Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

[Kasierith]

What would you call intentionally backholding information from customers after they asked for it because you assume would stop them from buying the product you sell?
I call that fraud.

Not putting on a meaningless label that serves no purpose other than to scare the scientifically illiterate.

If I made synthetic apples and put them in the fruit stand next to other apples, would it be ok not to put an extra lable on them knowing the customer cannot distinguish them from other apples?

Yes. Because they are, by your words, indistinguishable. All your argument overall really comes down to is "I'm the one with the normal apples, and I'm throwing a fit because someone else is cutting in on my market."

- - - Updated - - -

At this point, you're just being deliberately obtuse. Seriously, do you have any background or even the slightest interest in science or regulatory policy?

If someone is very clearly indicating that they don't even have a rudimentary grasp of how a representative democracy works, there's really no point in discussing regulatory practices with them. Just ignore them and leave them be.

[Deleted]

All it does is speed up natures evolution by splicing the desirable genes together. No freaky mush stuff is added.

In fact one might argue less/no chemical pesticides will be required once the supercrops go resistant to disease or vermin

[Deleted]

Not putting on a meaningless label that serves no purpose other than to scare the scientifically illiterate.



Yes. Because they are, by your words, indistinguishable. All your argument overall really comes down to is "I'm the one with the normal apples, and I'm throwing a fit because someone else is cutting in on my market."

- - - Updated - - -



If someone is very clearly indicating that they don't even have a rudimentary grasp of how a representative democracy works, there's really no point in discussing regulatory practices with them. Just ignore them and leave them be.

Or... give informed citizen the options wether or not to support the companies behind the technology but... that's too much freedom is it?
Oh... and thank you for the calm and balanced approach to the discussion.

[Deleted]

What really amazes me is that people do not understand the difference between genetically engineering and selective breeding.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

I think the fucking problem isn't the fucking fact that GMO's are under scrutiny for any sort of reasons, including made up ones.

The fucking problem is they won't even tell us what's GMO, and their only real answer against letting us know is "Then you won't eat it." Like I'm not an adult.

I'm going to shit on GMO supported forever until they tell us the real reason they don't want us to know which foods are GMO. That's why there's an unending argument here. And as far as I know, there isn't even really a reason, not even the then you won't eat it one, they just won't tell us, for some reason.

That tactic deserves to be treated poorly. It's only logical to hate on something for being so cloistered in the modern age, especially while the rest of us surrender all our privacy.

[Deleted]

I think the fucking problem isn't the fucking fact that GMO's are under scrutiny for any sort of reasons, including made up ones.

The fucking problem is they won't even tell us what's GMO, and their only real answer against letting us know is "Then you won't eat it." Like I'm not an adult.

I'm going to shit on GMO supported forever until they tell us the real reason they don't want us to know which foods are GMO. That's why there's an unending argument here. And as far as I know, there isn't even really a reason, not even the then you won't eat it one, they just won't tell us, for some reason.

That tactic deserves to be treated poorly. It's only logical to hate on something for being so cloistered in the modern age, especially while the rest of us surrender all our privacy.

Basically put, if you dont support GMO youre ignorant and you shouldnt be able to pick and choose.
This, for some, is science and reason.

Pathetic.

[Independent voter]

Djalil is still bumping this thread?

[Deleted]

Djalil is still bumping this thread?

This is all you have left Hubcap.

[Felnoire]

Well apparently this needed to be clarified, even though we've been using a genetically modified wheat crop for years now. Heck it aided in preventing the starvation of India that was such a problem back in the day, by basically tripling the average yield of the crop.
Yes I probably understand the apprehension when you learn a GMO uses the genes of another species to get the ball rolling, but transgenic is not completely out of sync with selective breeding I'd call them siblings. It would be much simpler if the species had the genes and it was a case of making them express it across the species, but swings and roundabouts there. Transgenic modification is about finding the genetic markers for a specific trait, if I recall correctly we're using a bacteria these days to do the slicing and patching in the code. Then test the newly formed GMO to ensure it is expressing the trait desired, if successful further testing to ensure no other byproducts are formed by the new set of instructions the genetic code gives the plant/animal.
Cross breeding with wild species is I think the major valid fear, as certain traits like herbicide resistance can be a problem for farmers/gardeners if the trait was inherited by another species they consider a weed. Worse for biodiversity would be if a terminator gene managed to spread, assuming it wasn't a dominant gene to enable the chance of it spreading beyond a single generation. One generation would still be harmful for the short lived species, those species with multiple chances of breeding would not be as badly harmed by a breeding cycle that didn't turn out well.
Human health won't be effected long or short term from consuming a GMO, we've been doing it longer than most seem to recall. When digesting food we don't take in the genes of our food and insert it into ourselves, we break it down into it's proteins and all genes have the same four possible outcomes all of which are natural to the human body. There would be an issue if the gene expressed other traits, like production of cyanide in high concentrations as some species of fruits/nuts we eat have cyanide within them though within tolerable limits. But that would assume those in the GMO business just made new crops and sent them out without testing them for such abnormalities, we're a bit further along from the days of asbestos and lead paint. American litigation culture did some good there, making companies rightfully concerned about their liability.
Well technically I suppose I would consider someone who is overly afraid of GMOs to not have understood them enough, but then I'm the sort who generally believes that fear grows where our understanding is limited. But I can of course understand why someone would be afraid of it, while not 'new' they're still something fresh to the human consciousness so not hard to drum up the fear factor over them.
This is not to say I wouldn't support labeling, as I believe it should be the consumer's choice if they want to purchase a GMO or non GMO in the same vein of Organic products free of pesticides/herbicides. Even if there is a concern that people's fears of GMOs would cause people to avoid them, but then improving awareness and debunking the myths is what the GMO companies should be doing to better sell their product anyway. Or did I miss a lesson in business studies?

If labelled would I buy a GMO? Yes, assuming it's within my price range and is something I like the taste of I'd consume it with as much thought as I eat non GMOs. Though I believe more research would help as for every time someone comes out with the evidence saying it's not harmful, someone comes along with evidence of it harming humans. I've looked at a few of them, and noted a poor grasp of statistics vs causality. But that's hardly new, we've been there for the vaccine claims and the other stuff that causes my eyes to roll at such shoddy work. Mainly cause all it does is muddy the water for those with concerns, who'll find themselves unable to believe the results such as these ones. People find it hard to change their position in these cases, think it's the same psychology that enables humans to also adhere to a conspiracy theory, never done a study on it so just a guess. Not saying you're conspiracy theorists for believing or not believing, but that the mentality behind the adherence of something even if there is evidence to disprove it seems similar to me so might come from similar parts of the mind. Everyone has it, a mental quirk that can become a bad habit, the finger biting of psychology. I'm sure I was making a point somewhere, but doubt it matters. Those that don't see this the way I do are unlikely be swayed by my view, those that believe as I do aren't going to be vindicated cause I came along and happened to agree with them. But then I find it much more fun that people don't all share the exact same view, so mehmoo.

[Spectral]

You can keep on ignore the myriad of issues at play with GMO that really aren't as sound as SCIENCE!!! tells us. Like... what the poster below you states for example. OR simply the fact that you have a lobby monopolising the food market. Those two only should be enough to at least warrant customers the option to choose wether or not to support them.

This doesn't have anything at all to do with labeling regulation. These are agriculture policy questions. There's also no monopoly in the food market, but that's a separate

The fact that you dont want citizens to have that choice because "theyre ignorant" is not reasonable in the slighest. It's actually pretty pathetic.

I've never suggested that anyone not have the right to choice. If you think I have, please quote the passage that implies this.

PLEASE spectral. Just dont talk about "taxpayers" ok? Fucking ridiculous.

No, that's not OK. When considering public policy, one must consider the costs involved in implementing a policy. Doing otherwise is engaging in ridiculous fantasy. Regulations aren't free. Enforcement isn't free. Compliance isn't free. If you're not even willing to begin considering the cost to a policy, you can't possibly have a serious idea of whether the policy is a good idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Basically put, if you dont support GMO youre ignorant and you shouldnt be able to pick and choose.

No, if you're anti-GMO, you're probably ignorant within a specific domain. Most people that are anti-GMO don't know the first thing about agriculture, genetics, molecular biology, or biochemistry, let alone regulation, science policy, and economics.

But should of course be allowed to choose what you consume. What you shouldn't be doing is demanding that everyone else cover the cost of pointless regulation for your hobby-horse. If you want non-GMO food, by all means, get it! By only from companies that choose to implement GMO-free crops. This is completely analagous to organic food - if someone wants organic food, by all means, they should get it. What we shouldn't be doing is forcing companies to stick a label on everything that isn't organic that says "not organic".

[Noradin]

If uneducated fearful luddites want it, yeah it is their democratic right. It's also their democratic duty to educate themselves prior to lobbying and voting for sweeping laws that do nothing but perpetuate a problem born from ignorance. Democracy isn't just about whining to get what you want and throwing facts to the wayside.

No you cannot impose a "duty" to educate themselves about any single (inconsequental) thing that might come up, espeically not as a foreigner.
Europe does not really need GMO right now. If someone wants to introduce new products it is on them to bring them to peoples' attention and educate them about them. If we needed them then it might be a duty of the government to do something about this education, but right now we don't really.

[Spectral]

No you cannot impose a "duty" to educate themselves about any single (inconsequental) thing that might come up, espeically not as a foreigner.
Europe does not really need GMO right now. If someone wants to introduce new products it is on them to bring them to peoples' attention and educate them about them. If we needed them then it might be a duty of the government to do something about this education, but right now we don't really.

It's entirely true that people don't have any duty to educate themselves about topics. Rational ignorance is a perfectly good strategy for most topics and it's a perfectly good way to go through life. We all exercise it on the majority of topics. I have absolutely no idea about the economics of classical music, the best ways to store and/or disassemble old nuclear weapons, best practices for treating acute myeloid leukemia, and so on and so forth.

The thing is, I don't go around lobbying and making demands on these topics. I don't know anything about treating AML, so I don't go around making demands about what treatments hospitals are allowed to use. I trust the experts to handle the matter. On GMOs, for some reason, people that don't know the first thing about the biology or economics of the matter have strong feelings about the topic and think their feelings should be government policy.

[Noradin]

You didn't. And it shows the inconsistency of your stated beliefs; if you think that GMO is a problem then the other rapid techniques are equally problematic - but I haven't heard people say: oh, a new exotic fruit - better wait a decade before we eat it just to be safe.
In reality un-modified food isn't unproblematic either, such as half a billion relying on food with dangerous levels of cyanide (unless properly processed).

The actual reason is that some in EU want to stop GMO-foods to protect their agricultural jobs; and the benefit of GMO-food for the average person in EU low enough that people don't bother to counter that.

Read my posts againg, there are three speperate issues:

1) Is GMO save to use? It is not inherently unsave. It needs case to case tests just like all other new products. It offers more drastic changes than, say, crossbreeding, thus we need to extend some extra awareness towards possible unexpected results.
That does not mean those test should be unresonable or designed in a way to make it impossible to register new GMO products.

Also note that unsave products simply do not get the permission to be sold, lables on such products therefore do not matter at all to customers.

2) Labeling. This one is simple really. People asked for it, I thought: well, why not, should raise awareness and give incentives to educate people.
Then companies came out and said they do not want those lables, they might give people a basis on which to decide against their products. That implies that they want to sneak customers products they assume they wouldn't want if they gave them the information asked for. That is fraud.
Such sneakiness always gets discovered, then leads to conspiracy theories springing up and everything ends up worse than it would be otherwise (see anti-vaxxers).

3) European agriculture. I do not think it would be ideal to just open our markets in this area and swamp them with cheap produce when we already labour to artificially keep our prices up enough to sustain the farmers we need to keep our landscape the way it is today.
That does not mean that I would condone dishonest dealings such as making a deal "allowing" an opening of the market then going back on it by making the sale impossible. That, too, would be fraud. It could never lead to a good thing. Tricking people never does.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is arguing that it couldn't be made "a rule." So it is pointless to make that statement. The argument is over whether it SHOULD be law. You could pass a law mandating all food carry the label, "for oral consumption only, do not shove it up your ass." It would just be a pretty stupid law to have in place. And nothing you mentioned is a mandatory label. Nor is there a mandatory label for any product or ingredient that doesn't potentially pose a health risk.

It should be make a law because it would look bad and cast suspicion on GMO products otherwise now after the idea that companies would like to trick people into unwittingly buying GMO products is in the room.
I wouldn't have prosposed such a lable before (in fact I would have been against it), but now that we are in the situation we are now I see no way to avoid it.

[Spectral]

It offers more drastic changes than, say, crossbreeding, thus we need to extend some extra awareness towards possible unexpected results.

This is generally false. A single gene insertion is more controlled and tends towards having less unintended genetic modification than hybridization. Characterizing hybrids is much more difficult than characterizing an organism that has a single gene insertion. Golden rice is a good example of this - it has three genes inserted for the biosynthesis of beta-carotene. This is a subtle modification with no real downside and no plausible mechanism for adverse outcomes.

[Noradin]

Every single cultivar of every piece of fruit known to man has been genetically modified. Shit, the bananas we use today are a result of the banana apocalypse, where a fungus wiped out most of the old Big Mike bananas, and the world started using a smaller, less tasty, but fungus-immune banana called the Cavendish.

Apples, too, are pretty much all genetically modified based on market demand: Nobody confuses a Granny Smith with a Fuji, or a Red Delicious. Citrus fruits, too, have been genetically modified and bred for specific varieties, be it Valencia or Navel or Blood oranges. But I suspect fruit isn't even on your list when you think of things which need to be labelled as GMO.

Irrelevant as I have explained before.
If GMO was no different from what we had used before then obviously there could be no benefit to it.
Because a benefit would be a difference.

That benefit of GMO is that changes can be more drastic, thus the usual case by case studies if new products are save need to take that into account.
However, all this is an intern matter for the developement and certification of these products. It has nothing to do with the labels we are discussing here, because obviously, if they didn't pass the tests they wouldn't be allowed on sale at all and no labels would ever be seen by the public.

It is asinine to discuss that point. Why do you keep bringing it up like it would make any difference?

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much everything we have eaten for the past few thousand years has been genetically modified by us and didn't exist in nature before us.
Here is a wild, unmodified watermelon:

Nobody has eaten anything "natural" in a very, very long time.

What has that to do with the labeling?
Everyone always brings up this point. It is nonsense.

You pretend labeling rules have to be based on science.
That is not the case, labeling rules are based on the wishes of society, because this is a democracy.

The only science that would matter would be if there was proof that no products that would get these lables exist.
That would make the rule redundant. (We could still set it up, though.)

[Nadiru]

Irrelevant as I have explained before.
If GMO was no different from what we had used before then obviously there could be no benefit to it.
Because a benefit would be a difference.

That benefit of GMO is that changes can be more drastic, thus the usual case by case studies if new products are save need to take that into account.
However, all this is an intern matter for the developement and certification of these products. It has nothing to do with the labels we are discussing here, because obviously, if they didn't pass the tests they wouldn't be allowed on sale at all and no labels would ever be seen by the public.

It is asinine to discuss that point. Why do you keep bringing it up like it would make any difference?

Why do you think the domestication of fruits and vegetables brought no benefit to people? It absolutely did.

[Noradin]

Not putting on a meaningless label that serves no purpose other than to scare the scientifically illiterate.

So you would propose to sneak it by them despit them asking for the information, what do you expect their reaction to be when they find out they have been deceived?
I expect they will make up reasons why you did it and being scientifically illiterate per your premise those will turn out just as absurd as those these anti-vaxxers came up with.
Is that your goal?

I want a sensible and resonable use of GMO where it offers real benefits. I want those benefits to be agreed upon by the whole of society, not by some shady businessmen in some backrooms (sneaking in products they will always appear shady to outsiders). You cannot get that with secrency and tricking customers in buying products the do not want.

[Deleted]

This doesn't have anything at all to do with labeling regulation. These are agriculture policy questions. There's also no monopoly in the food market, but that's a separate

I've never suggested that anyone not have the right to choice. If you think I have, please quote the passage that implies this.

No, that's not OK. When considering public policy, one must consider the costs involved in implementing a policy. Doing otherwise is engaging in ridiculous fantasy. Regulations aren't free. Enforcement isn't free. Compliance isn't free. If you're not even willing to begin considering the cost to a policy, you can't possibly have a serious idea of whether the policy is a good idea.

- - - Updated - - -


No, if you're anti-GMO, you're probably ignorant within a specific domain. Most people that are anti-GMO don't know the first thing about agriculture, genetics, molecular biology, or biochemistry, let alone regulation, science policy, and economics.

But should of course be allowed to choose what you consume. What you shouldn't be doing is demanding that everyone else cover the cost of pointless regulation for your hobby-horse. If you want non-GMO food, by all means, get it! By only from companies that choose to implement GMO-free crops. This is completely analagous to organic food - if someone wants organic food, by all means, they should get it. What we shouldn't be doing is forcing companies to stick a label on everything that isn't organic that says "not organic".

So far, ALL your concern is to be summed up with this sentence of yours:

if you're anti-GMO, you're probably ignorant within a specific domain. Most people that are anti-GMO don't know the first thing about agriculture, genetics, molecular biology, or biochemistry, let alone regulation, science policy, and economics.

This is all that is behind your choice to not label GMO. I find this insulting, absurd and EXTREMELY arrogant.
You are pretty much the quintessence of a failed marketing campaign. Until the face of GMO is companies like "the big 6" and people like you, the masses will reject it.

[Spectral]

So far, ALL your concern is to be summed up with this sentence of yours:


This is all that is behind your choice to not label GMO. I find this insulting, absurd and EXTREMELY arrogant.
You are pretty much the quintessence of a failed marketing campaign. Until the face of GMO is companies like "the big 6" and people like you, the masses will reject it.

Do you have any actual argument against anything I've said, or just a whine that I'm insufficiently polite to people that aren't informed on any of the subject matter?

[Deleted]

It's entirely true that people don't have any duty to educate themselves about topics. Rational ignorance is a perfectly good strategy for most topics and it's a perfectly good way to go through life. We all exercise it on the majority of topics. I have absolutely no idea about the economics of classical music, the best ways to store and/or disassemble old nuclear weapons, best practices for treating acute myeloid leukemia, and so on and so forth.

The thing is, I don't go around lobbying and making demands on these topics. I don't know anything about treating AML, so I don't go around making demands about what treatments hospitals are allowed to use. I trust the experts to handle the matter. On GMOs, for some reason, people that don't know the first thing about the biology or economics of the matter have strong feelings about the topic and think their feelings should be government policy.

Once again the assumption that you can only be pro GMO or ignorant.
Great selling point.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any actual argument against anything I've said, or just a whine that I'm insufficiently polite to people that aren't informed on any of the subject matter?

Read my posts. That has been my point for a good few pages.
The companies behind GMO are doing a horrible job at marketing their products. You're pretty much the quintessence of this.
Oh and spectral, in case you didnt get it, not only you're obnoxious when claiming "youre pro or ignorant", you're also wrong.