What could be worse than GMO crops?

It already is, and it already does. Watched an NBA game lately...?

 

You are genetically modified. Better get used to it.

 

Don't tell me what to do.

My genetically modified kid will be able to kid your kids a$$





Get a grip

 

Worse than GMO's?

I think starvation is probably worse. O Barry already stated this though, so I can't take credit.

 

I rather enjoy my six fingers on each hand; makes me a accomplished classical guitarist!!
And a good paddler to boot!!
All thanks to that extra strand of nucleotides!!

 

Wait a minute, I think I've got it. What's worse than GMO crops?

Soylent Green.

 

That's like everybody then. I've read that GMO are in about 70% of the food in US grocery stores, and there's no labeling required, so.......but then if people slowed down the breeding, we wouldn't need GMO.

 

What about the dude with 2 big functional d1cks? I am sure he isn't complaining.

This is really what I was getting at: http://www.livescience.com/37135-dna-epigenetics-disease-research.html
Environment influences genetics.

 

Pointless to try and label GMO. It is much easier to push for labeling on everything non-GMO. You also have to question what level labelling is needed with GMO. Almost all crops are genetically modified in some fashion, whether it be through selective breeding or laboratory manipulation. Would GMO labels have to state what exactly was modified?

 

Sounds rather Lamarckian, but plausible, I suppose. That nurture vs nature type of thinking will forever be an ongoing argument.

 

brew, selective breeding is not lab manipulation, you are crossing the line into becoming an apologist, which is sad

let the market decide, inform the consumer. anything else is dishonest and corrupt

 

Please reread, because you are becoming an illiterate critic. I said
"Almost all crops are genetically modified in some fashion, whether it be through selective breeding or laboratory manipulation."

Selective breeding is still modification of genes via human interaction. Why should the market decide, when there is no legit need to specifically call out foods that have been modified just because they use transgenics versus other methods. Where is the outrage against forced mutations? Again, you are approaching a subject without considering the how and why. You criticise me for trying to defend the data, yet never once question those who demonize such technology without having any proof of harm. I never said we should all be forced to eat GMOs, even though I can't understand why anyone wouldn't consume them. People have the right to choose. So, let's build a labeling structure around showing the few non-GMO items that are available. By forcing labeling on GMO food, you create the idea that these products cause harm and need attention brought to the dangers of consumption. In fact, evidence shows the opposite. It is always better to advertise a positive to those who are looking at one specific topic. Insinuating a negative that doesn't really exist is not really logical.

 

bro, you are conflating two different ideas, selective breeding has been around for thousands of years, putting fish genes in strawberries (and the like) started in the mid 90's

to call those ideas parallel is intellectually dishonest, like you

to not inform people is dishonest, like you

why would you want to withhold data form people so they can make informed choices?

 

Intellectual dishonesty is implying a harm, despite the overwhelming data to the contrary. How is not labeling withholding data? That is very silly. If consumers want to research, they can contact the manufacturers of the products and obtain data on whether GMOs are used in the product. When 70% of the products out there contain GMOs, why the hell do you even need to do this? Just assume it does, unless directly marketing as GMO free. For someone that claims to possess a science degree, you certainly don't speak as if you have any scientific background. You fear something, just because you don't understand it. You also act as if everything natural and non-GMO is safe. Where is your anger towards traditional cross breeding products and their lack of safety studies? The non-GMO methods of cross breeding and genetic manipulation can and do occassionally cause harm. http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html
Try to research and question with a scientific mind, instead of just following the popular new trend. Also, you may want to try and communicate without the ad-hominem.

 

cant win with you brew, you really have dug your heels in. I used to be VERY pro gmo, then I grew up and opened my mind. I will call someone dishonest if they are being dishonest, then it isn't ad hominem as it is the truth

very strange you dont want people to make informed choices by having labels, could be something as simple as: (contains genetically modified, wheat, soy, etc in the ingredients list)

why are you against that?

 

Because it insinuates that GMO is a bad thing. What part of that do you not understand? Why are you against labeling non-GMO foods? I am not sure what evidence you have to claim I am dishonest. I only speak with data. I don't consider myself pro GMO. I consider myself pro logic. I see no logic in differentiating foods, when there is no proof that non-GMO foods are better than GMO. Just because some people want this is not logical either. As far as the studies have shown, all these foods are the same. When the studies start showing something different, then I can back labeling.

 

why is information insinuating its a bad thing? I want to know if something has sugar or peanuts so I dont give them to a diabetic or someone who is allergic to nuts. peanuts aren't bad, some people cant eat them, sugar isnt bad, some people cant eat it

so because you dont see the logic in informing people, it shouldn't happen? talk about arrogance
knowledge is power and you are trying to withhold from people...lame

 

GMO yesterday, Gluten Today....always something, reminds me of;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7oiDyM2tc0

 

Again, it isn't considered withholding if the people can contact the companies and ask for this information. You are being arrogant for assuming I should just agree to all labeling based on your narrow opinions. Your sugar comparison is not applicable. Different products contain different amount of sugar. GMO foods are not, as far as research has shown, any different than non GMO foods. Labeling just to appease fear mongering scientifically illiterate people just doesn't make sense. By your logic, we should just label everything that people don't understand and are too lazy to research on their own. Let's start with organic foods that have been sprayed with pesticides. See what kind of backlash you get from big organic on that one.

 

Here is a good article on the subject: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528331/how-scare-tactics-on-gmo-foods-hurt-everybody/