Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ashotep

Bill to require labeling of GMO foods

51 posts in this topic

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) on Wednesday introduced legislation that would require labeling for all genetically engineered foods.

The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act (PDF) would require any food that contains genetically engineered ingredients be labeled accordingly by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If approved by Congress and signed into law, the United States would join more than 60 countries that require food labels to disclose genetically engineered ingredients.

Federal bill would require labeling of genetically modified food

I think they should have to tell us if we are eating a genetically modified food.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should have to tell us if we are eating a genetically modified food.

Most definitely,I for one would avoid it if I knew it was GMO.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hope this passes

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bill has been defeated locally,in a few states already . If it passes federally ,I will be quite surprised.

They know if it has to be labeled ,and we see how much of our food is this garbage ,no one will buy it .

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hope this passes

It wont pass, Monsanto will see to that :hmm:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it's silly and would be impossible to enforce, but politics being what it is it may pass. This is an example of political demagoguery at its worst.

First of all, all foods we eat are genetically modified. Do you think the corn you have with your potatoes is anything like the original maize? What about those poor turkeys who are genetically modified to produce so much breast meat that they die of suffocation at an age of about one year?

Second, how do you define "genetically modified" in the law? How does the artificial selection farmers have been doing since agriculture began differ from moving some genes around in a lab? How do you tell the difference after the fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selective breeding is not GMO - simple.

Br Cornelius

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I wonder what GMO stands for and what farmers are doing when they selectively breed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I wonder what GMO stands for and what farmers are doing when they selectively breed.

There are so many massive differences between selective breeding and GMO that the two are in no way comparable.

GMO is the smash and grab side of breeding - take a desired gene (desired because it produces a protein) and shotgun it into the DNA of another species. This leads to bacterial genes been introduced into bovine DNA. Here is the telling thing - the vast majority of the "crosses" are unviable mutations and cause the recieving cell to die. Only those tiny number of viable cells survive and are breed from. This should tell you everything you need to know about the "sophistication" of the process.

Coupled to this is the fact that there is little understanding of how those spliced genes will impact on the many unknown aspects of the "junk DNA" which comprises over 90% of the genome. To even attempt to manipulate the DNA of a higher species with the level of understanding of the genome we currently have is criminally insane.

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never did say what GMO stands for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Genetically Modified Organism, generally used to refer to the technique of direct manipulation of an organisms Genome.

Selective breeding uses phenotype selection of desired characteristics of the "same" species to create a reinforcement of that charateristic in the offspring.

Selective breeding is not without risks, but those risks are entirely less likely, and more predictable, than using Gene splicing to achieve the same outcome.

You never did say what GMO stands for.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Growth hormones is what makes a chicken have a breast the size of a Turkey. That isn't good either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Genetically Modified Organism." I know why you didn't want to say what it means, since we eat nothing grown nowadays that hasn't been genetically modified, first by nature (natural selection) and then by farmers (artificial selection). Do you think farmers get the yields and disease resistance and all that other stuff by changing anything other than the genes?

Basically, the fearmongering about GMO is rank superstition. Nothing is being done that hasn't been done for billions of years.

Fire is dangerous; indeed, water is dangerous. You have to do more than say there might be dangers. This whole thing is political demagoguery based on the chemical ignorance of the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait - I thought Odrama already signed a bill that stated GM foods labeling was not required, and that no legal action can be taken against the GM food giants?

It was a big controversial thing a week or two ago. Or did that not go through...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Genetically Modified Organism." I know why you didn't want to say what it means, since we eat nothing grown nowadays that hasn't been genetically modified, first by nature (natural selection) and then by farmers (artificial selection). Do you think farmers get the yields and disease resistance and all that other stuff by changing anything other than the genes?

Basically, the fearmongering about GMO is rank superstition. Nothing is being done that hasn't been done for billions of years.

Fire is dangerous; indeed, water is dangerous. You have to do more than say there might be dangers. This whole thing is political demagoguery based on the chemical ignorance of the general public.

...and you know this because you are geneticist? NOT!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think GMO food should be labeled as such. I'm not too terribly hopeful that it will happen soon considering how some other like measures have failed. I'm not necessarily against the technology itself, but I'm very against how it's being used currently.

Part of what makes me so leery about GMO is that most people don't understand how regular plant breeding works, and really don't understand how GMO works. Part of it is because it's so darn important for stuff to be labeled organic, but there seems to be a struggle against GMO labeling, and that just makes me unhappy.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave you a specific definition of what GMO is understood to mean in common usage, and why it is different from traditional selective breeding techniques. I couldn't have been clearer in what I said and meant by the term GMO.

"Genetically Modified Organism." I know why you didn't want to say what it means, since we eat nothing grown nowadays that hasn't been genetically modified, first by nature (natural selection) and then by farmers (artificial selection). Do you think farmers get the yields and disease resistance and all that other stuff by changing anything other than the genes?

Basically, the fearmongering about GMO is rank superstition. Nothing is being done that hasn't been done for billions of years.

Fire is dangerous; indeed, water is dangerous. You have to do more than say there might be dangers. This whole thing is political demagoguery based on the chemical ignorance of the general public.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait - I thought Odrama already signed a bill that stated GM foods labeling was not required, and that no legal action can be taken against the GM food giants?

It was a big controversial thing a week or two ago. Or did that not go through...

Obama signed an order which excused GMO manufacturers from future liability, he did not sign anything to do with GMO labelling. They are two seperate issues.

I ask you why the GMO manufacturers lobbied to have an exemption from liability for causing harm to consumers. What other foods are affforded such an exemption ?

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama signed an order which excused GMO manufacturers from future liability, he did not sign anything to do with GMO labelling. They are two seperate issues.

Ah. Ok thanks for clearing that up.

I ask you why the GMO manufacturers lobbied to have an exemption from liability for causing harm to consumers. What other foods are affforded such an exemption ?

That's the part that I find a little unnerving...why would a food giant need an umbrella of legal protection if the food is really as safe as they say? Are they simply tired of constant court battles against the hippies?

If Monsato really did "sponsor" Obama's ride to the White House, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that getting legal protection was something they were planning for all along.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refute my argument, not who I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument is that there is no difference between GMO (as commonly used to describe processes of direct genetic manipulation) and selective breeding. There is a difference.

Your position is based on an unsound premise that GMO is a simple extension of selective breeding - it is not.

Br Cornelius

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nothing is being done that hasn't been done for billions of years.

Really, I wasn´t aware that they have been smushing together genes from eels and different types of salmon in laboratories for billions of years.

http://www.unexplain...pic=242293&st=0

Even the squirrels know what´s healthy.

post-114830-0-31743100-1366902544_thumb.

]

Wait - I thought Odrama already signed a bill that stated GM foods labeling was not required, and that no legal action can be taken against the GM food giants?

It was a big controversial thing a week or two ago. Or did that not go through...

The bill that passed had to do with lawsuits and protects Monsanto if SHF

http://www.unexplain...opic=245713&hl=

Edit: content at end

Edited by jugoso
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GMO fear is not blind fear. Whenever a study about them comes out from any place other then Monsanto it is bad. The FDA approved it safe but the studies that the FDA accepted were studies done inclusivly by Monsanto themselves.

Obma put a man who used to be the vice president of Montaso public policy program in the FDA.

Research will set you free lol

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also i should add, look at all the countries that are banning GMO foods. Hmmmm maybe that means something ?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GMO foods bother me but so does the fact they feed these chickens growth hormones until they have breasts the size of a turkey. Have to wonder what the long term effect of that will be and how many other animals are done that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.