Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

[Noradin]

Protectionism for TPIP, European agriculture can compete so European agriculture wants to scare European consumers away from American products with a GMO label.

That's why all these Europeans in this thread are for a GMO label, they want to save their farmers.

Meanwhile there's a huge trade imbalance between the US and Europe with the US buying twice as much European goods as Europeans buy American. It's not fair.

That is a nice narrative you have created from those seperate threads.
However, if we just wanted to snub American food, there are other ways.

Meanwhile no one is forcing you to buy European products, nor Chinese, actually, no one is forcing you to buy anything and yet you have a huge trade imbalance with everyone of note. Maybe it is because you are loose with your money.

[petej0]

Yes they should sell their products to us. Marketing and all. Like any company that wants to sell something does. That sound weird to you? A third party marketing a private company's products? Why on earth would we want that?! A non biased third party is there to make sure the stuff being said by companies is true.

There is a difference between marketing a product and marketing the science.

I would expect Phillip Morris to market me their Cigarette but I would not want Phillip Morris to market the benefits of smoking. Would you?

There is a PLETHORA of factors that are still up in the air with GMO. You can say "they are safe" as long as you want, it still doesn't make it an absolute truth.

I am not saying it is safe they and the FDA are. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? Or is it based on fear of the words "Genetically Modified".

You're arguing against the study provided. Ill let you do your researches. Pretty sure you can find their study and analyse their findings.

I dont need to research anything the study contradicts itself by saying there was a decrease in pests. A pest is by definition harmful to a crop. So if there was a decrease in something harmful to a crop that would indicate an increase in yield.

[Noradin]

You're asking to know about the inner working of companies you do business with. You don't have that right. Private companies don't need to inform you of who they purchase products from. We already have a whole host of federal regulations for food companies. Their products must be safe. Creating new trivial regulation based on scaremongering is pointless.

If we are numberous enough we do have that right in a democracy unless it would be discrimination against a protected class.

[Unholyground]

The only issue I have with companies like Monsanto is that they are copyrighting their genetic sequencing allowing them to take legal action against someone who comes across future generations of their seeds. This also does not bode well for things like Marijuana in the future.

[TZucchini]

If we are numberous enough we do have that right in a democracy unless it would be discrimination against a protected class.

As I already stated, Democracy isn't a perfect system of governance. It has flaws. And this is one of them, imo.

In fact, if you wanted to discriminate against a protected class in a Democracy, you could do just that. If you are numerous enough, and only voted for politicians that agreed to amend the constitution to allow for discrimination, you could do that (at least in the US).

The fact that you can do it isn't a great argument for whether or not you should do it.

[Noradin]

The issue is that information in this case can, and most certainly will be, misconstrued. The public's knowledge of GMO products is limited. Adding extra information without context can be destructive in any case, and most likely would be in this case.

Which does not change the fact that it is our right to have our representatives make such rules.
You are free to spend some money educating people and guess what? This is Europe, you do not have to fear someone slandering your products being protected by "the right to lie". Sue them, they will lose unless they have proof.

- - - Updated - - -

Because seeing a product labeled "GMO" does not tell you anything about what a GMO is and about the GMO product. Consumers just see GMO and freak out. If I am a potato chip manufacturer do I need to now label the GMO process for the potatoes I buy, the GMO process for the Canola Oil I fry them in and any other ingredients I use?

It is unrealistic to expect the Chip maker to add that to his labeling.

Neither does labeling a product "bread", or printing down the amount of calorines or vitamines it contains.

- - - Updated - - -

GMO doesn't just affect private company profits, it produces affordable food. I have friends who work in the GMO field of seed, I can tell you their single goal. PRODUCE MORE FOOD. You get there a couple ways: by making plants more hardy to survive extreme temperatures/weather, pests, and diseases; and by producing more per acre.

We do not need that here in Europe. We already have much too much food.
Maybe you should sell it elsewhere, somewhere where there is a shortage for example?

The only reason you want to produce your cheap food here is because we keep our food prices artificially high -- which would stop the moment the market is open, anyway. Maybe that is why you want to sue our states if the expected profit isn't met? Because it wouldn't be.

- - - Updated - - -

Using less land to produce the same amount of food is not a bad thing.

It would be here in Europe.
We would like to keep the status quo.
That is why we pay our farmers so much, it is for the upkeep of the land, the products are just a vehicle.

[Fojos]

Hmmm, random internet dude or National Academies of Sciences? Who to believe?....

What are your views on vaccines?

Keep in mind that people who accept vaccines and global warming are often the ones completely against GMO. It's based on political ideologies.

Left wing - more likely to want to stop GMO.
Right wing - more likely to deny global warming.

We in Europe do NOT want this GMO crap here. I don't care how much they say they're good to go, I'd MUCH rather have all natural food.

And there comes the "natural". There's nothing inherently better about "natural". Appeal to nature is ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes they should sell their products to us. Marketing and all. Like any company that wants to sell something does. That sound weird to you? A third party marketing a private company's products? Why on earth would we want that?! A non biased third party is there to make sure the stuff being said by companies is true. There is a PLETHORA of factors that are still up in the air with GMO. You can say "they are safe" as long as you want, it still doesn't make it an absolute truth.
You're arguing against the study provided. Ill let you do your researches. Pretty sure you can find their study and analyse their findings.

I wouldn't know.

I did analyse their findings and the latest reports, from 2007 to 2015, did actually report yield increases, while the older ones did not.

- - - Updated - - -

Using less land to produce the same amount of food is not a bad thing.



I would beg to differ, by creating drought tolerant or crops resistant to disease you do increase production. They have modified corn to be able to grow closer together and produce more ears per stalk.

According to some crazy people like the poster above me, more free land for forests and other things is a bad thing. I mean, how horrible to fight against global warming.

[Deleted]

There is a difference between marketing a product and marketing the science.

I would expect Phillip Morris to market me their Cigarette but I would not want Phillip Morris to market the benefits of smoking. Would you?

We don't live in the 50's. There are bodies in place that make sure marketing follows strict regulations. For example... you couldnt be marketing the scientific benefits of smoking. GMO have a horrible commercial profile. That's what you get when you're too buys employing private armies instead of publicising your products. Somehow people think that is fishy. People are weird that way. Ignorant hippies obviously.

I am not saying it is safe they and the FDA are. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? Or is it based on fear of the words "Genetically Modified".

Sorry, what are you talking about now? What kind of GMO? safe for what consumption? safe for the ecosystem? any long term studies in place?

I dont need to research anything the study contradicts itself by saying there was a decrease in pests. A pest is by definition harmful to a crop. So if there was a decrease in something harmful to a crop that would indicate an increase in yield.

And yet, that is not what the study says

- - - Updated - - -

Keep in mind that people who accept vaccines and global warming are often the ones completely against GMO. It's based on political ideologies.

Left wing - more likely to want to stop GMO.
Right wing - more likely to deny global warming.



And there comes the "natural". There's nothing inherently better about "natural". Appeal to nature is ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -




I did analyse their findings and the latest reports, from 2007 to 2015, did actually report yield increases, while the older ones did not.

- - - Updated - - -



According to some crazy people like the poster above me, more free land for forests and other things is a bad thing. I mean, how horrible to fight against global warming.

happy days! more production!
Not a selling point for most of the western world but still!

[petej0]

Keep in mind that people who accept vaccines and global warming are often the ones completely against GMO. It's based on political ideologies.

Left wing - more likely to want to stop GMO.
Right wing - more likely to deny global warming.

Lets be clear, nobody denies global warming or climate change. What they deny is how much, if any humans are causing.

[Deleted]

MORE SPACE FOR FORESTS!!
Of course that is once the products are deemed safe to the local ecosystem.

[Noradin]

As I already stated, Democracy isn't a perfect system of governance. It has flaws. And this is one of them, imo.

Which is why we have rules what we can ask for.
For example labeling the skin colour of the people packaging it wouldn't be allowed.
Also note that our people can ask for it, but our representatives have to make the rule - or risk getting voted out.

[Fojos]

Lets be clear, nobody denies global warming or climate change. What they deny is how much, if any humans are causing.

Some people even deny global warming completely and used the snow in march/april as an argument ().

[petej0]

We don't live in the 50's. There are bodies in place that make sure marketing follows strict regulations. For example... you couldnt be marketing the scientific benefits of smoking.

So if they market it and say its safe on their websites, then we can rest assure it is safe. Add to that the FDA says its ok. Yet we need more? What are you looking for PSA's on prime time cable?

GMO have a horrible commercial profile. That's what you get when you're too buys employing private armies instead of publicising your products. Somehow people think that is fishy. People are weird that way. Ignorant hippies obviously.

They have a horrible profile because of the words "Genetically Modified". Its scary, its messing with nature. Its creating "frankenfish". No amount of marketing is going to change the minds of these people. I mean its not like the employees of these companies eat a totally different supply of food and give the rest of us this crap.

Sorry, what are you talking about now? What kind of GMO? safe for what consumption? safe for the ecosystem? any long term studies in place?

So where are the FDA and EPA reports saying it is bad? GMO's have been around twenty years.

And yet, that is not what the study says

Pest-resistant crops have resulted in lower pest populations overall in some areas of the midwest, especially European corn borer, the report found.

^^^ Ahemm...Cough..Cough... ^^^

[Ripster42]

Once again, it looks as if the private companies that are supposed to educate people about the product they are selling, failed miserably in doing as such.
Why should I care?

It's not the government's job to scaremonger because the population has been misinformed. Let companies "educate" their consumers that their products don't contain GMOs and put the onus on scaremongers instead.

[petej0]

Some people even deny global warming completely and used the snow in march/april as an argument ().

You mean like how others use a heat wave in August as evidence of?

[Noradin]

It's not the government's job to scaremonger because the population has been misinformed. Let companies "educate" their consumers that their products don't contain GMOs and put the onus on scaremongers instead.

Why this exception, put it on those who want to sell something new.
Just like always. I do not see a need for an exception.

[Fojos]

You mean like how others use a heat wave in August as evidence of?

Heat waves are common in August, unless you live on the southern hemisphere. In any case all fluctuations like this essentially support the evidence of global warming.

[Deleted]

So if they market it and say its safe on their websites, then we can rest assure it is safe. Add to that the FDA says its ok. Yet we need more? What are you looking for PSA's on prime time cable?



They have a horrible profile because of the words "Genetically Modified". Its scary, its messing with nature. Its creating "frankenfish". No amount of marketing is going to change the minds of these people. I mean its not like the employees of these companies eat a totally different supply of food and give the rest of us this crap.



So where are the FDA and EPA reports saying it is bad? GMO's have been around twenty years.





^^^ Ahemm...Cough..Cough... ^^^

When companies want to sell stuff they post on their website? This is... a weird way of conceiving marketing.
They have a horrible profile cause the companies behind them are too busy recruiting private armies instead of marketing their products. For some reason people dont like that kind of behaviour. Mindblowing huh?
*care* They havent been around HERE for as long. Different scenarios different rules.
Coughing?

Despite claims by some proponents of GE crops, their adoption didn't appear to increase yields overall among U.S. farmers, the report found.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not the government's job to scaremonger because the population has been misinformed. Let companies "educate" their consumers that their products don't contain GMOs and put the onus on scaremongers instead.

What are you even talking about. Do you guys read posts before replying or do you just engage in "ok hippie on sight send in reply".

[Ripster42]

What are you even talking about. Do you guys read posts before replying or do you just engage in "ok hippie on sight send in reply".

Oh, so you didn't quote me saying there isn't a law preventing people from labeling their product GMO free and replied with "so?" That's my response to your "I'm a dumb shit" act.

Look, I realize how hard it is to talk nonsense to so many people at once, but I wouldn't go with "can you read?" when it's you who can't follow what you're talking about.

[petej0]

When companies want to sell stuff they post on their website?

Yes, websites are much cheaper then producing and running commercials.

This is... a weird way of conceiving marketing.
They have a horrible profile cause the companies behind them are too busy recruiting private armies instead of marketing their products. For some reason people dont like that kind of behaviour. Mindblowing huh?

When I heard of GMO's I went online and looked it up. Its awesome science, then again I guess we all cant be reasonable people. Ohhhhh they hired "private armies" must be something sinister. They are secretly killing people as part of the Illuminati plot to control population growth through GMO foods. ...sigh. Whatever, like I said, nothing will please conspiracy nuts.

Coughing?

Yeah, they contradict themselves.