Should GMO Products Come with Warning Labels?

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Monique
I guess it should be, would the proper labeling have prevented the growth of a genetically engineered corn in the genetically divers mexican corn plants? That was very controversial.

Hi Monique... I hadn't heard about this... labeling would have helped as long as it was honest labeling. Remember the Honour System? Maybe not!

It could have read:

"This Corn has been genetically engineered under the strictest of testing, quaranteen and safety standards for no shorter than 200 years"

and not been true.

What happened in this story?

What I know about Central and South American cultures and their use of Maise isn't much... but here's one thing:

S.A. Maise does not provide a protein unless ashes from the cook fire get into the water in which the corn is being cooked.

Somewhere along the line the First Nation SouthAmericans discovered this fact and made a habit of adding ash to the boiling water and corn. Then they got a better protein diet from Maise.

Upsetting the genetic sequences of SouthAmerican Maise with (eg) the gene that regulates exoskeletal hardness in cockroaches... could easily change how the corn organism exibits proteins or the method of extracting proteins from the plant and its seed.

Popcorn anyone?

 

[Bellatrix]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
The effects of eating genetically modified organisms has not been thoroughly studied nor has this lack of study stopped production of food stuffs or animals, for that matter, via genetic intervention.

The domino effects of changing "one tiny little gene" have been known to disrupt innumerable genes down the line from the original "target" resulting in a various uncalculatable risks and unknowns.

Do you agree or disagree that all GMO products should come with a warning label on their packaging or in their descriptions?

Hi QC. I totally agree that all GMO products should come with a label, maybe not necessarily a warning label, but, just a label like all food products are required to have on their packaging. The addage You are what you eat becomes a little scarey when factoring in GMO. Problem is, there seems to be little alternative. Right now the assumption is that if it isn't specifically labelled Organic then there is some genetic modification in their production. Consumers haven't been provided with any information regarding the consequenses of eating genetically modified food. The fact that the labelling has not come about already only points to the fears of the growers and manfacturers that they wouldn't sell product if labelled Genetically Modified It becomes obvious that if the public aren't sold on the idea, they need to be convinced through studies and facts. I have a feeling that if proof is pursued, it will turn up evidence the industry doesn't want or care to know about. It would get in the way of profit.

More producers of organic or non genetically modifed foodstuffs are needed to supply the markets so that the public will at least have some choices.

Thanks for asking QC.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Bellatrix
Problem is, there seems to be little alternative. Right now the assumption is that if it isn't specifically labelled Organic then there is some genetic modification in their production.

This seems like a good enough set up. It solves a lot of the issues I brought up before about how to label GMO's. Don't label them, only label the things which are explicitly Organic, and assume everything probably has GMO's in it. It's probably true.

Consumers haven't been provided with any information regarding the consequenses of eating genetically modified food.

Thats because there is no information to provide the public with. Other than 'This vegetable stays firmer for longer, without loss of taste!' - 'This grain grew in half the time it usually takes grain to grow' - 'This fruit has twice the nutrition of the average piece of friut its size' etc...there is nothing to inform about.

The risk involved in someone eating a GMO, is about the same as a someone eating peanuts for the first time in their life. They Might have an allergic reaction, but they probably won't.

Actually, I take that back, there is probably a hundred fold larger risk of someone having an allergic reaction to peanuts, as there is someone having a problem with GMO's. GMO's are no different to normal plants, except that we have made them to suit our needs.

The fact that the labelling has not come about already only points to the fears of the growers and manfacturers that they wouldn't sell product if labelled Genetically Modified It becomes obvious that if the public aren't sold on the idea, they need to be convinced through studies and facts. I have a feeling that if proof is pursued, it will turn up evidence the industry doesn't want or care to know about. It would get in the way of profit.

It ppoints out the fears of the industry in spending billions of wasted dollars is all it does. There is no 'need' for labelling, and the only reason the public isn't sold on the idea, is because we have all be raised with this perverted concept of 'Messing with nature'. The fact that the public doesn't understand it, mixed in with the belief that nature is Good, and we aren't allowed to 'play god' makes a portion of public naturally worried, and then fear mongering by a few of those people make it a larger issue.

Outside of that, there is no need for genuine fear. All you need, is a good safe analytical approach. Something I am sure is put into every GMO.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Another God


Outside of that, there is no need for genuine fear. All you need, is a good safe analytical approach. Something I am sure is put into every GMO.

Another God, what makes you "sure"?

How have any of the companies promoting GMOs proven their responsibility to humankind? These same companies have developed a profitable dependence among their farming customers.

It is a perceived dependence on artifically produced fertilizers and proven-to-be carcinogenic herbicides and pesticides where there was never a sole dependence on these methods/substances before. In many cases across North America there are once fertile lands that have been reduced to infertile mars-scapes as a result of incomplete environmental/human health impact studies.

Why entrust these same companies today with the wide implications inherent (no pun here) with the power of genetic engineering?

The alternatives are far more appetizing, in my opinion.