RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

and a hearty fuck you, POTUS
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7016



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 8:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
tfan wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'm amazed he had the backbone to stand fast against anti-science fear mongering.


GMO's shouldn't be banned, but people have the right to know what is in their food, IMO.

That being said, we already know if there are GMOs. If it's labeled as "organic" it doesn't have them. If there is no organic label, the GMOs are there.


That's not true. There are products that have the non-GMO seal that are not organic.


Kind of. There aren't standards applied to that label.


The non-GMO Project has a standard, at least as of February 2, 2016: Non-GMO Project Standard.

Quote:

However, if a product makes a specific statement ("Did not use biochemically engineered seeds), then that's honest. Products have to be truthful, and a product can have no GMO and still be genetically modified.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/business/fda-takes-issue-with-the-term-non-gmo.html


There should be a term that distinguishes combining the DNA of a bacteria or fungus with a crop so they repel insects or can be sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate (Round Up) from cross-breeding. I don't know why they chose "modified", but they should change the term to non-GEO Project, for non-Genetically Engineered Organisms since the engineering appears to be the accurate term for what they do in a lab with DNA.

Frito-Lay added a few words on the label of their Tostitos cheese dip in response to the Vermont labeling law and it refers to genetic engineering, not genetic modification:

"Partially produced with genetic engineering."

I was surprised that that phrase, which seems pretty vague and benign, is what manufacturers are fighting so hard against. I thought every ingredient in the list of ingredients would have to be labeled: "... GMO corn, GMO canola oil, GMO sugar, GMO soy protein isolate, ..."


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7016



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 9:04 pm    ::: Re: and a hearty fuck you, POTUS Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
http://livingmaxwell.com/obama-signs-gmo-labeling-bill-betrayal-organic

This bill is so discriminatory and so poorly written that it potentially violates several amendments of the Constitution. Additionally, it puts the integrity of the organic seal in real jeopardy.


Quote:
What is arguably the most troubling aspect of this bill is that while almost every single organic consumer organization fought this bill, the organic industrys leading trade organization praised the bill and lobbied for it to pass.


That praise was probably because some people don't realize that organic foods cannot contain genetically engineered ingredients, and have been choosing foods labeled "non-GMO" over organic foods. Although some food manufacturers have begun responding to that by adding a non-GMO seal along with their USDA Organic seal.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13077



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 9:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
So they have to tell you how much sugar, fat, trans fat, protein and salt is in the food, but not if they're genetically engineered. Yeah, that makes sense. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


False Equivalence Alert!

GMO labeling would be more akin to requiring labels telling what kind of fertilizer was used to grow the food. Actually, that's not even right since the label isn't going to tell what genes were modified or how. GMO labeling is like a label telling customers that the grower used fertilizer.


Speaking of false equivalents. You just set a new record.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7162
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 9:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

Actually, you have that backwards. GMOs reduce the need for pesticides as they can create naturally pest resistant crops. Also drought resistant, and disease resistant crops. Crops that can survive with ltitle to no ferilizer are another one, which can help stop the pollution of our waterways.

The one place that we do have to be careful, however, is that we are reducing the diversity of our agriculture, which has some potential problems (if something happens it could wipe out a lot of crops at once). But that is a separate problem from using it as food.

As for the studies, the one I linked above took into consideration that some of those studies are flawed, but still concluded, based upon the many other on depth ones conducted, that their is no concern in eating GMOs.


No I don't. There are pesticide resistant GMOs as well. That's an actual concern to GMOs that aren't addressed properly (instead sticking to the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GROW A 3rd ARM" mantra..)

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24

This study was directed at herbicide-resistant crops. It found that pest-resistant crops have reduced pesticide usage. The need for higher amounts of herbicide is an issue that should be watched and if necessary, dealt with. But that has nothing to do with food safety, nor should it have anything to do with labeling.

But pilight highlighted the issue with this quite well in his post. These GMO labeling bills are not informing people about how it has been modified, just that it has been. While some shady farmer could theoretically use too much pesticide, just because they can, if someone sees a label it doesn't tell them that. The label could be for some item that used pest-resistant crops so they actually used less. Or drought resistant, or nutrient enhanced....



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13077



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/16 9:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

Actually, you have that backwards. GMOs reduce the need for pesticides as they can create naturally pest resistant crops. Also drought resistant, and disease resistant crops. Crops that can survive with ltitle to no ferilizer are another one, which can help stop the pollution of our waterways.

The one place that we do have to be careful, however, is that we are reducing the diversity of our agriculture, which has some potential problems (if something happens it could wipe out a lot of crops at once). But that is a separate problem from using it as food.

As for the studies, the one I linked above took into consideration that some of those studies are flawed, but still concluded, based upon the many other on depth ones conducted, that their is no concern in eating GMOs.


