I Run a G.M.O. Company — and I Support G.M.O. Labeling

[Noradin]

Distinguishing between laboratory made GMO's and agriculturally created GMOs can help the discussion, but genetically there is no difference between either one besides one seemingly more natural. Genetic mutations can occur naturally, they can also be made to occur in a way that suits our needs even without the use of a laboratory through selective breeding... but the genetic make up is no more heinous than a natural mutation. Frankly, in most scientific eyes the anti-gmo movement is non factual and largely not based in reality.

There is a difference.
With normal crossbreeing you cannot inlcude anything that is not at least similar to something another plant that is similar enough to be able to produce decendants together. In th lab you can include any information you can come up with, thus the difference can be much more drastic.

[Reeve]

Simple question...

Why the fuck do you care?

Because I like my cheap tasty foods, and I don't want a fear campaign targeting paranoid gullible people to get companies to stop producing my tasty tasty GMO products.

[Deleted]

The point is that the name of the person that picks the crops has as much bearing on the integrity of the crops as does the implementation of modified genes. Neither is important.

Says who?
/10strawmen

[Ornerybear]

I've always been under the assumption that whether it was done by clever monks splicing and selective breeding processes or a lab of scientists modifying crops, they've been doing it forever, and we have zero evidence we've created any killer tomatoes.

I have a hard time with calling any modern grown food anything but GMO because of thousands of years of human food crop production. It's not like non-gmo crops are naturally occurring species anymore.

I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject, but this is my gut on it.

[Reeve]

Ah, I see.
Fortunately, the thread has nothing to do with legislation. It's about a company choosing to label their products.

Since the OP explicitly mentions legislation, I think this thread DOES have to do with legislation.

[Deleted]

Because I like my cheap tasty foods, and I don't want a fear campaign targeting paranoid gullible people to get companies to stop producing my tasty tasty GMO products.

Keep YOUR cheap tasty food. We keep OUR cheap tasty food.

[Noradin]

There is no scientific evidence that GMOs are dangerous at all. Stop denying science, Liberals. That's the Conservatives job.

There is scientific evidence that dangerous GMOs are possible though, thus we need case by case testing if they are save.
And we cannot just leave them out until that testing is complete. For traditional crossbreeding all plants were already out there and could come up by chance anyway, so it is mostly pointless to try and prevent them from excaping (still, better be save than sorry), but with GMO you can insert almost anything.

[Deleted]

no they need USEFUL information with context

So you're against labelling cause ignorant people need USEFUL information with context.
Lol.

[alucardtnuoc]

My problem is, if you don't label people will ask what are you so afraid of. If you do label, people will wonder what's so bad about them that warrants a warning/label.

It's a lose lose in some ways.

[Deleted]

How about having the option not to purchase GMO food because I do not support the effect of genetic engineering in copyright and agriculture? My decision is informed but I cannot make it without labeling.

Perfectly reasonable. But you're probably just a hippie so what would you know

- - - Updated - - -

My problem is, if you don't label people will ask what are you so afraid of. If you do label, people will wonder what's so bad about them that warrants a warning/label.

It's a lose lose in some ways.

And you care about that because?

[Deleted]

Listen to this guy! No we wont be your guinea pigs. Use your own people for "increased research".

This is an utterly ignorant argument.

The research has been done, GMO's have been proven to be safe to consume.

[Heladys]

So you're also against labelling on pretty much anything since most stuff has ingredients 95% of the people dont know?

People can learn to make useful distinctions about the sodium content in their foods, or proper portion sizes, so little harm is done by generic labelling.

Labelling for abstract nonsense like whether GMO was involved, or what religious doctrines the factory followed, or what political affiliations they support are non-information.

[Noradin]

If you don't eat GMO food because you think it is some sort of carcinogenic mutation. Chances are you are an idiot.

Or misinformed, yes.
Or you are able to distinguish between "GMO in gerneral, but with exceptions" and "some specific GMO", there is no reason not to ask for studies on specific GMO (same with every other food). Arguing about GMO (in general) is pointless, we know that it is possible to create both save and unsave products.

But you can just decide you do not want GMO because you feel like it, if you are an adult then no one should tell you you must eat something unless they are your doctor and they have a proper reason. If people in Europe want labeling of GMO food so they can avoid it because they just feel like it, then it is well within their rights to ask their governments to make such labeling mandantory.

[Reeve]

There is scientific evidence that dangerous GMOs are possible though, thus we need case by case testing if they are save.

Dangerous non-GMOs are possible too. All food needs testing to ensure its safety. That's what the FDA is for.

There's nothing specific about GMOs that makes them less safe than any other food, and the idea that these food items need special labels is as unscientific as the anti-vaccine movement, and has the potential to hurt businesses that are bringing cheap tasty products to market, which in turn hurts my pocketbook as a consumer.

[Canpinter]

So you're against labelling cause ignorant people need USEFUL information with context.
Lol.

giving people information they do not understand and will only cause them to panic and make an irrational discussion helps noone except those seeking to make a few bucks off of fear ie the organic product manufacturers.

[Deleted]

This is an utterly ignorant argument.

The research has been done, GMO's have been proven to be safe to consume.

Not really. There isnt a single "gmo". You're not selling apples. Every case needs to be tested and be extremely careful of its effect on local agriculture once allowed in. So yeah. no.

- - - Updated - - -

People can learn to make useful distinctions about the sodium content in their foods, or proper portion sizes, so little harm is done by generic labelling.

Labelling for abstract nonsense like whether GMO was involved, or what religious doctrines the factory followed, or what political affiliations they support are non-information.

Yet, people have no issues sticking label on things produced in a certain way. Yet you do have issues putting a label on GMO products but "DONT WORRY GUYS THEYRE SAFE JUST WE DONT WANT TO LABEL THEM OR YOU BOYCOTT EM".
Worst marketing campaign of the century.

- - - Updated - - -

giving people information they do not understand and will only cause them to panic and make an irrational discussion helps noone except those seeking to make a few bucks off of fear ie the organic product manufacturers.

Yeah the EEEEVIL organic product manufacturer. Lol. You guys are beyond redemption ahahah.

[Sci Fi Samurai]

Misinformation is worse than no information.

While I agree, it's tough for the average man on the street to gather enough information to truly be certain of these things. At a point, we all have to rely on experts, and not all experts have our best interests at heart. I'm at a point where I expect the experts that get air time are more interested in celebrity or wealth than truth and well-being.

My mom's a certified dietitian and doctor, and she tells me I don't need to worry about GMO's, but I can reliably trust in her knowledge on the matter and take faith that she has my best interests at heart. Not everyone is so lucky.

[TZucchini]

Says who?
/10strawmen

Says the most recently available evidence. If GMO food isn't harmful for human consumption, and has no bearing on the integrity of the food, then there's no reason to label it as such. No more than labeling the name of the person that picked the crop.

[Noradin]

The only difference is the level of control. Now we can directly manipulate the genes, before that we used selective breeding. The food was still genetically modified, by the process of evolution, but we had the reins to pick and choose the food that we liked.

No the main difference is the range of modifications possible in one step. And that is exactly the problem and reason why more in dept testing is necessary than with traditional crossbreeding.

If it had been "the same for a thousand years" then why would we go throught the efford and switch to GMO?

[Howard Moon]

I don't mind labeling, as long as retailers don't start charging a premium for the GMO products.

They currently charge more for "organic" products (i.e. non-GMO).