaking it in a toxic chemical hoping something happens...

To be blunt, yes it's not black and white, but try to tell that to the non-GMO crowd as they sure seem to believe otherwise and consider GMO the devil...

The land around me is tilled by a local farmer, and I fully understand why he uses GMO crops, he would be stupid not to as it's realistically the only way to he can stay in business and get the yields he needs out of the dwindling acreage he tills...

 

[Cindy in PA]

Calling it a 'red herring' when it's very much relevant and tightly related and intertwined to the topic begin discussed doesn't help either...

When one is talking about genetically modified organisms the exact definition is not universally accepted by all... I fully understand that the GMO are devil crowd likes to define GMO to only one kind of genetic modification for convenience of making it easier to demonize a particular type of science... I personally believe chemical and radiation modifications should also be included in any conversation of modified crops, these are not selectively bred plants, they are artificially mutated in a lab into something different...

Personally I find precise genetic splicing with a specific goal to be a mush less haphazard method with lower risk then nuking something or soaking it in a toxic chemical hoping something happens...

To be blunt, yes it's not black and white, but try to tell that to the non-GMO crowd as they sure seem to believe otherwise and consider GMO the devil...

The land around me is tilled by a local farmer, and I fully understand why he uses GMO crops, he would be stupid not to as it's realistically the only way to he can stay in business and get the yields he needs out of the dwindling acreage he tills...

I understand why the farmer next to me uses GMO also, he loves doing nothing to his soil except keep the weeds down until his corn grows. Then the weeds grow and ripen before he cuts the corn & spread on all the other land. There would be no argument over GMOs if they would label them. The big bad companies & promoters are too scared to label them, because they know many would chose not to buy them & they would lose their huge monopoly profits.

 

[MeepBeep]

There would be no argument over GMOs if they would label them.  The big bad companies & promoters are too scared to label them, because they know many would chose not to buy them & they would lose their huge monopoly profits.

Sure there would still be an argument, people that are intent on demonizing GMOs will never be content... As is evidenced in the many other countries where GMO labeling is in fact mandated and they still demonize and carry on about them... It's truly a no win, label or not...

And if you feel GMO should be labeled why not mandate all genetically altered products be labeled with the process used to genetically alter them? Fair is fair right? Or is your argument one sided and biased against specifically GMO?

I''ll betting mandatory labeling of all genetically mutated ingredients, be it GMO, chemical mutation or nuclear mutation would be a real eye opener to many people including those buying organic...

As for people not buying them, a little fact, a vast majority of the population simply doesn't care...

 

[Birdy Buddy]

Labeling GMO foods are a solution to something that is not a problem. Labels are for warnings like allergens in foods. You don't label something when it's harmless just because the Big Organic industry wants to vilify something. No GMO ever made any human or animal sick. What is the warning label for? Most people don't understand the first thing about genetics. Big Organic just wants more money and less competition.

 

[Cindy in PA]

Labeling GMO foods are a solution to something that is not a problem. Labels are for warnings like allergens in foods. You don't label something when it's harmless just because the Big Organic industry wants to vilify something. No GMO ever made any human or animal sick. What is the warning label for? Most people don't understand the first thing about genetics. Big Organic just wants more money and less competition.

Says who, our government?? There is not enough evidence in the past 20 + years to say GMOs are safe. They spend money to tell me to cook my meat to 165, so I don't want to hear about the expense of labeling or the inconvenience etc. Don't tell me what is safe. Give me a choice & I'll make my own decision. Organic is only dicey because the government took it over for big Ag to ruin it all. It's all about the money.

 

[Lazy J Farms Feed & Hay]

Yep its all about money, and the Organic Industry is doing a good job of a smear campaign to maintain their sham that the Organic Label is better.

There have been MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of animals fed GMO containing feeds over the past 20 years an nothing negative attributed to the consumption of that feed.

 

[MeepBeep]

Says who, our government??

Says every reputable peer reviewed international scientific body worldwide that has conducted extensive studies on GMO, including many done by non-governement independent labs...

There is not enough evidence in the past 20 + years to say GMOs are safe.

Classic argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy...

The fact that you choose to ignore the mountain of evidence because it does not fit your narrative does not mean it doesn't exist or is invalid...

Fact is while you claim there is not 'enough' evidence to say they are safe, the fact is in fact no NO evidence indicating they are dangerous and all legit studies do suggest they are in fact safe, the scales are scientifically tipped all they way towards the safe side... Also what determines 'enough' my bet that the anti GMO crowd will keep moving that line and never be satisfied with any evidence no matter how much, as there is certainly a lot more evidence than there was 10, 20 or 30 years ago, but apparently still not 'enough' it's clearly a moving line that will never be crossed by the anti-GMO crowd...

So please toss up this elusive 'enough' number of studies for which you will then agree they are safe... Keep in mind that there has already been 1000s of studies that have already been completed on GMO crops making them them one if not the most studied foods on the planet, and not a single credible risk has been found...

So riddle me this, if you claim one of the most studied food on the planet needs more study to be determined safe, where does that leave the far less studied non-GMO crops with far less proof they are safe?

Sure you could claim argumentum ad ignorantiam applies the to the other side, but why do you believe your side should be accepted when there is zero scientific data to back it up, while the other side has nearly 30 years of data and 1000s of studies that conclusively contradicts your claims?

The demonize GMO is nothing but a classic smear campaign, in 30 year there has been nothing, not one legit scientific peer reviewed study pointing to them being harmful or dangerous to animals and/or humans... If they were even 1/10 as dangerous as the anti GMO zealots claimed, wouldn't it be logical that they could provide a shred of verified and conclusive evidence to support their danger claims?

 

[Mini Meat]

If GMO's are so safe, why are they banned Australia, Japan, the EU and nearly 60 other countries around the world?

 

[Earthwise]

Watch the movie Genetic Roulette if you have any questions about why people think GMOs are concerning. As to the original post, GMOs have nothing to do with watermelon and apples (unless you're talking about the new apple they are trying to have approved that doesn't turn brown as it sits out in the open air after being sliced). Watermelon, apples, and many of our crops have been selectively bred over thousands of years to be more desirable and no one is complaining about that process.
The concern with GMOs is that you are inserting a gene (haphazardly placed- using a gene gun) from a species that the organism would never have bred with. The vast majority of GMOs are about pest and weed resistance, not improving flavor, vitamin content. They are bred for one of two traits usually. 1.Resistance to the herbicide Round Up (which has been shown to be carcinogenic in European studies. Round up ready crops are doused in Round up in much higher quantities than would otherwise be possible. and 2.To produce their own pesticide, Bt. Bt is naturally produced by a bacteria, and the gene from that bacteria is inserted in the plant. When an insect eats the leaf with Bt in it, its stomach basically explodes and it dies. Bt does not directly affect the stomach of mammals, but it does negatively impact the bacteria that line the entire digestive system and forms the front line of our immune system. When we destroy these bacteria, we destroy the biofilm of the gut lining and we make room for unfriendly, more aggressive bacteria to move in. They create toxins that make us sick and also create conditions that make it more likely for undigested proteins to make their way through the small intestine into the bloodstream. The white blood cells recognize that this protein is foreign to the body, and creates allergies against it, so food allergies are born. These are just a couple reasons people are concerned about GMOs. It isn't antiscientific. It is not simply fear of technology. I have a degree in biology and genetics. The scientists for the FDA originally suggested they NOT be approved, but the head of the FDA overrode this decision. Interestingly, he used to work for Monsanto.