Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

[Noradin]

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.

Nothing, but we would like to have the other lable, too.

[Ripster42]

Nothing, but we would like to have the other lable, too.

It's not the government's job to scaremonger. It's weird to me that you think it is.

[Deleted]

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



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.




Yeah, they contradict themselves.

Cheaper yes. Apparently monsanto and co has money to recruit a private army but not enough to shed some light on their products.
No, its perfectly normal for companies to hire private armies, not market their products and trying to sneak in our market.
It's obviously the peoples fault if they find all of this fishy, not the company's fault for behaving like a bunch of lunatics.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not the government's job to scaremonger. It's weird to me that you think it is.

Nice terminology. Really makes me want to start discussing this topic with you.

[Noradin]

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.

So you look up all new and old products all the time on the internet to see if some of them might have been changed?
Or maybe that is more sensible to do only if some new lable shows up on products? That could include a link to some adress explaining GMO, you know.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not the government's job to scaremonger. It's weird to me that you think it is.

Maybe you should let go of your delusions about other people if they start to feel weird to even yourself?
Because I certainly didn't say anything about the governments job to "scaremonger", but I guess those negotiatiors from the USA are doing a good job in scaring Europeans with the secrency they try all the time.

[petej0]

So you look up all new and old products all the time on the internet to see if some of them might have been changed?
Or maybe that is more sensible to do only if some new lable shows up on products? That could include a link to some adress explaining GMO, you know.

The default position is anything that is being sold in the US for consumption has passed FDA approval meaning it is safe. If there was a product of science I was unsure about, I would research it on my own.

[haxartus]

That is true, and meaningless.
Just like saying "humans knew how to swim for thousand of years, so no need to worry about diving in the depths of the oceans".

Not really. Changing a few genes is a much smaller difference than creating an entirely new species of dog for example, as we've done for thousands of years.

[Forogil]

Please give an example how GMOs could save hundreds of thousands of lives in Europe?
We aren't blocking them anywhere else, after all.

We are directly and indirectly blocking them elsewhere to some extent. There are examples of European countries' development aid going to anti-GMO protesters in developing countries, and some developing countries have been reluctant to accept GMO-food during temporary famines, since there are risk that it could contaminate non-GMO growing plants making it difficult to export them after the temporary famine.

[Bigbamboozal]

And the straw man arguments begin...

Okay, I have a solid brick argument to present to you instead: gmo foods haven't been around long enough for us to understand or predict all the long term effects. And that's the reality of it. Anyone who says more or less is adding opinion, feeling, or agenda.
On a personal note, I see it as a bit of good and possibly some bad.
Like, I'm happy that someone is working on rice that will grow in sand, but I also suspect more people are developing allergy to various things because of gmo...that's just my 'feeling'
But the reality, we don't have enough long term information to say one way or the other.
Both sides are lying and pushing agendas.

[Ripster42]

Nice terminology. Really makes me want to start discussing this topic with you.

You're not exactly known for civil discussions.

- - - Updated - - -

So you look up all new and old products all the time on the internet to see if some of them might have been changed?
Or maybe that is more sensible to do only if some new lable shows up on products? That could include a link to some adress explaining GMO, you know.

- - - Updated - - -


Maybe you should let go of your delusions about other people if they start to feel weird to even yourself?
Because I certainly didn't say anything about the governments job to "scaremonger", but I guess those negotiatiors from the USA are doing a good job in scaring Europeans with the secrency they try all the time.

There's no secrecy. There's nothing preventing people from labeling their stuff GMO free as far as I know.

I say it's not the government's job to scaremonger because requiring labeling would intimate that the government believes there are health concerns related to those products that require labeling.

[Noradin]

The default position is anything that is being sold in the US for consumption has passed FDA approval meaning it is safe. If there was a product of science I was unsure about, I would research it on my own.

So how would you know that the chips you always ate changed their ingredients if nothing is noted on the packaging?

[Ripster42]

So how would you know that the chips you always ate changed their ingredients if nothing is noted on the packaging?

The people who don't use GMOs can label their stuff GMO free if they feel the need to differentiate their products.

[Noradin]

Not really. Changing a few genes is a much smaller difference than creating an entirely new species of dog for example, as we've done for thousands of years.

Apparently you do not know what you talk about.
Do you think new species of dogs with traits none of their parents had were created in one generation and immideately sold?
No. They changed gradually over many generations and were kept under observation the whole time. It still failed to produce save races quite a few times.

The benefits of using GMO is exactly that the changes can be more drastic.

[TZucchini]

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.

Except, under a democracy, if enough people wanted it, it would be allowed. All you'd need to do is vote for people that think the same way, and overturn any laws that say otherwise.

"It's a democracy" is a shit reason.

[Forogil]

Apparently you do not know what you talk about.
Do you think new species of dogs with traits none of their parents had were created in one generation and immideately sold?
No. They changed gradually over many generations and were kept under observation the whole time. It still failed to produce save races quite a few times.

The benefits of using GMO is exactly that the changes can be more drastic.

And several of the dog breeds developed without GMO have problems, but they are still bred.

And GMO-techniques are also speeding up the process of producing non-GMO foods: basically scientist can first use GMO to figure out which genetic changes are favorable and then breed normally, but select variants based on genes instead of based on appearance.

[Noradin]

There's no secrecy. There's nothing preventing people from labeling their stuff GMO free as far as I know.

Well they do not appear to have anything to hide, it is those who use GMO who stated that they do not want to give customers this information because they think that would make customers not wanting to buy their product. That means they are trying to trick customers into buying products the assume they do not want.
That would be fraud. We have rules against such things.

- - - Updated - - -

And several of the dog breeds developed without GMO have problems, but they are still bred.

And GMO-techniques are also speeding up the process of producing non-GMO foods: basically scientist can first use GMO to figure out which genetic changes are favorable and then breed normally, but select variants based on genes instead of based on appearance.

What is you point in repeating these well known facts to me, who brought them up?

[Tradewind]

Well they do not appear to have anything to hide, it is those who use GMO who stated that they do not want to give customers this information because they think that would make customers not wanting to buy their product. That means they are trying to trick customers into buying products the assume they do not want.
That would be fraud. We have rules against such things.

Bollocks.

They're trying to protect the image of their products from luddite consumers scared of science.

Should products made from wheat also have a "May contain Rat Shit" label? Because guess what, there is a regulated acceptable level of rat and mouse turds in wheat and guess what, it's higher than zero.

[Noradin]

Except, under a democracy, if enough people wanted it, it would be allowed. All you'd need to do is vote for people that think the same way, and overturn any laws that say otherwise.

"It's a democracy" is a shit reason.

They could, which is why our democracies protect certain groups.
I have repeated that fact a few times already.

Companies generally aren't a protected class in Europe, and for good reason.
We do not believe they are persons, we do not think they need human rights (the people who work for them do have them of course) and we do not believe they should have the "right to lie" like they do in the USA.

- - - Updated - - -

Bollocks.

They're trying to protect the image of their products from luddite consumers scared of science.

Should products made from wheat also have a "May contain Rat Shit" label? Because guess what, there is a regulated acceptable level of rat and mouse turds in wheat and guess what, it's higher than zero.

If the customers ask for that? Yes.

If they want to work on the image of their products then they should do it with information, not with hiding information or trying to be sneaky.
If their business model is based on trying to trick people instead of convincing them then I think they should deserve to be banned from selling anything at all.

[Tradewind]

If the customers ask for that? Yes.

If they want to work on the image of their products then they should do it with information, not with hiding information or trying to be sneaky.
If their business model is based on trying to trick people instead of convincing them then I think they should deserve to be banned from selling anything at all.

Nobody's tricking anyone lol. Stop living in fear.

Labeling laws being pushed through by customers just shows that there's an inordinate amount of stupid people buying shit lately.

[Matchles]

Well they do not appear to have anything to hide, it is those who use GMO who stated that they do not want to give customers this information because they think that would make customers not wanting to buy their product. That means they are trying to trick customers into buying products the assume they do not want.
That would be fraud. We have rules against such things.

It is not about hiding anything. What else mandates a warning label for a perfectly safe ingredient? People see warning labels and they think there is reason to stay away. It has nothing to do with a more informed consumer base. If it was, the pro-label crowd would have fought to get GMOs listed in the ingredients label instead of a label emblazoned on the front of the package. It is about scaring the consumer base away from GMOs. I would be perfectly fine with a requirement to list them in the ingredients. Something like "Corn (contains genetically modified Bt corn), sugar, peanuts, etc." But that is not what this is about. The pro-label crowd is all about misinformation, so if someone gets sick from a product containing GMOs they can point to all of them and say they are bad.

[Deleted]

Nobody's tricking anyone lol. Stop living in fear.

Labeling laws being pushed through by customers just shows that there's an inordinate amount of stupid people buying shit lately.

Nobody's tricking anyone so you wouldn't have issues adding (gmo) next to the names in the list of ingredients? I mean would that deter you from buying that product?

- - - Updated - - -

It is not about hiding anything. What else mandates a warning label for a perfectly safe ingredient? People see warning labels and they think there is reason to stay away. It has nothing to do with a more informed consumer base. If it was, the pro-label crowd would have fought to get GMOs listed in the ingredients label instead of a label emblazoned on the front of the package. It is about scaring the consumer base away from GMOs. I would be perfectly fine with a requirement to list them in the ingredients. Something like "Corn (contains genetically modified Bt corn), sugar, peanuts, etc." But that is not what this is about. The pro-label crowd is all about misinformation, so if someone gets sick from a product containing GMOs they can point to all of them and say they are bad.

"warning" label?!