My position is (after doing the reading etc) that GMOs are perfectly healthy (in fact more so than normal) to eat and there's effectively no reasons to attack them from this point of view. On the other hand I remained troubled by the activities by the industries selling the products, in terms of patents and farmer contracts etc. (As a Pirate, I find many patents completely unacceptable to me). As someone cautiously in favour of the free market, I believe it should be possible for consumers of punish the actions of the industry by avoiding GMO crops from companies acting in such unethical ways. (wouldn't that be nice to do in general with purchases?) Yet, the lobby to label GMO crops comes mainly from the organic/health people, rather than ethical consumer areas. An analogy people might know, Kit Kat chocolate bars are delicious and fairly safe to eat. (obesity aside). The manufacturer Nestle on the other hand kills babies in Africa via their controversial breast milk programmes. I -think- the free market has failed to give consumers viable choices to effect improved corporate responsibility (other than by the relatively unpopular Nestle boycott) - suggesting to me that the government could step in. The government alas is more sympathetic to the ignorant organic advocates (because we live in a democracy and there are more of them) than to enforcing responsible practices on a large multinational, so it appears they too have failed to make a difference. Meanwhile, the mainstream debate goes on between the two 'sides' of 'multinational corporate interests' and 'organic food advocates' neither of which I like, though have certain sympathies with both. Are my views relatively well informed? What's the answer to these problems?
While this might not help your views on GMOs, around my neck of the woods a lot of people treat the term as if you were talking about Frankenstein. I jokingly laugh at them and when I hear people getting hysterical over say GMO corn, I just refer to it as "FrankenCorn" or "Franken-insert food item". I blame Facebook and other scare mongering, conspiracy theory sites for putting the stigma on the term GMO. Maybe there are some health risks we don't know about tied to GM foods, but I'm still not convinced they're causing all sorts of harm. I think people eating processed and pre-packaged food is far worse for their health than GM corn, but I'm not a scientist or doctor, so what do I really know? In turn, I don't see an issue with labeling. It seems that some companies jump on board without being forced and proudly label their goods non-GMO. So while I'm not sure if forced labeling is the way to go, at least some companies don't have a problem spending an extra penny on a label. I don't see the harm in letting consumers know your product is GM, but with enough pressure from consumers, I'm sure it might become more standardized without requiring some type of government intervention. Take for example here recently with yoplait yogurt. People are starting to dislike high fructose corn syrup more and more, so in response to consumer demand yoplait removed corn syrup from their yogurts. Informed decisions are the best to make of course. Maybe more study put forth into GM foods, that isn't biased one way or the other, might help as well. Maybe I like science too much, but I the "franken" syndrome I was talking about above that the GMO haters seem to fall under, disturbs me. I don't think genetic modification on the whole is a bad thing, but people being irrationally scared by it can be. My mind isn't fully made up on GM foods, but the controversy around them is a bit hysterical on both sides, though more on the "franken" side it seems.
We've been modifying genes since -- well, actually, probably since BEFORE Gregor Mendel. I don't know how long exactly. There seems to be a portion of the population that thrives on selective hypochondria (the Frankenfoods crowd has a high rate of overlap with people who are convinced cell phones can kill you, etc.).
A lot of the food we have today is the result of genetic modification through selective breeding. The only difference now is that we know more about it and are able to accomplish these changes without involving generations of plant breeding.
This is actually where my concern comes from. The streamlined modification of organisms rather than the slower, drawn out process of cross breeding them. Given the exponential proliferation of food allergies in my lifetime (which is about concurrent with the proliferation of GMO versions of these foods), I prefer to err on the side of caution. on a side note, I've had more than a few samples of the "legal" medical weed. That is, patentable (GMO) strains. Much like foods, it lacks the taste and benefits of naturally evolved types.
I'm 99% with you on this but the remaining 1% has to do with transgenic genes, I.E. genes from totally different species. The vast majority of the time even transgenic GMOs are going to be fine but there still should be some sort of review process for trangenic GMOs where as regular GMO (where the genes already exist in the species in question and scientists are just picking the combinations they want) shouldn't have any review process.
Yup. The process is less haphazard now. And nature has been producing transgenes long before our species ever graced this planet.
Maybe this is just a US thing, but recently the issue is over labeling. Should companies have to inform the consumer if GMOs went into the product?
Bananas and corn were created by genetic engineering. Ditto most breeds of domesticated cat and dog. They got away without labeling all these centuries. What makes the new GMOs so special? Why the squeamishness now? Interesting that those that want to be informed by labels are ill-informed about science, and insist on remaining so.
To me this is much the same as the hysteria revolving around preservatives, "it isn't natural therefore it's bad." I feel like some of these people would have pooh-poohed salt when it was first found that it could be used as a preservative.
What Nick and Ecc said. Just a lot of misinformation all the way around, from both sides. The same shit will hsppen once food replicators become reality.
What's the appropriate reaction to this though? Also, what's the appropriate reaction to the (majority?) of people with the inappropriate reaction?
Despair. Honestly, it's one of the most frustrating topics for me. GM-food can and will bring tremendous benefits. At the same time, as with any new inventions, each individual modified food might introduce unforeseen dangers and drawbacks. That is not an unreasonable concern. The right thing to do, then, is to procede with the technology and make sure we test as well and as thoroughly as we can for every step. But that isn't going to happen, because the hysterics of some have poisoned the debate. In much the same way as the hystrionics of the John Castle-types over the terrible bit of failed legislation that is Obamacare keeps the US from developing a good universal healthcare law, the hysterics of Green fanatics make it impossible to design some reasonable, measured regime for testing modified foodstuffs that will allow for progress to continue with a rational amount of diligence.
No need for labels. That only places a perfectly safe product at a competitive disadvantage. If we ever get to a point where the consumer is savvy enough not to be swayed by the label, they will be savvy enough not to require the label.
And it's not new. The only reason processed cheeses are sometimes called "cheese food", or "cheese product", is because artisan cheese-makers lobbied the government for protectionism for their little market via that little labeling scare tactic. Hey, so it comes in a spray can, it's fucking cheese, get over yourselves. The stuff in individual wrappers? Fucking cheese. Grow up.
I'm no anti-GMO crusader (in fact this Angry Whopper I'm in line for is probably 100% GMO), but that is a retarded argument. You can argue all you want that inserting fish DNA code into plants is completely safe or of great benefit to humanity, but to try and pretend that's the same of traits being breed for over hundreds to thousands of years is totally disingenuous. Which is ironic considering that that is an accusation many on the pro-side level at the anti.
Why? Really, what's the difference, besides enhanced precision in the tech involved? Also, I mean, sure, computers and abacuses are both adding machines, but that doesn't make a computer an abacus, but I never said computers are abacuses. You're picking a fight over an analogy I didn't make.
On this I somewhat disagree. Buyer's prerogative; if they want to refuse good cheap products for this reason, let them. But there is no reason to pass a law to do this. Just let the sellers of traditional foodstuff come up with an independently examined label for non-modified food and stick it on their products.
I have no problem with a "contains no GMOs" label (so long as it's truthful). I object to a mandated label for GMO additives.
B/c while selective breeding may modify genetics, when people discuss GMO they are specifically refering to the artificial manipulation of the genetic code through splicing and insertion.
Now and again, WF still works. I just changed my mind from demanding an obligatory GMO label to advocating a voluntary alternative that copes without government interference because of this thread.
For the same reason that driving a racecar has different safety issues than walking the same distance.
That's not a Cleveland Steamer- or Dirty Sanchez-like name for something you're about to engage in (or have done to you) is it?
Most anti GMO rhetoric is anti corporate at its core. If Monsanto was a government program, GMO crusaders would be eating genetically modified soy burgers with tears in their eyes. Are there problems with seed patents and companies trying to own entire species? Yes. But if that's a problem, we need to figure out a better way to compensate breeders for the improvements they make to a plant, why would someone do it for free?
Government / subsidies / grants could do it 'for free', ensuring that the end product doesn't have to be so strictly protected and controlled in a way that corporate interests would.
