Labeling seems like a huge waste of time to me, and could drive food costs up. Companies are already trying to replace GMO ingredients to avoid having to label them if they become required to. At whose expense?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is There a Rational Reason for Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
Obviously my answers to these questions will not help you to substantiate the premises you and the author of your article have already asserted about there being an "absence of evidence" of the safety of GM foods, or about any "suspected risk of severe harm to the public" due to consuming GM foods. Obviously my answers to these questions will not help you to state a rational reason for mandatory labeling of GM foods. Right?
Frankly I don't really know how to answer your questions. For instance, the all-important DNA, protein, heat stability and digestability tests and analyses that newly developed genetically engineered plants undergo are, I assume, "perfect replications of long term real world conditions."
And for instance, I don't know how to assess whether or not "the risk of each new 'safe' gmo causing harm to the ECOSYSTEM is zero." I am unaware of any genetically engineered plant "causing harm to an ecosystem". But I presume that any crop plant or what a human does with a crop plant (e.g., what pesticides a person sprays on it) can harm an ecosystem. As far as I know, the most acutely destructive and unnecessary environmental harm that humans perpetrate is not due to growing genetically engineered plants but the raising, using and slaughtering of billions of animals each year and fishing the oceans dry for human consumption.
Is there a rational reason for you to continue to avoid answering the title question?
Tell us everything you know about where Cornflakes and Kikkoman Less Sodium soy sauce comes from and how they are made, for any and all parts of the process.
Are you suggesting that whether or not a food product contains some amount of an ingredient that some people would designate as "GMO" is an important item of information for "know[ing] about where [it] comes from and how it was made"?
Not having laws that mandate labeling of GM foods has not prevented you from having any important information about where a food comes from and how a food is made, for any and all parts of the process, has it?
Tell us all of the important information one should know about the "hereditary origin" of strawberries.
Mandatory labeling apparently does drive food costs up significantly--and a mandatory labeling law gives no one a choice in that.
I just wanted to quote from a review that I found very clarifying on several points:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4057531/
The author goes on to note some of the important environmental issues, namely the issue of gene flow, insect resistance to the Bt toxin, and weed resistance to glyphosate.
No whole food category in history has been as thoroughly examined as GM crops--only chemical food additives receive greater scrutiny. Pre-market food and feed safety assessment is based on internationally recognized approaches and must demonstrate that GM crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts for food and feed use [10–12] and present no unacceptable risk to the environment [13]. The process begins with a comparative assessment to identify similarities (referred to as substantial equivalence) and differences between the newly developed GM crop and a conventional counterpart with a long history of safe use. Any actual or suspected differences then become the focus of the food, feed, and environmental safety assessment. The assessment [10, 11] begins with careful selection of gene source to avoid allergenic and potentially toxic sources. Food and feed assessment generally focuses on safety of the introduced protein. Bioinformatic (DNA and protein sequence) analysis assures lack of homology to allergens or toxins, and heat stability and digestibility analyses ensure a lack of digestive stability. Acute protein toxicity studies as well as 28- or 90-day whole crop studies are routinely performed in rodents, and livestock studies provide additional assurance of nutritional performance. The crop is subjected to detailed compositional analysis, including known toxins and anti-nutrient factors, “proximate analysis” (total protein, carbohydrate, ash, mineral content, etc.), and analysis of fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals--all to assure that the composition of the GM crop falls well within the range of expected values for the conventional crop.
For GM crops with altered or novel compositional aspects (e.g., nutritionally modified oils), a comprehensive safety assessment is undertaken for any changes made, considering both individual health and population nutritional impacts. Unanticipated genetic effects can occur with any breeding technique, and the absence of relevant unanticipated effects can be demonstrated by studies to assure proper gene insertion, composition, and agronomic performance. Fifteen years of studies demonstrate considerably more variability among conventional crops due to genetics and environment than results from transgene insertion in a particular variety; recent genomics studies demonstrate that gene insertion produces minor perturbations of overall gene function compared to dramatic differences in expression across crop varieties, locations, and growing conditions (see below).
Despite this scrutiny, concern is often expressed that no long-term studies with GM crops have been performed. While this is not correct [14], it is also important to recognize that DNA, RNA, and protein are normal dietary components. There are no examples of dietary DNA, RNA, or digestible protein having carcinogenic or reproductive toxicity, and long-term testing to detect these outcomes is neither necessary nor informative. Acute toxicity testing is done using sufficiently high dose (up to 2,000-mg protein/kg body weight) to ensure adequate margins of safety (thousands of times greater than intake). To keep this in perspective, recall that there are tens of thousands of proteins in maize alone--hundreds of thousands in a normal diet--none of which have ever been subjected to long-term testing.
Unanticipated genetic effects of GM technology have been alleged to raise food safety issues. It has long been recognized that conventional technologies (which include wide or forced crosses, plant embryo rescue, and chemical or radiation induced mutagenesis) can also result in unanticipated phenomenon and that the risk of GM technologies falls within the range of risks entailed with conventional methods [19]. In the last several years, genomic technology has documented that the GM process itself produces only small changes in overall gene expression and proteomics in the transformed plant when compared to the large degree of variation introduced by natural genomic instability [20] and by conventional breeding processes and environmental effects [20–27].
Food allergy has also been raised as a potential issue in GM crops. GM crops are, of course, as allergenic as conventional crops as no allergenic components have been removed. As of this writing, there has been no documented occurrence of allergy to an inserted GM protein. Approaches to allergenicity assessment in GM crops have been reviewed elsewhere [28]. By way of summary, when selecting proteins for use in GM crops, we avoid known allergenic sources such as tree nuts; using bioinformatic approaches, we avoid known food allergens as well as proteins having sequence similarity (eight or more amino acids) to known food allergens; and proteins are screened for heat stability and poor digestibility, two characteristics often found in allergenic proteins. Food allergy reduction is theoretically feasible using GM technology [29], but has not yet been developed commercially. It is the author’s view that in the unlikely event that a major food allergen is engineered into a GM crop, it would be removed from commercial use; an option we do not have with most existing, naturally occurring allergens. Thus, the GM allergenicity debate appears to place undue focus on a theoretical and remediable risk while major allergenic foods remain unrestricted (albeit labeled) in the market place.
[. . . ]
GM crops have a more than 20-year track record of being grown and used commercially without a single human illness known to be caused by GM food or feed. Moreover, billions of animals have been fed predominantly GM diets for consecutive generations with no evidence that animal health and productivity were affected.
For GM crops with altered or novel compositional aspects (e.g., nutritionally modified oils), a comprehensive safety assessment is undertaken for any changes made, considering both individual health and population nutritional impacts. Unanticipated genetic effects can occur with any breeding technique, and the absence of relevant unanticipated effects can be demonstrated by studies to assure proper gene insertion, composition, and agronomic performance. Fifteen years of studies demonstrate considerably more variability among conventional crops due to genetics and environment than results from transgene insertion in a particular variety; recent genomics studies demonstrate that gene insertion produces minor perturbations of overall gene function compared to dramatic differences in expression across crop varieties, locations, and growing conditions (see below).
Despite this scrutiny, concern is often expressed that no long-term studies with GM crops have been performed. While this is not correct [14], it is also important to recognize that DNA, RNA, and protein are normal dietary components. There are no examples of dietary DNA, RNA, or digestible protein having carcinogenic or reproductive toxicity, and long-term testing to detect these outcomes is neither necessary nor informative. Acute toxicity testing is done using sufficiently high dose (up to 2,000-mg protein/kg body weight) to ensure adequate margins of safety (thousands of times greater than intake). To keep this in perspective, recall that there are tens of thousands of proteins in maize alone--hundreds of thousands in a normal diet--none of which have ever been subjected to long-term testing.
Unanticipated genetic effects of GM technology have been alleged to raise food safety issues. It has long been recognized that conventional technologies (which include wide or forced crosses, plant embryo rescue, and chemical or radiation induced mutagenesis) can also result in unanticipated phenomenon and that the risk of GM technologies falls within the range of risks entailed with conventional methods [19]. In the last several years, genomic technology has documented that the GM process itself produces only small changes in overall gene expression and proteomics in the transformed plant when compared to the large degree of variation introduced by natural genomic instability [20] and by conventional breeding processes and environmental effects [20–27].
Food allergy has also been raised as a potential issue in GM crops. GM crops are, of course, as allergenic as conventional crops as no allergenic components have been removed. As of this writing, there has been no documented occurrence of allergy to an inserted GM protein. Approaches to allergenicity assessment in GM crops have been reviewed elsewhere [28]. By way of summary, when selecting proteins for use in GM crops, we avoid known allergenic sources such as tree nuts; using bioinformatic approaches, we avoid known food allergens as well as proteins having sequence similarity (eight or more amino acids) to known food allergens; and proteins are screened for heat stability and poor digestibility, two characteristics often found in allergenic proteins. Food allergy reduction is theoretically feasible using GM technology [29], but has not yet been developed commercially. It is the author’s view that in the unlikely event that a major food allergen is engineered into a GM crop, it would be removed from commercial use; an option we do not have with most existing, naturally occurring allergens. Thus, the GM allergenicity debate appears to place undue focus on a theoretical and remediable risk while major allergenic foods remain unrestricted (albeit labeled) in the market place.
[. . . ]
GM crops have a more than 20-year track record of being grown and used commercially without a single human illness known to be caused by GM food or feed. Moreover, billions of animals have been fed predominantly GM diets for consecutive generations with no evidence that animal health and productivity were affected.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4057531/
The author goes on to note some of the important environmental issues, namely the issue of gene flow, insect resistance to the Bt toxin, and weed resistance to glyphosate.
Augustus
…
They let me know that you have a narrow view of the situation and are unable to see the bigger picture.
This is why you consider it "irrational" to hold objections and why you incorrectly believe they have been "proved" safe.
You assume very incorrectly. Trials are atomised, short term, and focused on a small number of variables to study based on predictions of potential effects.
Real life is long term, interconnected and involves countless variables, many of which are unexpected and are the result of unintended consequences.
As I pointed out, medical trials are far from perfect, and they are better replications than gmo trials.
Unless you believe medical trials are perfect replications of real life usage then why should you believe the same for gmo?
The purpose of gmo is that they are significantly different from non gmo, for example they might be resistant to insects. Such plants don't exist in a vacuum though, and therefore can impact on the broader ecosystem.
We already know that introducing foreign species can have a devastating effect on any ecosystem. We know that lifeforms adapt to changes in their ecosystem. We know that humans lack the intellectual abilities to accurately predict the effects of our actions, but we tend towards hubris anyway. Your linked paper even talks about what should be done to prevent negative effects regarding resistance, assuming that we can accurately control people's behaviour when growing such crops.
With gmo the effects can also compound. Just like medicine a and medicine b are safe separately, but deadly in combination, or safe in the short term but harmful over time the same might be true for gmo. Antibiotics are fantastic, but also now problematic in ways we never expected to occur (at least they don't self-replicate though).
The point is not to identify a single named harm, it is to highlight that the effects are unknowable but potentially harmful. Given gmo are self replicating, effects are non linear, and that harms are potentially irreversible, then it is prudent to practice precaution.
When you only have one planet, you don't take unnecessary risks with the parts of it that sustain your species. The only rational approach to gmo is to say we don't know the long term effects. It is either a risk worth taking or a risk not worth taking. Either way, it is a risk.
However some people still believe this is "irrational". Scientism and hubris do go hand in hand though. Anyone who believes it is proved "safe" is dangerous and ignorant.
Out of interest, which do you believe:
1. It is impossible that any gmo could ever cause any harm
2. It is possible that gmo could cause harm, but we are smart enough to identify the harmful ones prior to them causing any harm
I have answered it... something you'd realize if you stopped to actually listen and process what I've said.
How do you account for the conclusions drawn from the scientific evidence on the safety of GM foods reached by the following 16 national and international organizations of scientists?
The American Medical Association: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peerreviewed literature.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
The National Academy of Sciences: "To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.”
Food Standards Australia New Zealand: “Gene technology has not been shown to introduce any new or altered hazards into the food supply, therefore the potential for long term risks associated with GM foods is considered to be no different to that for conventional foods already in the food supply.”
The Royal Society of Medicine (UK): "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.”
The Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities: “In consuming food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health.“
The European Commission: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.”
The French Academy of Science: “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.”
Academies of Sciences of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the Third World Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage and in principle, health promoting--bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”
World Health Organization: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf
Do you you believe these organizations of scientists are involved in a big conspiracy, or is it that you are just smarter than all of these scientists?
(1) Since you believe that GM foods are less safe to eat than foods developed by conventional breeding and hybridization techniques (including chemical- and radiation-induced mutagenisis), then:
(a) present the evidence by which to draw that conclusion;
(b) explain all the evidence showing no significant difference in outcomes; and
(c) explain why it is that in nearly 30 years of humans eating GM foods, not a single human illness is known to have been caused by consumption of GM food, and, additionally, why the billions of livestock animals that have been fed predominantly GM diets for consecutive generations have shown no evidence of ill-health effects or reduced productivity.
(2) If you believe that growing GM crops is inherently more harmful to ecological systems than growing crops developed by conventionally bred and hybridization techniques, then:
(a) provide the evidence by which to draw that conclusion; and
(b) cite all of the ecological systems that have been destroyed as a result of growing GM crops and which could not have happened by growing conventionally bred and hybridized crops.
(3) I assume that you do not eat livestock animals or marine animals fished from the oceans due to the environmental destruction caused by raising, using, catching, slaughtering of these animals. Yes?
Then provide the evidence showing that the DNA, protein, heat stability and digestibility tests on GM foods provide erroneous results.
No, you didn't. Even if it were true that it is rational to want to know where one's food came from and how it was made, the absence of mandatory labeling laws for GM foods does not prevent anyone from having any such information.
There is no reason to pretend that you know of a rational reason for mandatory labeling of GM foods when you can't state any such reason. It's unlikely that many people are going to be fooled by such pretense.
And you didn't answer my subsequent questions about what you know about where Corn Flakes and Kikkoman soy sauce come from and how these products are made, or what is the "hereditary origin" of strawberries (or any other food). Why didn't you?
The following is a letter signed by 110 Nobel laureates in the sciences (medicine, chemistry, physics) to the leaders of Greenpeace, the UN and governments around the world:
http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html
Do you believe these eminent scientists are just ignorant of the facts or involved in a huge conspiracy?
The United Nations Food & Agriculture Program has noted that global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population. Organizations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects.
We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against "GMOs" in general and Golden Rice in particular.
Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.
Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.
The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.
WE CALL UPON GREENPEACE to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general;
WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.
How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?
We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against "GMOs" in general and Golden Rice in particular.
Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.
Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.
The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.
WE CALL UPON GREENPEACE to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general;
WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.
How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?
http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html
Do you believe these eminent scientists are just ignorant of the facts or involved in a huge conspiracy?
Augustus
…
Stop talking about this as I've never mentioned it so it's irrelevant.
You're still missing the point. Big picture, not small.
Was thalidomide "safe" when it was passed fit for sale to the public?
You're ignorant about what science is capable of. It cannot "prove" gmo safe. Read Popper for example.
You mistake "there is no empirical evidence that any specific gmo is harmful", for "gmo have been proved safe and cannot possibly be harmful"
When thalidomide went on sale, there was no empirical evidence that thalidomide was harmful.
To you this means nothing though as you are focused on a shallow and naive atomised empiricism. The small picture.
Here's a paper on the dangers of the cataclysmic spread of a highly contagious pathogen. It has nothing to do with gmo to the small picture naive empiricist.
