Obama Signs Bill Mandating GMO Labeling

[Acidbaron]

Whatever. I think this is as stupid as forcing people who get vaccines to sign a document saying, "Some people believe vaccines cause autism." But whatever.

To inform people of what it really is you have information campaigns. By reading this label and pulling the wrong conclusion that means you are uninformed, by signing that what you state there yes that's just being willful ignorant.

[Lumicide]

Its been modified in a particular way, that matters.

Not in a way that effects whether or not the food is dangerous in anyway for human consumption. And any nutrition difference needs only to be on the label in so far as changing the corresponding number up or down.

"If there's nothing dangerous then why not label them?" We know where this is going, because of the massive campaign of stupidity: "If there's nothing dangerous then when is it labeled?"

information is always good because i want the right to decide if i eat organic or not, i don't really care if a bunch of scientist tell me that gmo are best thing ever and i don't really care if by not eating gmo someone lose its job, i still want to know if what i eat is natural or not end of the story.

Why is the distinction "natural" so important? You've probably never ate a single naturally occurring food product in your life, all of it being the result of selective breeding.

I see no problem with this the more informed teh consumer can be the better, everyone wins here.

If GMO food has a bad reputation it is on that industry to do something about it. The majority can always be swayed and educated.

It's not the industry's fault that they have a bad reputation, it's a bunch of conspiracy nuts who did that. And, at that point, it becomes the governments job to educate people, and they're going in the wrong direction.

Or it might help let people make a choice on what food they eat meaning they end up with less crap in it.

Like the comparison between French fries.

There is no more "crap" in GMO's than in any other food, the resulting food is very little different from your regular selectively bred foods.

It's not a matter of laziness, it's a matter of it being effective.

When you enter an area that is dangerous, hazardous you have a single effective icon telling you that. Not a label explaining you why it is dangerous in writing. Making things more complicated just for the sake of it is bad policy.

In what way are GMO's proven to be dangerous?

[Zan15]

i love that he linked coconut water.

someone should look into the history of coconuts and where the vast majority of them are grown and processed.

[Garnier Fructis]

Even if there's absolutely nothing wrong with GMO crops you should be able to make that informed choice without doing a crapload of research.

You have entirely way too much faith in the general public if you trust them to make an informed decision.

Am I calling most people stupid? Yeah. Slightly more than half of the public has an IQ of less than 100 (it's not symmetric, there's slight skew).

[Orange Joe]

Its been modified in a particular way, that matters.

Should we label bananas and watermelons? you know we have modified those over the years also. Genetically modified even, just the slow way.

[belfpala]

Link to sauce?

I'm kind of in the mood for for a good bolognese.

[Fayolynn]

Should we label bananas and watermelons? you know we have modified those over the years also. Genetically modified even, just the slow way.

Well no because those genetic modifications are "safe" but doing the same thing in a more efficient manner is "dangerous"

[GennGreymane]

Should we label bananas and watermelons? you know we have modified those over the years also. Genetically modified even, just the slow way.

So the slow way? Your call then. Make the argument.

[belfpala]

Can you explain to me what's wrong with each of the things highlighted?

Big scary words. Words so big they are scary. /SCREAM

[Acidbaron]

Not in a way that effects whether or not the food is dangerous in anyway for human consumption. And any nutrition difference needs only to be on the label in so far as changing the corresponding number up or down.

"If there's nothing dangerous then why not label them?" We know where this is going, because of the massive campaign of stupidity: "If there's nothing dangerous then when is it labeled?"

Why is the distinction "natural" so important? You've probably never ate a single naturally occurring food product in your life, all of it being the result of selective breeding.

It's not the industry's fault that they have a bad reputation, it's a bunch of conspiracy nuts who did that. And, at that point, it becomes the governments job to educate people, and they're going in the wrong direction.

There is no more "crap" in GMO's than in any other food, the resulting food is very little different from your regular selectively bred foods.


In what way are GMO's proven to be dangerous?

Where did i say they are dangerous? I was making a point about how the easier a label to understand is the more effective it is.

