If you can't even tell what's in your food... for heck sake... why
would you want to EAT it!?I only eat foods that are obvious
what's in it. If it's a mystery... don't eat it!Don't buy mystery meals (that come in a box and you don't know what
it is). Buy the real thing and make it yourself (so you KNOW what's in
@ 2 bits: The problem is that you cannot tell a GMO food by its outward
appearance. That fresh ear of corm that you buy, husk, and cook yourself is
most likely GMO.The primary reason for genetically tinkering with
plant foods is to control patent rights on the seeds so that the patent holder
can sell seeds and sue any farmers for which the GM crop is found if they had
not purchased through authorized sources.Farmers have been sued for
having found GM plants in their fields, which seed had not been planted but had
blown in from passing trucks, or adjacent fields.Round-up ready
crops, genetically modified to withstand round-up weed killer is responsible for
more round-up weed killer in the food supply. As weeds become more tolerant of
the chemical, more and more is sprayed.The Word of Wisdom was given
because of the evil and designs of conspiring men in the last days. I think the
Lord had Monsanto in mind.So short answer, Yes: people need to know
what is in the food and allowed to decide for themselves if it is something that
they want to put into their bodies.
Monsanto and other biotech companies claim genetically modified (GM) crops have
no impact on the environment and are perfectly safe to eat.Federal
departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted
tests to affirm this alleged “safety,” but rather have taken the
industry-conducted research at face value, allowing millions of acres of GM
crops to overtake farmland.These foods, largely in the form of GM
corn and soy (although there are other GM crops, too, like sugar beets, papaya
and crookneck squash), can now be found in the majority of processed foods in
the US.In other words, if you eat processed foods, you’re
already eating them… and these crops are already being freely planted in
the environment. But what if it turns out that Monsanto was wrong, and the GM
crops aren’t actually safe…This is precisely what a
number of scientists have been warning of for years, and the latest to sound the
alarm is Dr. Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute for Science in Society, who has
concluded that, by their very nature, there is no way GMOs (genetically modified
organisms) can be safe.
JimInSLC,So... is the government supposed to put a label on each ear of
corn... so I know which field this ear came from... it's DNA background...
any genetic tweaking done on it's family line... etc? That's
ridiculous.Corn is corn. If it's not (and it's
unsafe)... it shouldn't even be on the shelves!===If somethings not safe for consumption... don't allow it on the shelves
(that IS the Government's job). But if it's on the shelf... I
shouldn't have to worry about it or do a DNA profile on it before I eat
it.If GMO is unsafe... then the government should not be allowing it
on the shelves, at all, period. GMO is safe, just freaks some
conspiracy people out.Quoted from Wikipedia..."There is
broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses
no greater risk to human health than conventional food"...If you
want special food... either grow it yourself (so you know for sure)... or go to
a specialty store. If there isn't a special store.. open one yourself
that promises no GMO food.
According to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, genetic modification interferes fundamentally with
the natural genetic modifications that organisms undergo in order to survive.
Under natural circumstances, this is done in real time as “an exquisitely
precise molecular dance of life.”Genetic engineering, which
assumes that one protein determines one particular trait, such as herbicide
tolerance or insect resistance, and can easily be swapped out with another, with
no other effects, is dangerously simplistic or, as Dr. Mae-Wan Ho says,
“an illusion.”An organism’s genome is not static
but fluid, and its biological functions are interconnected with its environment
and vice versa, such that trying to control genetic changes via artificial
modification is a dangerous game. Dr. Ho explained:“The
rationale and impetus for genetic engineering and genetic modification is the
‘central dogma’ of molecular biology that assumes DNA (deoxyribose
nucleic acid) carries all the instructions for making an organism.Individual ‘genetic messages’ in DNA are copied into RNA then
translated into a protein determining a particular trait, such as herbicide
tolerance, or insect resistance; one gene, one character. If it were really as
simple as that, genetic modification would work perfectly. Unfortunately this
simplistic picture is an illusion.