If you understand the bigger picture though, it's very relevant as both relate to complex systems
(the complex systems part is what you specifically do not understand, especially non-linearity).
Completely different subject.
Destruction of the marine ecosystem is very worrying indeed though.
A lot of environmental issues are worrying, due to the non linearity of complex systems.
The point is that the safety of gmo is unknowable, due to the impossibility of the testing model replicating the reality.
Unless you are a moron, you understand this point regarding medical trials.
Why don't you accept it regarding gmo then?
Enough new medicines guarantees that some will cause harm. Agree?
Enough gmo will do likewise. The problem is gmo, unlike medicines are self replicating and the harm they could do is potentially limitless.
It is about unpredictability, which you fundamentally don't understand as you keep asking the wrong questions that assume everything is safe until proved harmful.
Everything is potentially harmful, until proved safe though. And proving gmo safe is practically impossible, and would take centuries to acquire even a reasonable degree of evidence. As such, precaution is the only rational response.
You didn't answer my questions btw.
1. Is it impossible to create a harmful gmo?
2. Are humans smart enough to perfectly predict the long term effects of gmo on the environment as a whole?
It's adorable that you believe that to be the case. Maybe in your country, corporations provide services out of the goodness of their hearts, but here in America, corporations generally don't do squat unless it's part of their latest marketing scam or it's mandated by government agencies. And considering methods of production could be considered "trade secrets" or some such rubbish, they often have a lot of reason not to be transparent about food products and their processing. I'm in favor of all that being torn down, considering industrial food is globally distributed and has a significant impact on both the human and non-human world. Now, if you want to keep posturing and call this "irrational" because you disagree with it, fine. It's unlikely that many people are going to be fooled by the pretense of this thread when all you really want to do here is balk at anyone who disagrees with you.
I know you weren't asking me, Augustus, but I look at this issue from a somewhat different perspective. I'm not a supporter of GMOs, but not for the traditional alarmist bandwagon reasons. What I think about is that GMOs only exist because industrial food exists, and it's industrial foods I have a problem with. We unfortunately turned away from traditional methods of food production that yielded more variety of foods and more nutritious foods using methods that were less damaging to the environment. To me, that's the big problem here, not "designer" crops. Even if GMOs are not "harmful" in the sense that the GMO alarmists balk about, their very existence is symptomatic of a greater problem in food production and resource management by the human species.
It is a little bit context dependent, though. Industrial food isn't going to disappear any time soon, unfortunately, so at times for me it becomes a "lesser of two evils" sort of thing. I generally approve of GMO initiatives to breed insect and disease resistance into crops if it means the farmers will be spraying less poison all over the land, because such poison use is definitely the worser of two evils. Humans, being ecosystem engineers, will endlessly meddle in things they shouldn't. Whether or not GMO labeling is mandatory, that overall nature won't change. Rather than fuss about a little thing like labeling GMO products, I want to see overarching transparency in food production so I and other consumers can make more mindful purchasing choices.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Living in a rural setting, I have access to all sorts of goodies from more progressive farmers who care a great deal about the products they offer. One idea I quite like is the 100 Mile diet in that one tries to purchase items that are grown/produced within a 100 mile radius of where you live. (Snob alert: OK, the idea originated a short ways from where I live. ) Freshness and quality are more important to me than GMO vs. Organic. I do make allowances for fresh fruits that have to be imported. One must have steady supply of nice plump grapes, tangerines and bananas after all.
Another bugaboo for me is that I almost never buy any kind of processed "ready to eat" foods and simply do not eat "fast foods". Cooking is a honed skill and after a short while the rewards for ones efforts are well worth waiting for. Lime curry chicken anyone?
) Freshness and quality are more important to me than GMO vs. Organic. I do make allowances for fresh fruits that have to be imported. One must have steady supply of nice plump grapes, tangerines and bananas after all. Another bugaboo for me is that I almost never buy any kind of processed "ready to eat" foods and simply do not eat "fast foods". Cooking is a honed skill and after a short while the rewards for ones efforts are well worth waiting for. Lime curry chicken anyone?
Last edited:
I would want to know why the GMO was produced. If it was engineered to be more resistant to chemical pesticides and herbicides so the farmer can use more chemicals on the plant without damaging the crop, then I would reject that GMO, as it was engineered to withstand more chemicals. I don't want more toxic chemicals in my food. If the GMO was engineered to have a higher nutrient content and to use less chemicals, then I might be apt to check it out.
If a GMO was engineered to be more nutrient rich, that might be a selling point that the producer might wish to advertise on his own. However, if the GMO was engineered to be more chemical resistant, then that might be something the producer might want to downplay and not wish to disclose. Therefore, I must agree with mandatory labeling of GMO's, as the negative reasons would be the ones that would be less apt to be voluntarily disclosed by the producer.
If a GMO was engineered to be more nutrient rich, that might be a selling point that the producer might wish to advertise on his own. However, if the GMO was engineered to be more chemical resistant, then that might be something the producer might want to downplay and not wish to disclose. Therefore, I must agree with mandatory labeling of GMO's, as the negative reasons would be the ones that would be less apt to be voluntarily disclosed by the producer.
Well, some of us priorities. How are you going to pay for dinner at Tres Cher restaurant if you waste an hour every day baking a chicken with your family when you could work late for overtime pay?
Tom
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'm retired.
(And trust me, my cooking is worth waiting for, LOL.)Besides, I have to go to fairly high end restaurants to outdo what I am capable of doing myself.
Apparently you've never looked at any of the studies on GM plants--you haven't cited one on this thread. If you were to ever read the studies, you would see that basically every aspect of these studies--including the analyses to characterize their DNA, proteins and nutrient profiles--is conducted for the purpose of comparing them with their conventially bred and hybridized counterparts and known allergens, in order to determine if the GMO is as safe as this control.
Evidently you are trying to argue that no scientific study can ever "prove" any food "safe" (your scare quotes)--which, of course, means that plant foods whose genomes have been modified by conventionally breeding, hybridization and radiation could never be "proven" "safe". It is you who has demonstrated ignorance of science.
Again, this is what scientists who have actually examined the scientific evidence on GM foods have concluded.
The American Medical Association: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
The National Academy of Sciences: "To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.”
Food Standards Australia New Zealand: “Gene technology has not been shown to introduce any new or altered hazards into the food supply, therefore the potential for long term risks associated with GM foods is considered to be no different to that for conventional foods already in the food supply.”
The Royal Society of Medicine (UK): "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.”
The Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities: “In consuming food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health.“
The European Commission: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.”
The French Academy of Science: “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.”
Academies of Sciences of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the Third World Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage and in principle, health promoting--bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”
World Health Organization: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf
110 Nobel laureates in science: "Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."
http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html
Again I ask: Do you believe these eminent scientists are just ignorant of the facts about GM foods or involved in a huge conspiracy?
I already asked you what important fact you have been prevented from knowing about where a food comes from or how it is made due to the absence of mandatory labeling of GM foods. Why don't you answer?
Obviously, "GMO" on a label does not provide any information about where a food comes from or how it was made.
The scientists and medical experts are on my side (my bolding):
“There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods . . . Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. . . Consumers wishing to avoid bioengineered foods can purchase foods that are certified USDA Organic. This labeling term indicates that no bioengineered ingredients were used in the food." The American Medical Association Council on Science and Public Health http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA Report.pdf
Go right ahead and show us that the AMA's statements here are erroneous.
Yes, eating locally is excellent, especially for reducing the GHG impacts of one's diet. Unfortunately, eating locally means a severely limited variety of foods for many of us, especially during the winter.Living in a rural setting, I have access to all sorts of goodies from more progressive farmers who care a great deal about the products they offer. One idea I quite like is the 100 Mile diet in that one tries to purchase items that are grown/produced within a 100 mile radius of where you live. (Snob alert: OK, the idea originated a short ways from where I live.