Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: FDA won't allow food to be labeled GMO free page 2

  1. #11
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    8,168
    Major thing for me is that we don't know what modifying in a laboratory will do down the line. Anytime a study shows (for eg.) that rats grow tumors from the stuff, the purveyors of GMOs say it's just one study.

    I understand selective breeding won't always result in wholesome. When I was a child, I ate store bought tomatoes like apples. They were juicy, messy flavor bombs. Selected through the years to withstand shipping long distances, they are pulpy, almost tasteless shadows of their former selves. Still, nobody messed with the structure of the DNA.

  2. #12
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by JoanieL View Post
    Still, nobody messed with the structure of the DNA.
    Do the changes breed true? If yes, isn't that a sign that the DNA structure has been messed with? Maybe not in a lab, maybe not directly, but they are still changed.

    Consider the implications of this: Wired 12.11: The Mystery of the Coca Plant That Wouldn't Die

  3. #13
    Lizzielou's Avatar
    Lizzielou is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Brunei
    Posts
    655
    Similar situation with a NZ company called Eco Store who make natural plant based skin care and cleaning products. Normally their packaging in NZ has a list of things that they don't contain like parabens, dimethicone, petrochemicals etc. When they were applying to sell their products in the US they were told that they couldn't use this label because it was 'confusing' etc.

  4. #14
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Lizzielou View Post
    Similar situation with a NZ company called Eco Store who make natural plant based skin care and cleaning products. Normally their packaging in NZ has a list of things that they don't contain like parabens, dimethicone, petrochemicals etc. When they were applying to sell their products in the US they were told that they couldn't use this label because it was 'confusing' etc.
    "confusing"....AKA educational. People may actually see these words and decide to do a little reading ....then, gasp! They may actually decide finding and purchasing items without them could be beneficial to their health. My God, we wouldn't want people actually becoming informed! How on Earth will we control them then?

  5. #15
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,545
    @ Him there is a big difference between selective breading which occurs over generations and GMO where the DNA is modified in the lab by either adding extra chromosomes or removing them. Probably the worste example is corn which was modified with insecticidal inserted into the DNA. The insects are selectively breading and the new generation are imune to the insecticide and devastating crops.

    Insecticides Modified in GM Corn Polluting U.S. Waters
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  6. #16
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    What is that difference? It isn't obvious. They are two methods which can accomplish similar results. Said another way: given that insecticidal traits develop naturally in plants, it is 100% possible that corn with insecticidal traits can be selectively bred. We have made stranger changes to domesticated organisms through selective breeding. Since we can reach the same result using either method, and especially given that when handed a modified plant sample experts cannot conclusively say whether the change was made through selective breeding or another DNA modification method, it isn't clear why you single out one technique. It's just another way to do what humans have been doing since the dawn of agriculture.

    You can point out a few examples of feral "GMO" organisms but we've got 10,000 years of feral GMO plants and animals, from feral pigs to grains gone wild. Labeling "GMO" food isn't going to stop that from happening.

    Also... Technically, the insects aren't selectively breeding (in the sense meant when humans modify other organisms). Resistance to common toxins is survival positive. Those insects which can survive the common toxins known as pesticides are more likely to live long enough to reproduce. This is akin to what happened with a significant strain of humans with lactase persistence, which (judging by how pervasive it is - up to 95% in some populations) is apparently extremely survival positive. This phenomenon does not require or involve selective breeding per se.

  7. #17
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,545
    Huge difference and if you want to try and split hairs you can. GMO refers to that, stuff that has been manipulated and artificially had genes injected or removed in a test tube, wheat even though it has been eradicated, etc is not considered GMO.

    You may want to argue it is safe, makes no difference but that does not change the definition of what makes a GMO product.

    As to safety a slowly evolved crop will adapt and change to its environment, it may have short term failings but the stronger plants will survive. Breading insecticide into a plant is not healthy....but on the other hand grains don't really want to be eaten which is one of the reasons they are so unhealthy.

    Bad working the selective bad wording...more survival of the fittest.
    Last edited by Dirlot; 11-20-2012 at 08:58 PM.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  8. #18
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    8,168
    Him, I guess I go back to how my (maybe simplistic) mind works. Selective breeding isn't always perfect when we intentionally do it to "improve" something. But since it takes place over time, both the producer and the consumer of the product have time to stop the process before the product is no longer recognizeable or before they've "improved" it to the point of uselessness.

    Some things we've "improved" to crap:

    -Something like 25% of dogs bred for show are so inbred, they have chronic deformities or weaknesses.
    -Most store bought tomatoes are pretty lame.
    -The turkeys many of us will eat on Thursday have been bred for white meat to the point they can barely walk, and most of them are sterile.

    Still, the dogs are dogs, and continued inbreeding in a line or breed will eventually result in dogs unfit for show or perhaps even many still births. I'm not sure how far the tomato growers will go, but I rarely buy those pink little domestic blobs anymore. Turkeys? Not anymore for me, and the same logic re: dogs bred for show, applies.

    So your point about selective breeding, particularly when it's not "selected" by the organism itself is well taken. And until about six months ago, I would have agreed with you totally that GMO is just a label to some sped up form of natural selection.

    But GMOs are not being done to the preservation of anything except profit. We had some kind of blight here in the US in I think the 70s where our wheat crop was pretty devastated and had to be bailed out by some other country's wheat (you might google that since my brain is fuzzy on specifics). We are growing one type of corn. Mexico grows over 20 types of corn. Want to guess what happens if/when our one corn gets hit with something Roundup doesn't kill? In fact, this type of genetic modification leaves us vulnerable imo.

    And when all is said and done, it hasn't been proven that this type of modification won't hurt us. The drug companies are almost as powerful as agribusiness, but we make them go through rigorous trials before we put a new drug on the market. Even when potential users of that drug are so desperate that they'd volunteer to take it experimentally. Yet we don't demand a shred of proof that these instant GMOs aren't harmful.

    I read somewhere that some other countries want to see what GMOs do to American children over the next ten years before they allow them into their food supply. And I guess that's where I stand. So, I will err on the conservative side in this. Let others risk their health eating GMOs.

    Also there is no doubt in my mind that if a company is sure that its product is wholesome, they'd want that product listed on the label. And they wouldn't spend billions of dollars to prevent other companies from stating that their products are (in this case) GMO-free.

    It's BGH all over again. So, really, google GMO and see the differences and potential problems. I did and it convinced me that I want to stay away from these products and the animals that eat them.

    Sorry if I rambled.

    *edited for wording*
    Last edited by JoanieL; 11-21-2012 at 03:51 AM.

  9. #19
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    To me it comes back to three points:

    1) If experts, handed a sample of a clearly changed organism, cannot determine whether that change was accomplished through laboratory DNA modification or through selective breeding, requiring labels for one but not the other makes no sense and is likely to mislead consumers.

    2) If the problem isn't actually the laboratory nature of the changes, but the change itself, labeling laboratory-made changes is actively misleading. It gives people a scapegoat ("GMO") without addressing the real problem - tinkering with organisms for our own benefit.

    3) If the problem isn't change, or laboratory change, but your dislike of business practices, and GMO labeling is just a way to strike back at corporate agribusiness, you really need to look at your choice of target. There is nothing inherently corporate agribusiness about GMO. Universities, non-profits, and individuals all have access to those techniques. It isn't common today because it is new, but eventually it will be no more "corporate" than yeast. See groups like: Genspace

    Personally, I'm skeptical about human-induced change/control. Humans consistently overestimate their ability to control other organisms (everything, really). However, I also think there is a first-world problem issue with this discussion. As wealthy (by world standards) 1st worlders we have the luxury of worrying about how a plant was modified. For people dying of malnutrition, people beset by drought and crop blights, the fact is that they need the food and the "maybe" risks you can cite for "GMO" really don't compare to the "happening right-the-bleep-now" risks they are dying from every day. Legitimizing "maybe" fears will result in more deaths from the "certainly" problems people face today.

    If you accept that humans can/should change our domesticated plants and animals to deal with changing threats/needs (new insect/fungus traits, climate change, improved understanding of nutrition, etc.) then faster methods are better for mankind. Rather than having to wait 10 years for a blight-resistant strain to develop, while people are dying or suffering the effects of malnutrition, you can make the same change in a year and save lives. A win for mankind.

    I know I'm bucking conventional wisdom but that's my take.
    Last edited by Him; 11-21-2012 at 05:09 AM.

  10. #20
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    8,168
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    1) If experts, handed a sample of a clearly changed organism, cannot determine whether that change was accomplished through laboratory DNA modification or through selective breeding, requiring labels for one but not the other makes no sense and is likely to mislead consumers.
    I agree with that, but that wasn't the impression I got when I read about GMOs and how they are created.

    I also think that with any modification comes "side effects" that we don't know about until many years later. DDT might be an example. We killed the bugs.... and anything that ate them.

    Bucking conventional wisdom is good!, and the whole primal approach does that. Fat is good vs fat is bad. Don't eat grains vs six servings per day. Spurts of heavy exercise vs chronic cardio and endless reps.

    I'd like to see GMOs labelled, but if with that, foods that are not in their original or heritage form need to be labelled also, then ok.

    Warning this tomato tastes like shit. It's DNA has not been altered in a lab, however, the nutrition has gone down 45% from its ancestors' because we've bred it to hold up to trucking it 2000 miles to grocer.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •