• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

Are GMO foods good or bad?

  • Total voters
    35
jamesrage said:
If GMO foods are so safe then you should have no problem with those foods being labeled GMO.People should have the right to know if the food they buy is GMO or not.
Click to expand...

No, people don't have a right to be informed of something that makes absolutely no difference. Since they are perfectly safe, there is no obligation to inform people about them.

You are 180 degrees away from correct. It is Government that DOES NOT have the right to force a business to label a perfectly safe product. That would only have the effect of hurting the GMO business, and the label only serves to scare ignorant people into not buying a safe product.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, people don't have a right to be informed of something that makes absolutely no difference. Since they are perfectly safe, there is no obligation to inform people about them.
Click to expand...
The people do have the right to be informed. They have a right to know whats in that food they are buying, where it came from and what nutrition it has.
You are 180 degrees away from correct. It is Government that DOES NOT have the right to force a business to label a perfectly safe product.
Click to expand...

The government does have the right.

That would only have the effect of hurting the GMO business,
Click to expand...

If GMO food is harmless then the makers should have no problems labeling their food as GMO. So what if concerned citizens choose not to buy GMO foods.

and the label only serves to scare ignorant people into not buying a safe product.
Click to expand...

Just because you belief GMO foods are harmlless doesn't make them so.
 
jamesrage said:
The people do have the right to be informed. They have a right to know whats in that food they are buying, where it came from and what nutrition it has.
Click to expand...

You have a right to be informed of things that make a difference. You don't have a right to be informed of irrelevant information to satisfy an irrational prejudice.

The government does have the right.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


If GMO food is harmless then the makers should have no problems labeling their food as GMO. So what if concerned citizens choose not to buy GMO foods.
Click to expand...

GMOs are harmless, but people are stupid and ignorant.

Just because you belief GMO foods are harmlless doesn't make them so.
Click to expand...

It's not merely my belief, it is an undeniable scientific fact.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You have a right to be informed of things that make a difference. You don't have a right to be informed of irrelevant information to satisfy an irrational prejudice.



Wrong.




GMOs are harmless, but people are stupid and ignorant.



It's not merely my belief, it is an undeniable scientific fact.
Click to expand...

Again the government does have the right to put information on your products. Consumers have the right to know about any potential product that may harm them. Just because you believe GMO foods are harmless doesn't mean they aren't. You may want to be a lab rat or Guinea pig, most people however do not.
 
jamesrage said:
Again the government does have the right to put information on your products. Consumers have the right to know about any potential product that may harm them. Just because you believe GMO foods are harmless doesn't mean they aren't. You may want to be a lab rat or Guinea pig, most people however do not.
Click to expand...

That fact that you even think that harm is a possibility proves your ignorance. GMOs are not untested, their effects are well understood. Artificial genetic modification has existed as long as agriculture; natural genetic modification has existed since the dawn of life!

The danger from GMOs only exists in the deluded, paranoid minds of hippies and conspiracy nuts.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That fact that you even think that harm is a possibility proves your ignorance. GMOs are not untested, their effects are well understood. Artificial genetic modification has existed as long as agriculture; natural genetic modification has existed since the dawn of life!

The danger from GMOs only exists in the deluded, paranoid minds of hippies and conspiracy nuts.
Click to expand...
You may want to be a lab rat. Many people do not.
 
jamesrage said:
You may want to be a lab rat. Many people do not.
Click to expand...

You demonstrate your incredible ignorance by thinking that eating GMO food is the equivalent of being a lab rat.

That is just stupidity.
 
GMO should be BANNED forever!
It's one thing making a selection and hybrids, it's another intervening in the DNA structure.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, people don't have a right to be informed of something that makes absolutely no difference.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but it is not for you to decide what makes a difference and what doesn't. :peace
I want to know what I eat.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You demonstrate your incredible ignorance by thinking that eating GMO food is the equivalent of being a lab rat.

That is just stupidity.
Click to expand...
Companies have lied about the safety of their products and studies can be biased for whoever is footing the bill of that study. What is stupidity is suggesting that people shouldn't have the right to know what exactly they are buying. The government should force these companies to label GMO foods as GMO foods.If GMO is safe as you claim they are then companies shouldn't be hiding the fact their foods are GMO period. Just because you wish to be ignorant lab rat doesn't mean other people wish to be as well.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You demonstrate your incredible ignorance by thinking that eating GMO food is the equivalent of being a lab rat.

That is just stupidity.
Click to expand...

If GMOs are as wonderful as you claim they are, why not tout it! Big red letters on a label or package stating the benefits of GMO, the added nutrition, the pesticide resistance, the NEW AND IMPROVED version of Mother Nature?
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
No, people don't have a right to be informed of something that makes absolutely no difference. Since they are perfectly safe, there is no obligation to inform people about them.

You are 180 degrees away from correct. It is Government that DOES NOT have the right to force a business to label a perfectly safe product. That would only have the effect of hurting the GMO business, and the label only serves to scare ignorant people into not buying a safe product.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of 'safe', that's the point you have skirted so continuously. It's about knowing what you are consuming.

Who are you to judge what someone else deems 'safe', or what they have the right to know about?

Ingredients used in prepared foods are listed so people know what's in it, not if it's deemed 'safe'.

Do you understand the phrase 'he doth protest too much'?
 
I actually work with GMO wheat. It isn't a particularly helpful thing in a basic grain like wheat. but it does put a genetic tag in wheat that has allowed Monsanto to shut down the private sale of seed wheat among farmers and the COOP to farmers unless the sale is pre-approved by Monsanto. (that means by the sack from Monsanto and not straight run from the elevator)

GMO seed is of little use to emerging nations- it is simply too expensive.

Where GMOs shine in the basics are corn and cotton. For cotton it is resistance to herbicides. Cotton is highly susceptible to chemicals. 2,4D a common broadleaf herbicide has a cut-off date for use so emerging cotton plants are not stunted- and the affected field can be miles from the sprayed field. GMO cotton is now 'Round-up' ready, Round-up is a popular broad spectrum herbicide.

Same with corn, big farmers save a great deal in time and money making one sprayer weed control pass for every 5 mechanical ones.

Tomatoes show the not for increased yield side on GMOs. Shelf life and blemish control are the main reasons to mess with tomatoes. The taste difference between a traditionally bred tomato and a GMO one is startling. Having the tomatoes withstand mechanical harvest was GMO'd in, but that doesn't make them cheaper for us or better tasting.

It is incorrect to compare GMO with cross breeding and selecting for a positive trait. I seriously doubt we would have 'Round-up' ready cotton by breeding. The older tradition of cross breeding is a more stable process that doesn't overwhelm the nucleus. Most of our basic crops have a stable gene pool that gets tweaked by cross breeding- the fear is a large influx of foreign genetic material will destabilize that base.

Take wheat- the natural tendency for grasses is to have the seeds(grain) mature over a long period of time so the species has a better chance of re-establishing itself under favorable conditions. Some grasses set a 'hard' seed that sits in the ground up to 5 years and only a range fire will start it to germinate. so those grasses make poor candidates for harvest, even hand harvesting by hunter gatherers. Over time they noticed some grass patches gave more seed at one time than others. It took centuries to select for that and seed size, but it was done. Now wheat seed ripens as one unit for productive mechanical harvest. Imagine a case where wheat doesn't so most of the grain isn't usable for flour? the unripe grain can also spoil the ripe kernels due to a much higher moisture content that heats and spoils the ripe seed.

I am not against GMOs across the board, but GMOs are not like cross breeding and major seed corporations use GMOs to control production through enforcing patent law down to the farm level.
 
notquiteright said:
I actually work with GMO wheat. It isn't a particularly helpful thing in a basic grain like wheat. but it does put a genetic tag in wheat that has allowed Monsanto to shut down the private sale of seed wheat among farmers and the COOP to farmers unless the sale is pre-approved by Monsanto. (that means by the sack from Monsanto and not straight run from the elevator)

GMO seed is of little use to emerging nations- it is simply too expensive.

Where GMOs shine in the basics are corn and cotton. For cotton it is resistance to herbicides. Cotton is highly susceptible to chemicals. 2,4D a common broadleaf herbicide has a cut-off date for use so emerging cotton plants are not stunted- and the affected field can be miles from the sprayed field. GMO cotton is now 'Round-up' ready, Round-up is a popular broad spectrum herbicide.

Same with corn, big farmers save a great deal in time and money making one sprayer weed control pass for every 5 mechanical ones.

Tomatoes show the not for increased yield side on GMOs. Shelf life and blemish control are the main reasons to mess with tomatoes. The taste difference between a traditionally bred tomato and a GMO one is startling. Having the tomatoes withstand mechanical harvest was GMO'd in, but that doesn't make them cheaper for us or better tasting.

It is incorrect to compare GMO with cross breeding and selecting for a positive trait. I seriously doubt we would have 'Round-up' ready cotton by breeding. The older tradition of cross breeding is a more stable process that doesn't overwhelm the nucleus. Most of our basic crops have a stable gene pool that gets tweaked by cross breeding- the fear is a large influx of foreign genetic material will destabilize that base.

Take wheat- the natural tendency for grasses is to have the seeds(grain) mature over a long period of time so the species has a better chance of re-establishing itself under favorable conditions. Some grasses set a 'hard' seed that sits in the ground up to 5 years and only a range fire will start it to germinate. so those grasses make poor candidates for harvest, even hand harvesting by hunter gatherers. Over time they noticed some grass patches gave more seed at one time than others. It took centuries to select for that and seed size, but it was done. Now wheat seed ripens as one unit for productive mechanical harvest. Imagine a case where wheat doesn't so most of the grain isn't usable for flour? the unripe grain can also spoil the ripe kernels due to a much higher moisture content that heats and spoils the ripe seed.

I am not against GMOs across the board, but GMOs are not like cross breeding and major seed corporations use GMOs to control production through enforcing patent law down to the farm level.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a sane post. :thumbs:
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, that's ludicrous. There is no reason to require labeling because there is no rational reason to prefer non-GMO food over GMO food. The only reason anybody would want to know is out of sheer ignorance.

The government should not step in an require labeling of GMOs simply to coddle ignorant paranoiacs who are suspicious of GMOs for no rational reason.
Click to expand...

A few deaths have been contributed to GMO's by way of food allergies. Consider a gene taken out of a salmon and used in a tomato to enhance some property. A consumer who has an allergy to salmon would have no reason to question a tomato yet could die due to eating cross gene tomatoes.
 
Baralis said:
A few deaths have been contributed to GMO's by way of food allergies. Consider a gene taken out of a salmon and used in a tomato to enhance some property. A consumer who has an allergy to salmon would have no reason to question a tomato yet could die due to eating cross gene tomatoes.
Click to expand...

I would like to see link for that.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, people don't have a right to be informed of something that makes absolutely no difference. Since they are perfectly safe, there is no obligation to inform people about them.

You are 180 degrees away from correct. It is Government that DOES NOT have the right to force a business to label a perfectly safe product. That would only have the effect of hurting the GMO business, and the label only serves to scare ignorant people into not buying a safe product.
Click to expand...
People like you make GMO's look bad. Just label it and move on.
 
Scientific American just released a vicious editorial (signed by their editorial board) castigating GMO labeling as fear mongering. I whole heartily agree. The scientific consensus behind the safety of GMO's is overwhelming. Efforts to label them are nothing more than attempts to stigmatize a product that the public has only a shaky understanding of in the best of times. There is a reason the biggest donors behind the labeling effort in California were from the organic food industry and organic restaurateurs.

Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea: Scientific American
Scientific American comes out in favor of GMOs, and I agree | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network
 
Sherman123 said:
Scientific American just released a vicious editorial (signed by their editorial board) castigating GMO labeling as fear mongering. I whole heartily agree.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting. Do you have a link?
 
Yeah I just edited it in, sorry for leaving it out.
 
Sherman123 said:
Scientific American just released a vicious editorial (signed by their editorial board) castigating GMO labeling as fear mongering. I whole heartily agree. The scientific consensus behind the safety of GMO's is overwhelming. Efforts to label them are nothing more than attempts to stigmatize a product that the public has only a shaky understanding of in the best of times. There is a reason the biggest donors behind the labeling effort in California were from the organic food industry and organic restaurateurs.

Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea: Scientific American
Scientific American comes out in favor of GMOs, and I agree | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network
Click to expand...

That's fine and dandy. So they too feel consumers don't need to know what their eating.

They do realize that they are actually causing some of the negative PR by being so adamant regarding GMO labeling?
 
GottaGo said:
That's fine and dandy. So they too feel consumers don't need to know what their eating.

They do realize that they are actually causing some of the negative PR by being so adamant regarding GMO labeling?
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. The stigma done by labeling is infinitely worse than campaigns to prevent them. Labeling and the campaign around it devastated the market in Europe and the goal is to have a repeat effect in the United States. Moreover you already 'dont know' what is in your food. The complexity of the agricultural supply chain virtually dictates it. After all it's not like you know the countries that all of your ingredients came from, what type of 'generic' wheat/soy/etc is being used (they all have varying degrees of "natural" genetic modification depending on the type...not that you know), and then some. If people are so concerned you can purchase explicitly labeled organic products.
 
Sherman123 said:
Completely disagree. The stigma done by labeling is infinitely worse than campaigns to prevent them. Labeling and the campaign around it devastated the market in Europe and the goal is to have a repeat effect in the United States. Moreover you already 'dont know' what is in your food. The complexity of the agricultural supply chain virtually dictates it. After all it's not like you know the countries that all of your ingredients came from, what type of 'generic' wheat/soy/etc is being used (they all have varying degrees of "natural" genetic modification depending on the type...not that you know), and then some. If people are so concerned you can purchase explicitly labeled organic products.
Click to expand...

So rather than educating the consumer, the industry prefers to leave the consumer blind. That in itself will bolster the negative rumors. I eat few prepared foods, though when I do, I read ingredient lists. Not just the known foods, but the words you can't pronounce. Too many consumers just grab and run without knowing what they are eating. Most pay attention when they have a health condition or allergy. It doesn't necessarily require 'organic', and the inflated prices that go with it. It just requires clear, concise labeling, which doesn't currently exist.

Fortunately, I grow most of my own produce.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Since this is an issue in my state right now. I would like to see what the good people of the forums think about this. Do you think GMO foods are good or bad for the human population?

Genetically modified organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

depends on what the modification is and what you consider to be good or bad, really. I don't know that life hangs in the balance because they developed a stringless string bean. The hybridization of plants like wheat, rice and corn, however, have saved a lot of lives in the third world by increasing yields and decreasing costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom