GMO Foods Acceptable or Not

haypoint · #81 05/23/13, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor R.

Here's the thing, y'all. I DO NOT necessarily support the labeling of GMOs. I don't believe they should be outlawed. There are plenty of organic growers local to me who subscribe to growing practices that produce food that I wish to feed my family. I'm perfectly happy with the food options available to me. I'm glad you have options available to you, too.

It seems that in choosing to feed my family organically, you feel I'm impeding your choice to not eat organically. If that's not the case, then we're not so different after all

I can only speak for myself, personally, and not for the entirety of people who actively fight against genetically modified crops, which I most certainly don't do.

So, you voted "I think GMO foods should not be labeled as such." I just want to be clear what your position is.

Taylor R. · #82 05/23/13, 12:10 PM

You bet. I support the anti-GMO movement only in that I don't support farmers who raise GMO crops often (I can't say never, since I do buy the occasional plastic product and the like). If you'd actually read everything that I said, you'd know I was opposing you seemingly lumping all who don't approve of GMOs into one big pile, and your general assumption that everyone who chooses to not partake of GMOs is ignorant and unaware of the impact that the proposed system could have on our unprepared agricultural system.

You know what happens when you assume..

oneokie · #83 05/23/13, 12:34 PM

delete

SueMc · #84 05/23/13, 01:22 PM

Would someone like to explain why 64 Countries
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/r...eling-laws-map
have labeling laws in place, according to Patchouli's link, and the pro-GMO people (here and elsewhere) do nothing but repeat how stupid, ridiculous, unnecessary, expensive, detrimental to the farmers/producers/consumers, it would be to pass labeling laws here.
Do ALL those countries know something we don't? Are they smarter than we are here? Dumber?
Are they and their leaders just not as influenced by Monsanto and the technology that has been foisted on the public here?

Off subject somewhat....I was recently told that Joel Salatin was scheduled to speak at the Univ. of IL and supposedly was canceled after Monsanto reminded the university of all the funding they've invested in the school. I'm still trying to confirm that rumor (from another university faculty member).
I still say if Monsanto is so great, GMO's the greatest thing since sliced bread, AND there is no danger to people, animals or plants, EVERYONE everywhere would embrace the technology.

Weird, that just doesn't seem to be the case.

rambler · #85 05/23/13, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngieM2

Seems to me - as posted by various ones on this thread, it is becoming apparent that the issue is the bottom line of the leger sheet for the some. You can pick them out if you read the thread.

And for others it's quality of food, and ablitiy to determine what is specifically in it.

And I think heritiage foods could be soy, wheat and corn; and not be organic or GMO.

Just some observations after watching the same people with the same arguments every time it is brought up.

This is actually on topic, and a different new direction, so I'll add a thought...

You are saying we currently have gmo foods, or organic foods.

You feel there is and should be a third category. It would not be organic, presumably allowing fertilizers and herbicides and the like, but would not be a gmo product.

That actually exists, there are markets for us farmers to sell non-organic grain to. Most are for livestock feeds.

If you look for it, you can find such products, most are under one of the private organizations with 'natural' in their name. There are very few people that sit on this fence tho, once they don't want gmo foods, they typically go all the way and really want organic food. So it is a hard market to get into. There are not many growers, and not many customers for that very small middle ground of human food.

Shipping the products separately, finding processors to process these small batches in machinery that is cleaned of all gmo products, and shipping out to the few but far flung customers is a difficult challenge.

I understand there is a market, but in your case for you it does come down to money again.... These middle ground products end up costing more to transport and handle than full fledged organic products.

I hope you can see that it is a very small and difficult market to please for an affordable price, and that mandatory labels on our current food supply system would not really help either side?

I think neighbor to neighbor you can get this sort of thing, but as a national food network it would be difficult to provide conventional but gmo free food grains for less than what pure organics cost, and thus what is the point?

Thanks for a different angle on this. At first read I also thought you were putting down conventional grains and implying the heirloom stock is far superior, it is easy to misread your message that way the way you wrote it.

Paul

arabian knight · #86 05/23/13, 01:49 PM

There is way to much Misinformation being spread all over the world. And this is the US of A Not a place that wants to or needs to and SHOULD follow what the rest of the world wants, or is doing, or is even thinking of doing. We separated from a country because the USA wants to be just that Separate and Independent in doing and thinking, not following what the rest of the world is doing. I don;t give a rip what UK is doing with there food I want to have a nice choice of products at a Reasonable Price~! And without Government sticking their nose into everything. The Majority of Americans want just that a choice to what they want the lowest possible price and you can not have that with so many controls on things as some and that is a very select small group wants. Period. If these other countries wer so great there would be boat loads of people Leaving the USA, but there are not there is however boat Loads Coming here From Those countries.

sammyd · #87 05/23/13, 02:02 PM

Quote:

I still say if Monsanto is so great, GMO's the greatest thing since sliced bread, AND there is no danger to people, animals or plants, EVERYONE everywhere would embrace the technology.

A false statement to be sure. because everywhere there are Luddites that abhor change, absolutely hate anything new and are so afraid of advancing technology that they will make up lies and spread them to try to stop it.

partndn · #88 05/23/13, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

I think we need a new thread if you are going to equate heritage food with quality food, which by definition makes non-heritage food less quality. I'm not sure there is any definition of exactly what constitutes heritage anything.

I'm fine with the choices I have. I think you have plenty of choices, too. But when you push an agenda that does not improve my choices, yet raises the cost of my most basic choice, I object to such selfishness. Re-creating the food system that is the envy of the world, disrupt the efficient movement of millions of bushels of crops, installing another layer of regulation, documentation and inspection, just because you want to mess with a market you don't like is wrong.

Like I said earlier, many folks say they'll pay extra just to get organic, but when actually buying, simply by the cheaper, standard varieties produced the standard way. Thankfully, their is a sliver of the population that'll pay extra for the specialty foods and that provides a nice income for some homesteaders.

Is it about the bottom of the ledger? Is it all about money? You seem to indicate that the money shouldn't matter. OK, then you have your choice already, things labeled organic are non-GMO. Buy that. It gives you your perceived quality of food, and ability to determine what is specifically in it.

She already replied, but let me add that it sure appears you created an entire thought process that wasn't there. oh boy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by rambler

This is actually on topic, and a different new direction, so I'll add a thought...

You are saying we currently have gmo foods, or organic foods.

You feel there is and should be a third category. It would not be organic, presumably allowing fertilizers and herbicides and the like, but would not be a gmo product.

That actually exists, there are markets for us farmers to sell non-organic grain to. Most are for livestock feeds.

If you look for it, you can find such products, most are under one of the private organizations with 'natural' in their name. There are very few people that sit on this fence tho, once they don't want gmo foods, they typically go all the way and really want organic food. So it is a hard market to get into. There are not many growers, and not many customers for that very small middle ground of human food.

Shipping the products separately, finding processors to process these small batches in machinery that is cleaned of all gmo products, and shipping out to the few but far flung customers is a difficult challenge.

I understand there is a market, but in your case for you it does come down to money again.... These middle ground products end up costing more to transport and handle than full fledged organic products.

I hope you can see that it is a very small and difficult market to please for an affordable price, and that mandatory labels on our current food supply system would not really help either side?

I think neighbor to neighbor you can get this sort of thing, but as a national food network it would be difficult to provide conventional but gmo free food grains for less than what pure organics cost, and thus what is the point?

Thanks for a different angle on this. At first read I also thought you were putting down conventional grains and implying the heirloom stock is far superior, it is easy to misread your message that way the way you wrote it.

Paul

And again.. What in the world are y'all reading? I understood very clearly what Angie said, and it was none of these things you two infer.

wow

SueMc · #89 05/23/13, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyd

A false statement to be sure. because everywhere there are Luddites that abhor change, absolutely hate anything new and are so afraid of advancing technology that they will make up lies and spread them to try to stop it.

OK, "everyone everywhere" may be a little strong. I just asked for some answers to specific questions. Instead the two posts after mine do exactly what is done EVERY time someone goes against the pro-gmo party line. That is, a bunch of non-specific rhetoric about how EVERYONE except the pro-gmo pushers are the only people who are right about this issue.

partndn · #90 05/23/13, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SueMc

OK, "everyone everywhere" may be a little strong. I just asked for some answers to specific questions. Instead the two posts after mine do exactly what is done EVERY time someone goes against the pro-gmo party line. That is, a bunch of non-specific rhetoric about how EVERYONE except the pro-gmo pushers are the only people who are right about this issue.