No I don't. There are pesticide resistant GMOs as well. That's an actual concern to GMOs that aren't addressed properly (instead sticking to the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GROW A 3rd ARM" mantra..)

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24


Moreso herbicide resistant plants, and especially today Roundup resistant corn and soybeans. So farmers are free to dump more and more Roundup on their fields. And then weeds become more Roundup resistant, so then the farmers use even more Roundup. (And Monsanto cheers since they sell both the Roundup and the Roundup ready GMO crops.)

Not all objections to GMO crops are as simplistic as "I'll die if I eat them". I have no reason to think that "Roundup ready" corn is unsafe to eat. There is, on the other hand, good reason to think the widespread cultivation of herbicide resistant crops and the dramatic resultant increase in the spraying and runoff of those herbicides, is bad for the environment. I should have the opportunity to choose not to support that practice. Why are some people so afraid of the the public having access to true information? Why do some people object to the public having the information necessary to make their own decisions?

"They're safe to eat", even if we assume it's true, is only part of the issue.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11483
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 12:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ahhhh, yes. The ol' "GMO" debate.

I see this as a tempest in a teapot when considered in the context of time, really. Not that there isn't any merit to the debate, but....it all seems a bit moot: YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANNA KNOW WHAT YOU'VE BEEN EATING ALL YOUR LIFE, is my point.

And we could start with fast food, and work our way down. Madison Avenue and Medical Moguls have this dizzying contest going on, for the hearts and minds [read: Dollars] of Americans.

MY biggest gripe with it all is that Obama HAS 'sold out', basically, to corporate giants and bullies. And all this in view of his wife's advocacy of healthier nutrition makes it all a bit more ironic. Evil or Very Mad



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7016



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 12:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
I'm amazed he had the backbone to stand fast against anti-science fear mongering.


I don't see it as an issue that is so critical it justifies keeping people in the dark, just in case they don't like it. We had plenty of food and at decent prices in the 1980's before GMOs. "Let's not tell them about it in case they don't like it." is not a good precedent for food manufacturers, or manufacturers , or the government.

And according to the Right-to-Know Network, we already have the head-shaking situation in which the FDA does not test GMOs and does not fund or require third party testing of GMOs. They only require that the manufacturer ensures that the food is safe and wholesome.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7162
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 2:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:


I don't see it as an issue that is so critical it justifies keeping people in the dark, just in case they don't like it. We had plenty of food and at decent prices in the 1980's before GMOs. "Let's not tell them about it in case they don't like it." is not a good precedent for food manufacturers, or manufacturers , or the government.

The world's population in 1980 was 4.4 billion. It is now 7.4 billion and projected to be nearing 10 billion by 2050. We also face some major complications due to climate change. I would not use 1980 as a good example of what we can handle. And even in 1980 there were places on this planet that could have benefited from GMOs.

And who is keeping people in the dark? Anyone who is interested can learn about what GMOs are and how they are used. Putting some label on a package is ultimately meaningless since it doesnt actually tell the consumer anything. Something in the product used a GMO. So? Science tells us there is no danger, so what exactly are these labels going to help inform us about? There are GMOs that actually make foods more nutritious for us, but those would be labeled exactly the same as products made using drought resistant crops.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7016



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 3:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:


I don't see it as an issue that is so critical it justifies keeping people in the dark, just in case they don't like it. We had plenty of food and at decent prices in the 1980's before GMOs. "Let's not tell them about it in case they don't like it." is not a good precedent for food manufacturers, or manufacturers , or the government.

The world's population in 1980 was 4.4 billion. It is now 7.4 billion and projected to be nearing 10 billion by 2050. We also face some major complications due to climate change. I would not use 1980 as a good example of what we can handle. And even in 1980 there were places on this planet that could have benefited from GMOs.


"Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato. Other genetically modified crops receiving marketing approval in 1995 were: canola with modified oil composition, Bt maize, cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, Bt cotton, glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, virus-resistant squash, and another delayed ripening tomato."

Most of the crops grown in the world are not genetically modified, including the big grain crops of rice and wheat. GMO corn, soybeans, canola and sugar beets is not keeping an over-populated and over-populating world from starving. Even if the entire world was primarily living off of corn, sugar beets, soybeans and canola oil, the yield increases, if any, don't compensate for exponential growth in population. A German study estimates crop yield increases from GMO corn is 20% but there is evidence to dispute that in that corn crop yields in the US (which were increasing prior to GMOs in 1995) haven't increased more than in Europe where there is little GMO usage:



Although there must be a savings with regard to insecticide costs for crops made insect resistant, and on fertilizer costs on crops made herbicide resistant. And they make crops like corn with both characteristics. I believe drought resistant versions are in their early days right now, but could not only increase yield in droughts, but also allow farming in areas that are too dry now.