No it is on the industry to launch information campaigns, they can do that in cooperation with the government of course.

[Fayolynn]

Most people will still buy GMO foods. But There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with labelling them as such. You have the right to know what you're buying.

Even if there's absolutely nothing wrong with GMO crops you should be able to make that informed choice without doing a crapload of research.

I want to know if any Unicorns were injured/killed in the making of my food. Can we get a label for that?

[callipygoustp]

You know who else wanted GMO labels on food? Nazis! Yeah, think about that.

[Acidbaron]

You know who else wanted GMO labels on food? Nazis! Yeah, think about that.

Yeah but they wanted to put labels on everything, even people! funny lot those nazi's!

- - - Updated - - -

You have entirely way too much faith in the general public if you trust them to make an informed decision.

Am I calling most people stupid? Yeah. Slightly more than half of the public has an IQ of less than 100 (it's not symmetric, there's slight skew).

I believe the majority can be influenced and educated, it's better to do it that way even if it takes time then to try to hide it and hope nobody will ever make a case from it.

Look at those whole anti-vaxxer movement how large is that if we look at the whole western population?

- - - Updated - - -

Kind of like how even though there's nothing wrong with GMO crops, they still formed their uninformed opinion without doing a crap load of research. Or any.

People will still buy the products they are used to and if they suddenly notice there is nothing wrong with something they have been consuming for years, it could very well have a reversed effect.

[Orange Joe]

Well no because those genetic modifications are "safe" but doing the same thing in a more efficient manner is "dangerous"

Link to source saying it is dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -

So the slow way? Your call then. Make the argument.

I don't see the different between the end products. Why label one and not the other.

[Acidbaron]

That's rather unlikely. The anti-GMO crowd basically expect it to cause cancer 80 years later, not kill them within a week.

Well that's true also, i wonder do that anti-GMO crowd also contest the amount of antibacterial medicine used in stock, excessive use even that causes super resistant bacteria's that end up being harmful for humans?

That would be a far more important issue to champion for. Anyway i do believe that information campaigns can sway opinions even in this day and age of misinformation through social media gossip and make believe.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

That's not what presidental executive power should be used for. Irrelevant if it's right or wrong thing to do.

The president should not sign legislation that was proposed and passed by congress? Or do you mean "the president should not be allowed to pass laws that I don't like"?

[nextormento]

Genetically modified even, just the slow way.

This line of thinking doesn't really lead anywhere.
Labels, like any word, are arbitrary. Any definition they may come up with will probably exclude selective breeding explicitly.
Just like the "organic" label, silly as that one may be: most of the stuff we eat is organic (as opposed to inorganic) but doesn't meet the standard for the label.

[Acidbaron]

This line of thinking doesn't really lead anywhere.
Labels, like any word, are arbitrary. Any definition they may come up with will probably exclude selective breeding explicitly.
Just like the "organic" label, silly as that one may be: most of the stuff we eat is organic (as opposed to inorganic) but doesn't meet the standard for the label.

Doesn't organic means grown without use of things like pesticide?

[Cthulhu 2020]

There's nothing wrong with GMO foods as a general concept.

If you genetically modify say... corn, to produce a carcinogen, then yeah that's bad. But there's a strain of rice, yellow rice, that was genetically modified to produce vitamin A which is essential for eyesight. Rice is some of the only food many people in rural china get to eat, and there was a massive blindness problem. Genetically modifying this rice to have vitamin A has all but obliterated that problem.

How about this, each GMO item can be listed, and people can go online and look up what the genetic modification does and the research done on human ingestion.

I have family members that are allergic to monsanto's corn (yes, clinical testing allergies, along with consistent allergic reactions) but not heritage corn, so being able to see what type of corn is in food will be good.

[nextormento]

Doesn't organic means grown without use of things like pesticide?

There's organic pesticides. But for the most part, yes. There's lists with the products (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers...) they can use.
But it also excludes, for instance, gmo seeds (making "organic" some kind of "non-gmo" label).
We also have organic chicken and eggs, which has to do with their living conditions more than anything.