Your question was a good one.

And yeah, I believe I could come up with many "changes" that Sammy would "abhor and hate and fear" and lie to stop.

ChristieAcres · #91 05/23/13, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Do you think GMO foods and foods containing GMO ingredients are an acceptable addition to our lives, and therefore labeling is not necessary.

No, because that removes the consumer's "informed" choice! No one has a right to decide what is acceptable for me to eat but myself.

Do you think GMO foods and foods containing GMO ingredients are NOT an acceptable addition to our lives, and therefore labeling should be required.

I avoid GMO, but feel everyone must make that choice themselves. By Labeling foods as containing GMO, the consumers are able to decide for themselves.

a simple yes or no will do, if that's okay with you

I began growing Heirloom fruits/veggies due to harvesting seeds. Then, I switched over completely due to my concern about the seed supplies. We grow most of our own produce, prefer to garden organically, and also do not want to grow GMO. We have made this choice for ourselves, but I don't have a right to tell any of you not to grow or eat GMO.

If your rights don't supercede mine, I am fine. The moment your rights supercede mine, I am not fine.

So, if my neighbor decided to grow GMO and some of my Heirloom varieties were contaminated due to cross-over in pollination? I would not be pleased at all. That would remove my right to harvest my own seeds... Meanwhile, me growing Heirloom varieties wouldn't harm my neighbor's vegetables, since they would buy their seeds every year. If they harvested their seeds, both of us growing Heirlooms varieties would become a beneficial thing.

My DD attended the Rally in CT to get GMO labeling done! I supported her doing this.

AngieM2 · #92 05/23/13, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngieM2

Seems to me - as posted by various ones on this thread, it is becoming apparent that the issue is the bottom line of the leger sheet for the some. You can pick them out if you read the thread. (Dale's post 78 came out and said the cost, of course it has been mentioned about adding cost and being rambler's post 74 as "it is the anti-gmo fraction that does wish to change the world, and punish those who don't think like them". Now first haypoint's post 71 "So, your solution overlooks their need to punish non-believers." and later the cry is picked up by rambler in post 74 ""it is the anti-gmo fraction that does wish to change the world, and punish those who don't think like them". So now the bottom line, is now being put forth as punishing a group and effecting everyone's bottom line.)

And for others it's quality of food, and ablitiy to determine what is specifically in it. ( Llimi's post 14: "I don't care whether a change to our foodstuffs is good, bad, or indifferent. I want it on the label so I can adequately compare it to other items and make my own educated decisions. Buffy in Dallas's post 15: "I want to know exactly what is in the food I'm buying. " mamasky's post 17 addresses cost and knowing: "I want to know exactly what is in the food I'm buying. " just a few examples that are only in this thread)

And I think heritiage foods could be soy, wheat and corn; and not be organic or GMO. (refers to rambler's post 69 which says that if it says basically that it's already labeled. And anyone that is smart understands that, implying (to my reading) that anyone not agreeing and understanding what he is saying is true, is not smart.)

Just some observations after watching the same people with the same arguments every time it is brought up.

and now rambler causing those that are anti- GMO "I was hoping to see one honest anti-gmo food controller speak up as to their true agenda. Didnt get it, but that's ok." Seems to be calling what other believe as lying what they post here. Could that be?

So it cannot be that people want to be able to make a more informed decision, and wish that opportunity for others - it now comes from the pro-GMO that it is bottom line, and anti-GMO's are out to punish people that don't believe as they do. Quite a stretch.
Seems that it gets deeper and deeper in here.

MO_cows · #93 05/23/13, 02:28 PM

The pro GMO party line? GMO pushers? Kinda insulting don't you think? I haven't seen anybody describing anti GMO people using such derogatory terms.

oregon woodsmok · #94 05/23/13, 02:37 PM

It makes no difference to me and I don't want to pay for it for those who don't want GMO. You don't want GMO, don't buy any prepared products that contain plant material that is commonly GMO. There are not many GMO plants, so the list of ingredients to not buy is short.

If you don't want GMO, take yourself to the health food store and pay the high prices for products labeled GMO free.

SueMc · #95 05/23/13, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO_cows

I haven't seen anybody describing anti GMO people using such derogatory terms.

As heated and emotional as these "conversations" get I think you may exaggerate somewhat.
There have been a lot of nasty innuendo and outright name calling over the many threads on this subject, especially by those who support GMO technology. I guess that's why they get moved to GC, locked or shut down for a cool down period.
I see many posts showing links to scientific studies, university based studies, etc, etc....and the typical comeback by the pro-gmo groups are such things as..."myth", trying to ruin the farmers, hurt Monsanto, on and on, most without any sort of scientific rebuttal.
There are a lot of things said, over and over about the supposed problems associated with gmo food labeling (need to get back OT), WITHOUT much hard stats to back up the statements. That is why I asked specific questions regarding what other Countries may know about the process of labeling GM foods. Believe or not, those other Countries probably strive to produce food at a reasonable cost and not ruin the farmers. Apparently some in the US are so arrogant that they believe that we have nothing to learn from anyone else.

MO_cows · #96 05/23/13, 03:28 PM

My observation has been different about which side drops down into the insult ditch. YMMV

As far as the actual topic, if the GMO labeling could be done without raising everyone's food prices, I would be all for it. However, I don't believe that is possible which is why I am against it.

As far as the "all the other kids are doing it" argument, e.g., other countries, my experience is limited. But the few international folks I do meet, if the subject comes up, they all seem to comment on how much less we pay for food than they do. I had a guest from the U.K. a few years back and we went to the grocery store, she was amazed. Many things she was paying almost double what they cost here.

AngieM2 · #97 05/23/13, 03:50 PM

doing a bit of research - always better than the fussing back and forth.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/cu...d-products.htm
(not sure which policial or on this subject side they are on)

here's a couple of paragraphs:

Quote:

Like humans, all organisms have genetic material. When scientists alter genetic material, or DNA, it's called genetic modification (GM). Genetically modifying foods or food crops can enhance taste and quality, increase nutrients or improve resistance to pests and disease. In some cases, GM foods help conserve natural resources, because the altered version might require less water or energy for processing.
The first genetically modified food to reach our tables was the Flavr Savr tomato. Grown in California, the Flavr Savr tomato received Food and Drug Administration approval in 1994, after two years of testing and assessment. Mounting costs made the crop unprofitable, however, and production ceased in 1997. Creation of the Flavr Savr opened the doors for other GM foods to make their way into our kitchens.

I didn't know about this 1994 tomato

Quote:

10. Sugar Beet
The sugar beet is one of the newest GM foods and one under severe scrutiny. Researchers produced an herbicide-resistant crop of GM sugar beets that was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2008 but banned in August 2010.

read the link for the reason why....

Quote:

9. Potatoes
In 1991, the World Health Organization challenged scientists to look for a way to make vaccines accessible to everyone. This would mean that children in impoverished areas of the world wouldn't have to travel for hours to a nearby village to get a shot. The scientists succeeded faster than expected, creating a cholera vaccine-like component by injecting a series of genes into a potato. These genes prompt the human immune system to produce its own cholera antibodies or "vaccine." [source: Biotech Institute]. The "anti-cholera potatoes" have not made it to the market yet; scientists need to figure out how to package the potatoes to easily distribute and market them.

Quote:

8. Corn
Bt-corn (named after the Bacillus thruringiensis bacterium) is a form of sweet corn that has been genetically modified to include an insect-killing gene. This means the farmer doesn't have to spray with pesticides, because the insects die from eating the corn. No spraying means less harm to the environment and the workers handling the toxic spray [source: Bionet]. The move has caused debate, however. The same gene that attacks corn predators also appears to kill the Monarch butterfly.

Quote:

7. Tomatoes
Although tomatoes were the first genetically modified food to reach the market, they have since been altered for only one reason: to make them last longer. GM tomatoes don't rot as quickly as regular tomatoes, so they can tolerate longer periods of transportation. GM tomatoes also can be left to mature on the plants, rather than being picked green. This results in a more tasty tomato that doesn't need to be stored until ripening.

Quote:

6. Squash
Squash is more prone than some crops to viral diseases, which is why it was genetically modified to ensure crop survival. The original purpose was achieved, but the modification backfired in an unexpected way. It seems cucumber beetles that carry bacterial wilt disease like to feed on healthy plants, like the GM squash. After visiting unhealthy plants, they land on the nice, healthy GM squash plant and pig out, wounding the leaves and leaving open holes on them. When the beetles' feces fall on the leaves, they're absorbed into the stem and cause bacterial wilt disease

AngieM2 · #98 05/23/13, 03:59 PM

continued:

Quote:

5. Golden Rice
Golden rice was first created to fight vitamin A deficiency, which affects 250 million people around the world and can cause blindness and even death. Rice is one of the most common foods on Earth. In fact, almost half of the world's population survives on a single daily bowl of rice. Because getting vitamin supplements to every single person on the planet would be impossible, scientists believed that the answer was to create a grain of rice that already had vitamin A in it. And so golden rice was born. Its name came from the bright golden glow added beta-carotene causes. The body converts beta carotene into vitamin A [source: Biotech Institute]

Quote:

4. Soybean
As of 2004, 85 percent of the soybeans grown on U.S. soil have been genetically modified [source: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology] Because soy is widely used in the production of other items (including cereal, baked products, chocolate and even ice cream), chances are everybody in the U.S. is eating GM soy. It might be worth noting, however, that tofu and soy sauce are usually made from non-GM soybeans, a variation from most other soy products, which likely are GM-based.

(interesting that soy sauce and tofu are not from GM soy beans)

Quote:

3. Oils
In the U.S., GM-modified oils are sold as cooking oils, but also commonly used for frying snacks such as potato chips and also used in the production of margarine [source: GMO Compass]. Canola or rapeseed oil became an important crop only after being genetically modified.

Quote:

2. Animal Feed
A large part of the GM presence in animal feed does not come from foodstuff but instead from additives aimed at making food more nutritious. Animal feed is commonly enhanced with vitamins, amino acids, enzymes and even coloring. These additives are passed on to the animal's system and eventually make their way into your body when you consume meat, eggs or dairy products. Traces of GM cannot, however, be detected in animal by-products, so it's impossible to know if an animal was raised on GM-enhanced feed. Unless you buy organic meat and dairy products, it might be impossible to determine what you're eating.

Quote:

1. Salmon
Genetically engineered food from animals might not be on the market yet, but a few already have been approved. GM salmon is, as we speak, on its way to our dinner table. Wild salmon matures slowly, taking up to three years to reach its full size. GM salmon, on the other hand, not only will grow faster but also should reach about twice the size of its wild cousin. The creators of the GM salmon, a private company called AquaBounty, promises to harvest the salmon before it reaches its full size, thus preventing "giant" versions [source: Discover Magazine].

links to more information: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/cu...d-products.htm

Okay - I did not see the date on this, so you may want to check.
I didn't see wheat on this list, so....
Each number is only a portion of the information pertaining to it. It appears like slides and you click the arrow at top right to get to the next number as a count down.

Off for more information.

AngieM2 · #99 05/23/13, 04:06 PM

This was one of the links at the end of the prior link

http://health.howstuffworks.com/well...fied-foods.htm

I find this interesting:

Quote:

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration requires genetically modified labeling only if biotechnology changes the nutritional profile of the food or introduces an allergen, such as a peanut protein. If not, the genetically modified food is considered "substantially equivalent" to its non-genetically modified counterpart and doesn't need to be labeled. However, the FDA is considering permitting voluntary labeling about the presence or absence of biotechnology in foods.

about the 3rd main paragraph...

http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...ops-hit-market
this was another link in the world wide web ---

About how long it takes to grow, get to market. This is a lower paragraph

Quote:

The FDA calls genetically modified crops bioengineered foods, and the agency determines what food can be sold in our supermarkets. In order to put a new genetically modified food on the market, the developer must enter into a consultation process with the FDA during which the developer must prove that the new product adheres to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. To do this, the developer must submit a summary of the new food's safety and nutritional assessment and meet with FDA scientists, if necessary, to discuss the information presented or supporting the assessment. This consultation process can be precarious, lengthy and painstaking. Although the length of this process varies, it can take years. Some foods can make it far into the process and then be turned down. Recently, Congress voted to stop the FDA from approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. The salmon would have been the first genetically modified animal sold for food.

Wonder why FDA said no if GMO is okay? And I do not know the year of this article, so may be something for you to research on your own.

AngieM2 · #**100** 05/23/13, 04:08 PM

May do some more research later tonight.

Rather than argue. Let's research.