Tell the FDA GMOs are not "all natural"

[Deleted]

All 'Natural' foods have been modified over their lifespan. If you want to differentiate your 'unmodified' food from GMO food, then label it 'Non-GMO'. Or 'We don't know what Genetics are, and neither do you!'.

Of course, the backlash the OP has with his wild and crazy (read: lack of proof) claims is well documented, he even linked his previous conspiracy theorist thread.

One has been modified trough selective breeding over the course of many generations, the other one's have been artificially modified with whatever magic sciencetrick they used for it.

People have the right to know what they buy, why wouldn't you label GMO's? It won't cost the consumer anything. Using a experimental method (don't claim science nows everything about gene's, they don't) to change organisms so they can serve a purpose is a good thing, not letting people know what they consume isn't.

[obdigore]

I'm not anti gmo either but I sure as fuck am anti gmo companies, like hellsanto.

Not liking business practices of a company and being just straight 'anti gmo' are two very different things.

I find most anti-gmo the same as global climate deniers and people who think vaccines give you autism.

[Rukentuts]

It won't cost the consumer anything.

Yeah, because corporations just write off costs.

[Jarion]

We have been eating GM corn since 1996. If you buy a corn containing food from the store, that includes the HUGE amount of food that has HFCS, you have been eating BT corn.

My only concern with GM crops is that of diversity, not danger to human health.

[zerocoolhack]

Ahh athiest jesus, gotta love posting the scripture.

You have just lost any and all argument you had by posting that. Good day sir.

[Templar 331]

Funny how that article doesn't site the first bit of science backing up it's claims. More BS fear mongering.

[Wells]

Yeah, because corporations just write off costs.

You know they sometimes do.

[Endus]

I'm not particularly anti gmo but it seems more than a bit ridiculous to lump plants bred through selection with plants that carry properties that could never have been gotten through "natural" means

There's a growing body of evidence that a lot of those plants bred through selective breeding might be as bad as anything that people worry about from GMOs.

Modern wheat is a particularly good example. It's immensely different from the wheat of even 50 years ago. And it is, quite possibly, the main reason why obesity is a growing issue. Our grandparents didn't exercise an hour a day while eating salads and powerbars, and they generally weren't overweight, and certainly not to the extent seen today. Not to mention the growing issue of celiac disease and other gluten sensitivities.

That's the point. The whole issue seems a non-factor to me, since breeding can produce similar results, it just takes longer. Plus, things like deadly nightshade are "all-natural". That isn't a label that means "healthy and good to eat", in the first place.

[Tastyfish]

All you sheep diligently defending your fructose glucose makes me sick. :/

It's actually Lemmings.
Lemmings blindly run off the cliff to their deaths.
Sheep climb mountains.

[Themius]

One has been modified trough selective breeding over the course of many generations, the other one's have been artificially modified with whatever magic sciencetrick they used for it.

People have the right to know what they buy, why wouldn't you label GMO's? It won't cost the consumer anything. Using a experimental method (don't claim science nows everything about gene's, they don't) to change organisms so they can serve a purpose is a good thing, not letting people know what they consume isn't.

There are people who do not want to eat gmo and would like to avoid them. And there are some people (very few) who have had adverse effects to some GMO foods. I mean people would be in an uproar if vegan companies pumped animal fat into their seitan wouldn't they? Well there are people who just do not want GMO on their plates if they can help it. And this marketing modified foods as "all natural" is nothing but in my opinion predatory towards the actual all natural, organic market that already exists.

[Rukentuts]

You know they sometimes do.

Rarely. They just deal with it in a wide variety of responses.

But this is pointless regulation that does nothing but cater to fear-mongerers and increase costs. There's really no benefit.

[Themius]

Funny how that article doesn't site the first bit of science backing up it's claims. More BS fear mongering.

Yes it is fear mongering, but they have a point. Which is modified food isn't the same as all natural food.

[iceberg265]

All you sheep diligently defending your fructose glucose makes me sick. :/

This. Stop poisoning yourself.

It's actually Lemmings.
Lemmings blindly run off the cliff to their deaths.
Sheep climb mountains.

Good point.

[Tastyfish]

We have been eating GM corn since 1996.

Sooner then that.
Virus resistant papaya saved the fruit as we know it was created in the 80s.

[Templar 331]

Yes it is fear mongering, but they have a point. Which is modified food isn't the same as all natural food.

I won't argue that. I'll argue all the claims that they make without any proof. Or misleading photos that the OP has been known to post here of rats getting tumors from GMOs.

[Rukentuts]

Yes it is fear mongering, but they have a point. Which is modified food isn't the same as all natural food.

What the fuck is "all natural" food anymore? Because the original ears of corn weren't anywhere near the size we have today. So is that "all natural"? Or is just not "all natural" the moment we do it in a laboratory?

[obdigore]

One has been modified trough selective breeding over the course of many generations, the other one's have been artificially modified with whatever magic sciencetrick they used for it.

People have the right to know what they buy, why wouldn't you label GMO's? It won't cost the consumer anything. Using a experimental method (don't claim science nows everything about gene's, they don't) to change organisms so they can serve a purpose is a good thing, not letting people know what they consume isn't.

Because 'natural' food doesn't mean anything in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_foods

And 'Organic' means you don't add processed crap to the food after it is grown/raised, not that it isn't GMO.

As I said, if people want to ride the GMO-fear, then non-gmo food should label their crap non-gmo, and sell it as more expensive like the 'Organic' shit does.

[Herecius]

Just when I thought this forum could go a whole two days without a good, solid, hyperbolic list of fearmongering bullet points!

Son of a BITCH I need some breakfast

[Wells]

There's a growing body of evidence that a lot of those plants bred through selective breeding might be as bad as anything that people worry about from GMOs.

Modern wheat is a particularly good example. It's immensely different from the wheat of even 50 years ago. And it is, quite possibly, the main reason why obesity is a growing issue. Our grandparents didn't exercise an hour a day while eating salads and powerbars, and they generally weren't overweight, and certainly not to the extent seen today. Not to mention the growing issue of celiac disease and other gluten sensitivities.

That's the point. The whole issue seems a non-factor to me, since breeding can produce similar results, it just takes longer. Plus, things like deadly nightshade are "all-natural". That isn't a label that means "healthy and good to eat", in the first place.

I don't really think the potential risks of naturally bred food compared to GMO is relevant to the comparisons merits. Its like sating why should you care if we gene splice dogs when you have a Labrador.

[Darsithis]

We're a discussion forum. We're not a springboard for launching protests or trying to get signatures. If you want to discuss this topic, you can do that in a thread specifically for discussing it. But please don't use MMOC to advertise your cause and to recruit supporters.