Labelling GMOs: It's up to us

Thats the Ticket :)

Easier said than done for urban areas.

Very true. I have had my experience with porch tomatoes that cost me more than they would have at the store, but it was still worth it. Even urban people can do container gardening and have rain cisterns. My brother lives in DC and they have a garden plot on the roof of the apt building.

CalgarC that looks like a winning recipe. I will try that the next time I'm craving Icecream.

:D the things we do to avoid corn syrup hahaha

Or Dairy The Wife is lactose intolerant big time.

tell me how it turns out :D i have another bowl in the freezer haha

Just be ready, because that two year program the USDA is starting that will allow Monsanto to foist more of this biological pollution out into the environment without environmental testing will commence I predict just when they introduce GM wheat. I just read the other day they are looking to do this again even against the protestations of farmers globally. If they do, it will be the end of natural seeds and the defilement of the heart of agriculture

Well that is certainly frightening news, seems the noose gets tightened with each passing year this product is allowed to go unlabeled. Most of the surveys show at least 50% of consumers would not purchase gmo products, while an even larger number would like them labeled, most of the numbers I see are around 80% + or -. The longer the consumers can be kept in the dark regarding what is gmo, the better chance the producers and pushers have to add more to the market. I see that. One thing I wanted to mention about my list above, isn't it pathetic, even vitamins are gmo products. Goodness? I confess, I have not been shopping for my vitamins with that in mind. Now another hurdle to bear.

No one said ALL GMOs are safe.

That's like saying all 100% natural organic plants are safe, when I certainly would not want a salad made with hemlock.

THe point is to get past the black and white all or nothing absolutist fear-based mentality and deal with specifics.

In general, I think labeling is a good idea- but if it is used to prop up baseless fear mongering, it can cause far more harm than good.

Imagine every single product that contains cinnamon had to be labeled with a nice big red label "WARNING: CONTAINS CINNAMON!"

It would not take long for people to stop buying those products, and they would have no idea why. It is not that there has been proven that there is anything wrong with cinnamon, or that there is a global conspiracy to put cinnamon in all our food.

It is just that if you make people afraid of something for no reason, they will react with fear.

I want the right to know what I am purchasing and who I am promoting and supporting when I make that purchase!!! simple as that. To me GMOs in general is something I do not want to support so all I am saying is give me the information I want to know before I give you my money. Doesn't have to say Warning on it but I want to know what I am buying. As far as deciding whether it is something I want to buy or not that decision is up to me.... but how can I make that decision if you are not being transparent about it?

Oh, it's necesary alright. And it would seem to me that some need to learn the difference between the genetic modification we have now and traditional cross breeding which is entirely different. Calling traditional breeding genetic modification to lump all of this together as if it is the same is disingenuous, misleading and erroneous.

Jan, one of the problems in having a conversation with you is that when you don't understand what someone says, you don't bother asking for clarification.

Heck, you don't bother addressing points on posts that are made- instead, you go somewhere else and spout strawmen behind their backs.

That tells me that deep down, you know you are wrong, so you don't want to actually deal with the issues directly.

My point when comparing cross-breeding with genetic modification is:

1.) cross-breeding IS a method of manipulating DNA, and has been done since the dawn of agriculture. To claim our foods now are "natural" or "the way God intended" is false.

2.) cross-breeding can produce results far more random and uncontrolled than gene modification, which is highly specific.

And Jan, this statement from you:

"... to lump all of this together as if it is the same is disingenuous, misleading and erroneous."

Is the ultimate in irony, since that is my whole point.

You lump the entire scientific discipline of genetic engineering together as if it is all the same, and that is disingenuous, misleading and erroneous.

In reality, it's all about what is SPECIFICALLY DONE with genetic engineering.

Cross-breeding is still a process that happens by cells combining and resulting in a product that was formed by the natural laws of nature.....( meaning that you didn't physically splice a gene in a laboratory and manipulate DNA material without really knowing what is going on in the sub-atomic level and having no ideal of what those combinations will mean to the food chain and what the effects are on humans when consumed)

There is a lot of problems associated with GMO's and your arguments here are designed to ridicule people that really have no scientific knowledge. Well I really am not a scientist but I do know that your simplistic "scientific proof" do not serve the betterment of man.... but should the GMO industry convince our easily bought politicians to see it your way then for sure some corporations will eventually control every morsel of food produced on this earth.... It's a clear agenda and I for one want the right to know what side I am on when I buy an apple.

You say:
"Cross-breeding is still a process that happens by cells combining and resulting in a product that was formed by the natural laws of nature."

First- the word "natural" has no meaning.
People give it whatever meaning they want.

You are claiming that cross-breeding, which is done by the hand of humans to produce strains selected by humans, altered to fit human needs is "natural" because it involved pollen and pistils, yet it's not natural if the pollen is modified according to the laws of the genetic code.

That is a diference that is no diference.

Both ways it's humans changing what is natural to meet our needs. It is just that now, we have methods that can accomplish the same task faster and more efficiently.

Could genetic engineers re-create the plant from "Little Shop of Horrors" and destroy all life on earth? I don't know, maybe- and that would be a bad thing.

That SPECIFIC thing would be a bad thing.

Having a window box that can grow all of the plants that an individual would need to live on with very little maintenance would be a good thing.

You say:
"manipulate DNA material without really knowing what is going on in the sub-atomic level"

Sub-atomic level?
You think genetic engineering makes changes on the sub-atomic level?
So, you have never had a science class then.
And this goes to my point- fearmongering feeds on ignorance.
You don't understand squat about the topic, so you are afraid of it.

And because YOU don't understand it, you falsely project that NO ONE knows anything about it- not even the genetic engineers!

You say:
"There is a lot of problems associated with GMO's ..."

I have said this over and over, so I have no idea why you are not getting this- your statement is false. There is a lot of problems associated with SPECIFIC GMOs.

Do you have a dog?
Some dogs kill people.
Does that mean all dogs kill people?

You are committing an OBVIOUS a fallacy of reasoning.

you say:
"...and your arguments here are designed to ridicule people that really have no scientific knowledge. "

No, my statements are designed to ridicule people that really have no scientific knowledge who jump to conclusions about things they don't understand, when intelligent people simply say "this is something I don't understand".

you say:
"industry ... politicians ... my way"

MY WAY?
If politicians saw it MY WAY Monsanto would be shut down.
You statement shows you have not even been reading my comments before you start attacking me.

Over and over, the same thing- you confuse science with corporations.

TO use Jan's own words:

"... to lump all of this together as if it is the same is disingenuous, misleading and erroneous."

So I don't have the right to know if my food is a GMO because you say so?

"Seems a little fear monger-y to me, since any health risks are only alleged/speculated and yet unconfirmed."

There are tons of studies already and GMO crap is NOT safe.
Many studies are already showing health problems, genetic problems and that's just on people.....then you have the environmental and plant species problems.

You say:
"So I don't have the right to know if my food is a GMO because you say so?"

I am truly shocked at your lack of reading comprehension.

Then why do you keep responding to her? Because she gets to you? It's because of Jan that more people here even know this is happening. And I want to know what's in my food too damn it. Too bad if that bothers you. Go eat it but don't try pushing it down my throat.

You say:
"Then why do you keep responding to her? Because she gets to you?"

Are you aware that this is a discussion website?

You say:
"It's because of Jan that more people here even know this is happening."

And while spreading that information, she is also spreading an ideology that is, in her own words, "disingenuous, misleading and erroneous."

Are you saying that no one should ever correct Jan?

You say:
" And I want to know what's in my food too damn it. Too bad if that bothers you. Go eat it but don't try pushing it down my throat."

More lack of reading comprehension.
Rather than deal with an issue, you would rather demonize the messenger.

You say:
"There are tons of studies already and GMO crap is NOT safe. "

FALSE.

There are tons of studies that show SPECIFIC GMO crops are not safe- and those are crops that used genetic engineering to introduce toxins (herbicides and pesticides) into the plants.

In other words, they put poison in our food.

It's not good to put poison in our food, and the method used to put poison in our food is irrelevant. If they started soaking apples in arsenic that would be a bad thing- but "soaking" is not the problem, the arsenic is.

The problem here is falsely blaming the entire scientific discipline of genetic engineering for the actions of a few corporations.

I have a way of cutting through the crap...... I know some people get frustrated by it and that's just fine by me.

That was not cutting through the crap- that was tossing it.

You could not deal with what I was actually saying, so you chose to demonize me- and doing so in a way that I already addressed.

That shows you either did not understand anything I wrote, or you did not even bother reading it.

That was not cutting through the crap- that was tossing it.

You could not deal with what I was actually saying, so you chose to demonize me- and doing so in a way that I already addressed.

That shows you either did not understand anything I wrote, or you did not even bother reading it.

we need big ass labels, bigger then the ones on cigarette boxes and justin bieber cd's... people are not going to search for a little badge hidden in the back of the box. this needs to be clear and understandable

Can you to justify the statement "Oh, it's necesary alright." please?

While I am open to new information, the studies that *I* have seen were small, didn't have a large scope of testing or a large testing base, were funded by anti GMO entities, and are therefor unreliable and, in my opinion, a little questionable. Though, you are more than welcome to bring some links to try to change my mind. ^_^

Haha, ok, someone disagrees with me. Wanna explain why you anonymously downed me instead of posting any of your own opposing material that I offered to consider?

Oh, yeah, I'd agree with that. Don't want to let anyone get away with a little miniscule piece of text. But I still don't see the need for that giant "WARNING".

I saw that (portion of the show), too. And was happy to see it on National TV.

It's about time.