I think most important thing with regard to over-population is to make population growth a non-taboo topic. Or maybe that should be - step 1 is to realize and acknowledge there is a problem.

Quote:
And who is keeping people in the dark? Anyone who is interested can learn about what GMOs are and how they are used. Putting some label on a package is ultimately meaningless since it doesnt actually tell the consumer anything. Something in the product used a GMO. So? Science tells us there is no danger, so what exactly are these labels going to help inform us about? There are GMOs that actually make foods more nutritious for us, but those would be labeled exactly the same as products made using drought resistant crops.


The Vitamin A rice that you mentioned has never been commercially produced. If GMOs are good and have no harm then put it on the label. Brag about it. Brag that it lowers the price and increases profits. The label can tell the consumer everything, if the manufacturer chooses too. They can say what is GMO in the product and state that they have tested it and the FDA approved their test. And if they want to get really honest they can say "the corn, soybean and canola oil in this product were sprayed with herbicide, but our tests say that the herbicide (trade name Round Up) is safe for humans to consume".




Last edited by tfan on 08/04/16 10:01 am; edited 3 times in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57926
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 7:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Not only that, but there are other dangers (such as pesticide overuse) that do come into play for GMO made foods. Consumers not eating products with too much pesticides depends entirely on whether we can trust the farm it was produced by to follow the rules..because unlike plants that aren't modified, GMO plants can handle significant amounts of pesticides without dying themselves.

Actually, you have that backwards. GMOs reduce the need for pesticides as they can create naturally pest resistant crops. Also drought resistant, and disease resistant crops. Crops that can survive with ltitle to no ferilizer are another one, which can help stop the pollution of our waterways.

The one place that we do have to be careful, however, is that we are reducing the diversity of our agriculture, which has some potential problems (if something happens it could wipe out a lot of crops at once). But that is a separate problem from using it as food.

As for the studies, the one I linked above took into consideration that some of those studies are flawed, but still concluded, based upon the many other on depth ones conducted, that their is no concern in eating GMOs.


No I don't. There are pesticide resistant GMOs as well. That's an actual concern to GMOs that aren't addressed properly (instead sticking to the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GROW A 3rd ARM" mantra..)

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24


Moreso herbicide resistant plants, and especially today Roundup resistant corn and soybeans. So farmers are free to dump more and more Roundup on their fields. And then weeds become more Roundup resistant, so then the farmers use even more Roundup. (And Monsanto cheers since they sell both the Roundup and the Roundup ready GMO crops.)

Not all objections to GMO crops are as simplistic as "I'll die if I eat them". I have no reason to think that "Roundup ready" corn is unsafe to eat. There is, on the other hand, good reason to think the widespread cultivation of herbicide resistant crops and the dramatic resultant increase in the spraying and runoff of those herbicides, is bad for the environment. I should have the opportunity to choose not to support that practice. Why are some people so afraid of the the public having access to true information? Why do some people object to the public having the information necessary to make their own decisions?

"They're safe to eat", even if we assume it's true, is only part of the issue.


A generic label on all GMO food will not tell you any of that. The only purpose of such a label is to scare people.



_________________
Marlene watches from the wall
Her mocking smile says it all
As she records the rise and fall
Of every soldier passing
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11402
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 2:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

i believe in organic, sustainable food production practices that enrich the earth and move us away from petroleum-based chemical controls and drugs.

this should be the direction in which we on this planet move.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18394



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/16 3:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
i believe in organic, sustainable food production practices that enrich the earth and move us away from petroleum-based chemical controls and drugs.

this should be the direction in which we on this planet move.


I agree, but more than labeling will have to be done for that to happen.

America (and the rest of the first world) will have to change it's entire diet. It's currently not sustainable without GMOs.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11483
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/05/16 12:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
i believe in organic, sustainable food production practices that enrich the earth and move us away from petroleum-based chemical controls and drugs.

this should be the direction in which we on this planet move.


A noble goal, but....considering how quickly our 'planet' moves on things that COULD be fixed quickly (correcting racism, equitable wealth distribution, etc.), why would amending food sources (and the power/wealth shift that entails) happen in our lifetime?

Nat Geo has recently published several REALLY good articles featuring a World perspective on food production, the latest science on such things, and....the reasons to NOT fret over GMOs. This has been a series of articles in their magazine. I know one is March of 2016, but I can't remember the rest.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57926
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 9:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaaq1413

Quote:
Difference-in-difference estimates of opposition to GE food before and after mandatory labeling show that the labeling policy led to a 19% reduction in opposition to GE food.



_________________
Marlene watches from the wall
Her mocking smile says it all
As she records the rise and fall
Of every soldier passing
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11402
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/18 10:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

oh, those halcyon days...



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin