GMO foods should not be labelled as such

[transformation2]

Because it acts as "warning" sign to consumers who then don't consume it thinking it's bad for them. There is broad scientific consensus that it is NOT. Mandating GMO labeling would kill the industry and destroy years of progress.

Say no to GMO labeling.

GM crops are tightly regulated by several government bodies. The European Food Safety Authority and each individual member state have detailed the requirements for a full risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed.34 In the USA, the Food and Drug Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are all involved in the regulatory process for GM crop approval.35 Consequently, GM plants undergo extensive safety testing prior to commercialization (for an example see http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/KeyTo...753812_GMO.htm).

Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/

[doyoueveneat]

in b4 paleo *******s and their logic

[nilekyle]

so wat, ill buy all the gmo foods for cheap while the hippies go for non gmo's for a premium price

[IRockNikes]

Show me scientific consensus OP...

[Pandaz619]

Show me scientific consensus OP...

there are plenty of peer reviewed research articles out there. go do your own search *******

[AbusiveParents]

Because it acts as "warning" sign to consumers who then don't consume it thinking it's bad for them. There is broad scientific consensus that it is NOT. Mandating GMO labeling would kill the industry and destroy years of progress.

Say no to GMO labeling.

Exactly. So many uneducated people cry foul when there is nothing wrong with GM foods.

Show me scientific consensus OP...

"There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmen- tal effects have resulted from commercialization of ge- netically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Re- search Centre (the European Union's scientific and tech- nical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."

"Concerning the second pathway, crops with new traits can be associated with food safety risks, which have to be assessed and managed case by case. But such risks are not specific to GM crops. Long-term research confirms that GM technology is not per se more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies [13]. On the other hand, GM technology can help to breed food crops with higher contents of micronutrients; a case in point is Golden Rice with provitamin A in the grain [14]. Such GM crops have not yet been commercialized. Projections show that they could reduce nutritional deficiencies among the poor, entailing sizeable positive health effects [15], [16]." (the references are at the end of the article in plosone)

Sources:

http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.short (peer-reviewed journal)

http://www.plosone.org/.../info%3Ado...1371%2Fjournal...

Problems can be caused by conventional breeding:

"Whereas each new genetically engineered crop variety is assessed on a case-by-case basis by three governmental agencies, conventional crops are not regulated by these agencies. Still, to date, compounds with harmful effects on humans or animals have been documented only in foods developed through conventional breeding approaches. For exam- ple, conventional breeders selected a celery variety with relatively high amounts of psoralens to deter insect predators that damage the plant. Some farm workers who harvested such celery developed a severe skin rash—an unintended consequence of this breeding strategy (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004)."

Source:
http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.short (peer-reviewed journal)

[bilaba70]

Definitely yes, if you would only see the chit farmers have to go through because of corps like Monsanto.

/rant

[xITHYPHALLIC]

Strong evidence. Golden rice was pretty much a failure. I remember some part of a class I was in where we looked several peer-reviewed sources talking about that crop. It hasn't been commercialized because it ****ing failed.

Also, lol @ posting abstracts and claiming to have concrete facts. All studies offer are suggestions of causal evidence based on experimental methods and statistics. There is no such thing as "concrete proof". ****ing keyboard scientists everywhere.

[pacmane]

LOL fk the industry and fk the progress they don't care about u or me they could suck my cock srs

[transformation2]

Strong evidence. Golden rice was pretty much a failure. I remember some part of a class I was in where we looked several peer-reviewed sources talking about that crop. It hasn't been commercialized because it ****ing failed.

Also, lol @ posting abstracts and claiming to have concrete facts. All studies offer are suggestions of causal evidence based on experimental methods and statistics. There is no such thing as "concrete proof". ****ing keyboard scientists everywhere.

If you're actually suggesting you know more than pretty much every health/scientific/nutrition organization in the world then idk what to say to you.

LOL fk the industry and fk the progress they don't care about u or me they could suck my cock srs

It is not by the benevolence of the butcher or the baker that we expect our dinner, but by his own self-interest.

[sheebal]

lol @ you guys writing OP's essay

[XabstractX]

People have the right to know what they are buying. Most people won't discredit GMO foods, just like most people still buying non-organic.

[transformation2]

People have the right to know what they are buying. Most people won't discredit GMO foods, just like most people still buying non-organic.

The European experience begs to differ

[spazzin]

"A few years ago, there were sixteen countries that had total or partial bans on GMOs. Now there are at least twenty-six, including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia. Significant restrictions on GMOs exist in about sixty other countries."

"I was a slow convert to the No-More-GMOs movement. As a science buff my entire life, I was in favor of science making our products better, including our produce, livestock, etc.

But with just doing a little research, I encountered some startling truths. While SCIENCE in a vacuum may be a noble effort designed to make the World a better place, when put in the hands of corporations, Science has only a single function - to maximize company profits. If those profits can be maximized without offering any conferrable health benefit to the consumer, that's perfectly fine with the corporations. If the product actually HARMS people and/or the environment, but it's hard to prove, those companies do what any other for-profit company does, it pours money into marketing and to control the government that might force them to take their product(s) off the market.

This isn't limited to the food industry, other industries (think Asbestos, think Pharmaceuticals, think MTBE in the gasoline, think cigarette smoking, think atomic bomb testing on U.S. soil, think BPA in plastics, think Lead in paint and gasoline, think hexovalent chromium in ground water.) have all in the past lobbied the government to preserve their products in the market to ensure profits, rather than face the truth that those products were harming people and the environment.

Food is merely the latest battleground of this decades-old pathetic American tradition of big corporations lobbying for profits over quality of life."

[rnod]

ill take what nature made for $1000 Alex

[TypeZero]

So...you want people to be ignorant in the name of profit and progress? People should have access to this basic kind of knowledge and to make decisions on their own.

I've weighed the costs myself and I'm willing to eat modified foods daily, solely because of the price and convenience

[transformation2]

So...you want people to be ignorant in the name of profit and progress? People should have access to this basic kind of knowledge and to make decisions on their own.

I've weighed the costs myself and I'm willing to eat modified foods daily, solely because of the price and convenience

If people were perfectly rational and realized that gmo foods pose no threat and are cheaper and healthier then i'd be all for more information. But since people are idiots government has to baby them in this regard (I hate to say this as a lover of perfect rationality).

[BostonRockets]

I don't see why not. People have the right to know, it's not a big deal. Whether or not GMO foods are good or bad for you, I don't know as I have done zero research but people should have the right to know what they are buying whether its held in a positive light like organic, fair trade etc, or negative like GMO.

[TrancE_AddicT]

OP is stupid as fuk.

[F23]

Pretty much all food we eat has been altered through selective breeding over thousands of years of human farming. Only recently have we been taking shortcuts by directly inserting bits of genetic code.

BRB everything gets labeled as GMO.

[Conspiracybrah]

GMO foods should not have to be labeled.

[BrawnySwoleman]

brb sucking Monsanto's cock

[SKIN__N__BONES]

It should say on the label. I personally would not give a fuk and Im sure a lot of others wont as long as the price is right

[OptimusNut]

Op needs to be hung from his nuts and decapitated









*******!!!

[seanb1979]

i keep my GMO foods next to a pile of old uranium i got from a russian friend of mine... i cook everything in my microwave from 1962

[5x10]

brb sucking Monsanto's cock

brb, sucking the cock of genetic inefficiencies

GMO's ftw

[GFinaComa]

people aren't smart enough to decide for themselves. we need to keep this information from them to protect monsanto.

lol what happened to, "let the free market decide!"

[Ghosting]

Plenty of people are convinced that GMOs are harmless and there are way too many that will not eat them if they are labeled. Basically I would like to see them labeled, but I definitely see the "don't label them" side.

[Ghosting]

If people were perfectly rational and realized that gmo foods pose no threat

Calm down

[standon23]

so as a consumer, I dont have the right to know where my food is coming from regardless of health concerns? Im sure your a liberal, but seriously its my RIGHT to know these things and whether someone wants to buy them or not is their decision. So **** off with your bull**** and have fun with your cancer..do you think the wealthy eats this ****, I can assure you they don't