Instead of linear causal chains leading from DNA to RNA to protein and
downstream biological functions, complex feed-forward and feed-back cycles
interconnect organism and environment at all levels to mark and change RNA and
DNA down the generations … Organisms work by intercommunication at every
level, and not by control.… In order to survive, the organism
needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely
precise molecular dance of life in which RNA and DNA respond to, and participate
fully in ‘downstream’ biological functions.That is why
organisms and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the crude, artificial GM
RNA and DNA created by human genetic engineers. It is also why genetic
modification can probably never be safe. More importantly, the human organism
shapes its own development and evolutionary future; that is why we must take
responsible action to ban all environmental releases of GMOs now."
Another problem with genetic modification has to do with the fact that GM plants
and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (as opposed to vertical
gene transfer that occurs in nature) injecting a gene from one species into a
completely different species. Proponents of GM assume they can apply the
principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but this
assumption is terrible flawed.Evidence dating from the early 1990s
indicates that ingested DNA in human food and animal feed can survive the
digestive tract, and pass through the intestinal wall to enter the bloodstream.
The digestive tract is a hotspot for horizontal gene transfer between bacteria
and other microorganisms.Human beings are even more susceptible to
horizontal gene transfer than bacteria, because unlike bacteria, which require
sequence similarity for incorporation into the genome, higher organisms do
not.GM DNA can lead to cancer, or activate dormant viruses that
cause diseases. GM DNA often contains antibiotic resistance genes that can
spread to pathogenic bacteria and make infections untreatable. Horizontal
transfer of GM DNA is a main route for creating new viruses & bacteria that
Yes, of course I want foods to be labeled!That's why the FDA
has required those little black boxed labels put on boxes for years and years
now.The only people having issue with NOT identifying GMO foods, are....[drum roll please...ba-da-ba-da-ba...]...the GMO food
Manufacturer/CORPORATIONS! [ka-ching!]And remember folks -- You ARE what you eat.
Just a question: Is a hybrid produce a GMO product? Most of the corn I grow
and most of the tomatoes I grow are hybrids. Just wondering if they are
examples of GMO products.
I don't understand why the food industry fights labeling they way they do.
So what if Vermont or Utah or indeed the entire country ask the food be labelled
as GMO or not. They already have disclosures on the label including RDA's.
What seems to be the problem? Not only is there issue to labeling,
but it might actually get folks to pay more for a box of cornflakes. I can
chose if I want to pay $2.89 for a regular box or $3.89 with non-GMO
ingredients. It is my money after all.There seems to be some other
issue involved beyond the printed label. Just exactly what and why this is even
controversial might make someone a bit suspicious. However, I would leave that
to the "Fox" crowd, who are so much more skilled in that endeavor.
"GM crops... produce more on less land with fewer pesticide applications,
less water and reduced on-farm fuel use." That's a nice claim, though
I have yet to see a study that proves it. I HAVE seen studies that say that at
best GM crops do as well as conventional ones.Regarding Golden Rice.
Yes, they have added Vitamin A, and that's really cool. However, to get
your daily recommended allowance, you'd have to eat 30+ bowls of rice a
day. The reason it was never distributed is because it doesn't really work,
not (just) because of opposition.@2 Bits:It's interesting
that in order to test GM crops, you have to get permission from the GM patent
holders. How do you think that affects the outcome? It is also interesting that
the Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA is a former Monsanto lawyer. So
were many others (do a search for [monsanto revolving door]). Do you think their
former careers may influence their current decisions? Is it possible that people
in the government don't always do the right thing?
Is there any scientific evidence that GMO foods are actual unhealthy? I've
never heard of any.(No, I am not a Monsanto apologist. I've
found that if you question the conventional wisdom that 'GMO equals
poison' that you tend to get accused to being a Monsanto stooge.)
GMO's, flouride in the water, we've lived with and benefited from this
stuff for years. With no harm. It's only the rise of internet empowered
conspiracy mongers that is a problem. Fear itself.
@Steve Cottrell;A hybrid is made by taking two varieties and
cross-pollinating them. Each seed gets genetic material from both parents.
This is natural and the genes in the hybrid are natural.GMO takes a
gene from another organism and places it in the modified one. A gene that
didn't exist in the GMO in the first place, or was perhaps inactive in the
GMO.Cross pollination or hybridization is not the same thing.
"Comments about ‘Should the government tell us what's in our
food?"Absolutely. I personally have no problem with Genetically
Modified food.But a lot of people do. That means less demand.The result could be lower prices for perfectly good GMO food. And that
makes it better for the consumer.
OK, let's look at it another way. One close to our local hearts. No, the
government should not tell us what's in our food. That job would fall on
the FDA, which many of us would like to see eliminated as a wasteful, business
inhibiting bureaucracy. Besides, the job isn't enumerated in the
constitution, is it? Surely industry will voluntarily tell us what we need to
know. Or, it could be up to the states. Surely any state would recognise the
declaration of a product declared GMO in any other state, wouldn't they?
Corn from Iowa recognised as GMO by California would also be so in Iowa,
correct? Or would a vote and states' rights be allowed to prevail,
depriving Iowans of their rights, in this case the right to know?
I can only hope that the vitamins I take and yest I drink aren't genitally
Adam Smith said the key necessary ingredient to a free market is the free flow
of accurate information (i.e., market transparency). Whether or not GMO’s
are safe is beside the point – people have a right to know all relevant
information in the marketplace and make up their own minds.
Yes, in microeconomic theory an "ideal" market assumes free and abundant
My #1 issue with GMO foods...Only the manufacturere can produce
them.meaning -- Farmers can not just raise seeds and grow them
year after year -- As God made them, and intended -- "...and all manner of vegetation, each bearing seed in itself after its
own kind..." 80% of our entire food supply depends on only 3-4
companies.The ultimate extortion weapon.Do this - or else.Not only that -- But these huge corporations are so huge, they
also simply sue and win against smaller farmers who raise "normal" seed
bearing crops in fields next to their GMO foods, because they might
cross-pollunate and make "normal" crops.From my religous,
moral and ethical stand point -- This is so, SO wrong and on so many
Monsanto, et al. are afraid that if government requires or allows labeling,
consumers will choose not to buy GMO food. They don't want to combat that
possible choice with education and pricing. In effect, corporations are
battling to take away consumer choices. Who does that sound like?
Before you all go off on the "evils" of GMO crops, you should look to
see some of the benefits of GMOs.Thanks to GMOs diabetics are able
to get insulin for a low cost.There are many other medications that
are derived from GMOs.There are many people that would be considered
to be a GMO because they have undergond gene therapy to correct genetic diseases
that they were born with.GMOs are in cotton, and result in cheaper
cotton.GMOs are also being used to produce synthetic oil and other
chemicals.Some GMOs are just fine and have no effect on anybody, and
some are beneficial. What we need is a better understanding of what the GMO
does when eaten and any differences in how it is digested and processed.
RedShirtCalTechPasedena, CASo then -- Answe the original
question RedShirt, and stay on topic...If GMO foods are so
good, and safe, and wonderful -- why do their manufacturers insist in
staying "secret", hidden, undisclosed -- i.e., secret combinations?WIf there is no problems at all, Why NOT allow them to be labeled
and disclosed to the public?If something like that really and truely
WAS so superior a product, don't you think people would want to know
that as well?Who's side of TRUTH and Righteousnes are you going
to take?Like GWBush sold you all on his "Patriot Act", If you are doing nothing wrong, and have absolutely nothing to hide, what do you have to be worried about?
Pretty, cool and eye catching packages. I don't think I'd buy any
thing once I saw how much I get after I opened something.
airnaut - Rice can be grown from GM seeds, although corn cannot.