MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Should GMO be labeled?

Should GMO be labeled?

posted 7 years ago by Thrillhouse (1509)
10 replies | jump to latest

I do not understand how GMO is considered sufficiently different to get patents, yet GMO is considered sufficiently the same to not be labeled. It should be one or the other. This is hypocracy.

I also think GMO is not good for you because it means more pesticide or other qualities that reduce the hardiness of the food. It is obvious why GMO is not proud to label. Scientists who I believe are corrupt will tell us that GMO saves the world from hunger. But nobody wants to buy that or it would be advertised.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

Wow no one wants to discuss real issues.

[–] twinA (4921) 7 years ago

GMOs have existed for thousands of years. When settlers from the old world stumbled upon the magnificence that was the large and hardy yellow corn stalk off the east coast of North America, they did not understand that natives had been selectively breeding the crop over time to yield more produce, become more weather resistant, and cultivated planting techniques like rotation to help them grow faster and better. Before that, the crop was nothing more than a red rump that barely fed one person. I could be mistaking this for another corn species.

In the siege of Leningrad during World War II, Soviet scientists ironically starved to death protecting seeds engineered to curb famine and other harsh conditions from invading German-led forces.

http://www.cracked.com/article_23842_5-badass-heroes-who-died-protecting-human-knowledge.html

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

I think this is propaganda. These are two different things.

[–] twinA (4921) 7 years ago

What makes you think it is propaganda? Perhaps you know something I don't. I want to understand your point of view better.

[–] twinA (4921) 7 years ago

There's concern that labeling GMOs will unintentionally and intentionally promote stigmatization of science. A lot of people want to know what's in their food, that it's safe to eat for those with food allergies, medical conditions, religious beliefs, and diets. My post above is meant to demonstrate that GMOs are time-tested and is not a new practice to be weary about. Nutrition labels need to be completely transparent about what's in our food products.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

People are skeptical if you want to hide things from them and they are right to be that way. You are abusing science by using it as a shield. It is not a threat to science if we do not trust a corporate product. New pesticide are regularly invented and tested and we never say they are time tested and don’t need to be lab tested. Glyphosate is a good example where they changed their minds.

[–] twinA (4921) 7 years ago

That's a fair point about corporate GMO products, that the general public be skeptical towards it. After all, the same company that helped make agent orange, the chemical that was used during the Vietnam War, also happened to be produced by Monsanto, a major commercial GMO company opting for patents on their genetic practices. They are the equivalent of a schoolyard bully in the industry and do not represent the average farmer's intent on harvesting healthy food for society's benefit.

Herbicides and pesticides do need regulation and monitoring, as it can contaminate water supplies and find its way into meat through livestock grass grazing. Without pesticides, food is not any safer to be eaten as mother nature can be a fickle mistress. Alternatives should always be considered when better methods can become more affordable and easier to use. Had to look up glyphosate, thanks for teaching me something new. I feel there's a lot we can learn from each other and I appreciate your feedback.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

i don't think so, though i think mark lynas, the great environmental (& very pro-gmo) activist has made some interesting arguments as to why it might be necessary.

http://www.marklynas.org/2016/01/campbells-is-right-its-time-to-introduce-federal-mandatory-labeling/

gmo products have been shown to be safe. there's a great deal of fear-mongering, certainly, but when you drill down and look at actual studies that seem to show risk, you'll find a lot of anomaly-hunting & cherry-picking of data, but no concrete, repeated demonstration of any kind of health risk.

labeling gmos would provide people who want to do so with a means to ostracize those products, or have them banned from stores, depriving us of the benefits. there's absolutely no scientific reason for these products to be labeled. they are as safe as anything else we consume. the only reason to do so is to the political one mark lynas outlined in his essay.

i think this piece by steven novella does a good job of outlining the issues as well.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/should-there-be-mandatory-gmo-labeling/

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

You mean like babies of consensual procreation?

No, I don't think they should be labelled any further than they already are.

[–] grindovermatter (380) 7 years ago

"I also think GMO is not good for you because it means more pesticide"

GMOs have reduced the use of pesticides by at least 37%.

On top of that, GMOs are one of our biggest tools in combating global climate change, as well as hunger and malnutrition.