Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[Hudson Jones]

What I am saying is a chart with a label GMO and non-GMO corn is meaningless because there are hundreds of varieties of GMO and non-GMO corn used for all kinds of different purposes. To be meaningful there would have to be several varieties of GMO and non-GMO corn compared along with the the intended use of each variety.

At the bottom of the chart, it specifies that the GMO corn is GMO/Roundup Ready. One of the most widely used corns.

Are you going to continue to deny that there is a huge nutritional and chemical difference between the GMO corn and non-GMO corn as shown in the study?

This is what you said:

People have an ingredient list today since there is absolutely no chemical difference between GMO and non-GMO ingredients.

Are you going to admit that you're wrong?

[TimG]

At the bottom of the chart, it specifies that the GMO corn is GMO/Roundup Ready. One of the most widely used corns.

Not enough context to evaluate. i.e. does the non-GMO variety actually compete in the same market as the GMO version? How does the GMO version compare to varieties that are realistic competitive strains. Farming is a complex business. You can't randomly pick two strains and claim they are equivalent.

Also - there could be non-GO varieties that are identical to roundup ready but were not shown. Can you show that all varieties of non-GMO corn are different from all varieties of GMO corn? That is what is required to show that my statement is wrong. I did not say that a varieties of corn were the same which is what you are assuming with your misleading chart.

Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Not enough context to evaluate. i.e. does the non-GMO variety actually compete in the same market as the GMO version? How does the GMO version compare to varieties that are realistic competitive strains.

You are looking at the market instead of looking at the product itself.

Farming is a complex business. You can't randomly pick two strains and claim they are equivalent.

Good, I do not want to hear any more of this 'there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO'. You have said it yourself that strains are different, and in Monsanto's case, different enough to patent.

[Hudson Jones]

Tim, you are in denial and you are contradicting yourself.

[Archanfel]

Which is completely different than manipulation on the gene/DNA level.

Actually, it's not. When you breed with your wife, your kids will inherit both of your traits. That's also at gene/DNA level. Nothing fancy about it.

What's different is the current technology is much faster and bring genes from different specifies. 500 hundreds years of mutation and cross breeding can happen in a single day. However, fundamentally, it's still the same thing. Remember that all species evolved from some single cell organism. Nature can do wonderous things as well, it just takes longer. It's also not safer since natural mutation are less controlled. For example, some worms can be perfectly safe to eat, but certain mutations will give them toxins over time.

In nature, natural selection determines which mutations survive. In society, free market should determine which mutations are welcomed.

[GostHacked]

Actually, it's not. When you breed with your wife, your kids will inherit both of your traits. That's also at gene/DNA level. Nothing fancy about it.

The distinct difference you are missing is the deliberate genetic manipulation of the plant's DNA. This is on the micro level in which the manipulation is taking place. Grafting plants is simply not the same. In both cases they are looking to get a better plant, but there is a huge difference between grafting and genetic manipulation.

Your analogy of two parents making a kid is .... way off. In this case it is an egg and a sperm. Now if either the egg or sperm were genetically manipulated before fertilization, or possibly after but before a certain trimester (and this is something being talked about 'gene therapy') then you have an equivalent.

What's different is the current technology is much faster and bring genes from different specifies. 500 hundreds years of mutation and cross breeding can happen in a single day. However, fundamentally, it's still the same thing. Remember that all species evolved from some single cell organism. Nature can do wonderous things as well, it just takes longer. It's also not safer since natural mutation are less controlled. For example, some worms can be perfectly safe to eat, but certain mutations will give them toxins over time.

Animals and plants develop toxins for a reason. To ward of predators. We are in a sense creating new species of plants because of genetic manipultion. And I don't think we know enough about the potential problems with GMOs. If we genetically modify a plant to not have a toxin, then that plant is at risk from predators, because the plant had evolved to make a toxin in order to survive.

What we are doing though is genetically modifying the toxin INTO the plant to fight of pests and to be resistant to the pesticide that farmers use. ..... Yummy.

Does anyone really understand the cascading effect something like that would have on the whole 'natural' food chain?

In nature, natural selection determines which mutations survive. In society, free market should determine which mutations are welcomed.

I do not want the free market in control over natural selection. Mother Nature has been doing a fantastic job so far, we really have no idea what we are getting into and the consequences of it all.

Edited May 30, 2013 by GostHacked

[segnosaur]

By the way, Tim?

How come you didn't respond to my post in regards to the difference between GMO and non-GMO corn? Is this part of the stubbornness to acknowledge the truth?

Source

Your information is complete and utter B.S.

First of all, what exactly is your "source"? It appears to be a company providing "organic" farming services. Hmmm... do you think that a company dealing with organic crop services would have a reason to lie about non-organic farming methods?

Secondly, the chart has multiple problems... For example, they give the % of organic matter at only around 1-2%. (Even the so-called natural corn is only 2.1% organic.) Umm.... the chemical definition of "organic" is pretty straight forward... (it involves carbon atoms). Unless that corn was actually carved out of rock, the percentage of organic matter should be well over 90%.

Here's a chart showing the real comparisons between GM and non-GM products.

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n5/extref/nbt0510-402-S1.pdf (Go to page 50).

Unlike your reference (that was posted on some company website that was pushing "organic' farming), the reference I posted appeared in a peer reviewed journal. (i.e. one where articles were examined for potential flaws prior to publication.)

In it, you'll see that the nutritional composition of GMO and non-GMO corn overlaps to a large degree.

[TimG]

Tim, you are in denial and you are contradicting yourself.

Not at all. The nutritional content of corn varieties is a spectrum. Cherry picking two samples out of that spectrum is a meaningless exercise because the spectrums of GMO and non-GMO varieties overlap. If you gave someone a sample of corn syrup and asked them to determine if it came from GMO or non-GMO source they would have a hard time doing that without profiling the DNA. If you pick two varieties corn (even two GMOs or two non-GMOs) then their will always be differences. The former test is was I was talking about. Edited May 30, 2013 by TimG

[segnosaur]

Not at all. The nutritional content of corn varieties is a spectrum. Cherry picking two samples out of that spectrum is a meaningless exercise because the spectrums of GMO and non-GMO varieties overlap. If you gave someone a sample of corn syrup and asked them to determine if it came from GMO or non-GMO source they would have a hard time doing that without profiling the DNA. If you pick two varieties corn (even two GMOs or two non-GMOs) then their will always be differences. The former test is was I was talking about.

As I pointed out before... the information that HJ quoted wasn't just 2 samples on different parts of the spectrum... he was pointing to a sample that wasn't anywhere on the spectrum.

The values he gave for the GMO corn had no relation to reality at all.

I suspect that he was quoting some non-scientific nonsense that's been passed around by the pro-organic crowd. (The reference he gave wasn't to a peer-reviewed paper, but to a company selling organic farming services... not exactly the most unbiased source you might find.)

[GostHacked]

TimG, on 30 May 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Not at all. The nutritional content of corn varieties is a spectrum. Cherry picking two samples out of that spectrum is a meaningless exercise because the spectrums of GMO and non-GMO varieties overlap. If you gave someone a sample of corn syrup and asked them to determine if it came from GMO or non-GMO source they would have a hard time doing that without profiling the DNA.

Your body knows the difference, even if you are not aware of it.

[quote[if you pick two varieties corn (even two GMOs or two non-GMOs) then their will always be differences. The former test is was I was talking about.

The part of that chart you are missing are the Anerobic, Chemical, Chlorides, Formaldehyde and glyphosates. GMO corn seems to have generally lower nutritional value and high chemical value.

Could be a reason we see so many new diseases and illnesses. We are not getting the nutrients that our bodies need. We are eating a lot more food, but the quality and nutritional value are far below than what it should be. So we are eating more to get the same level of nutrition our bodies need.

Here is what I suspect based on what I see out there.

GMO crops are nutritional inferior.

GMO crops have higher pesticide levels.

Organic crops are nutritionaly better and low or no chemical pesticides. They do use natural 'pesticides'.

Conventional non GMO crops are nutritionally the same, but higher in pesticide levels.

[GostHacked]

segnosaur, on 30 May 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

I suspect that he was quoting some non-scientific nonsense that's been passed around by the pro-organic crowd. (The reference he gave wasn't to a peer-reviewed paper, but to a company selling organic farming services... not exactly the most unbiased source you might find.)

But yet no bias when dealing with Monsanto and GMOs?

[TimG]

Your body knows the difference, even if you are not aware of it.

BS.

GMO crops are nutritional inferior.

GMO crops have higher pesticide levels.

Organic crops are nutritionaly better and low or no chemical pesticides. They do use natural 'pesticides'.

Conventional non GMO crops are nutritionally the same, but higher in pesticide levels.

Prove it using credible sources (i.e. scientific journals). Edited May 30, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

First of all, what exactly is your "source"? It appears to be a company providing "organic" farming services. Hmmm... do you think that a company dealing with organic crop services would have a reason to lie about non-organic farming methods?

I suspect that he was quoting some non-scientific nonsense that's been passed around by the pro-organic crowd. (The reference he gave wasn't to a peer-reviewed paper, but to a company selling organic farming services... not exactly the most unbiased source you might find.)

I'm not taking up whether MLW member Hudson Jones' comparative link has merit; however, you are incorrect in your labeling/categorization of his (apparent) source - that source markets products for both conventional/probiotic as well as organic production...

additionally, perhaps you didn't note the affiliations of the 8 authors of your linked study... all employees of Monsanto.

Affiliations - Product Safety Center, Monsanto Company, 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri, USA. - George G Harrigan, Denise Lundry, Suzanne Drury, Kristina Berman, Susan G Riordan, Margaret A Nemeth, William P Ridley & Kevin C Glenn

Competing financial interests - The authors are employees of Monsanto. Monsanto develops and sells GM crops, including those discussed in the manuscript.

[Archanfel]

The distinct difference you are missing is the deliberate genetic manipulation of the plant's DNA. This is on the micro level in which the manipulation is taking place. Grafting plants is simply not the same. In both cases they are looking to get a better plant, but there is a huge difference between grafting and genetic manipulation.

Your analogy of two parents making a kid is .... way off. In this case it is an egg and a sperm. Now if either the egg or sperm were genetically manipulated before fertilization, or possibly after but before a certain trimester (and this is something being talked about 'gene therapy') then you have an equivalent.

Animals and plants develop toxins for a reason. To ward of predators. We are in a sense creating new species of plants because of genetic manipultion. And I don't think we know enough about the potential problems with GMOs. If we genetically modify a plant to not have a toxin, then that plant is at risk from predators, because the plant had evolved to make a toxin in order to survive.

What we are doing though is genetically modifying the toxin INTO the plant to fight of pests and to be resistant to the pesticide that farmers use. ..... Yummy.

Does anyone really understand the cascading effect something like that would have on the whole 'natural' food chain?

I do not want the free market in control over natural selection. Mother Nature has been doing a fantastic job so far, we really have no idea what we are getting into and the consequences of it all.

Once you manipulate the gene through a breeding program, you are manipulating the eggs and sperms in a way since the producer of that egg was manipuated to begin with. The egg always have the same DNA as the mother (aside from mutations) and you created the mother through generic manipulation, how can you say you didn't generic manipulate the egg before fertilization. Yes, you will need maybe 20 generations to get the result you desired and it's somewhat random, so you need a big breeding pool to begin with and have to kill a lot of babies (hopefully not human babies) that didn't work. However, the end result is the same.

Does mother nature really understand the cascading effect of a mutation? No. The rule is simple,the survival of the fittest. I suspect the market understand it far better than mother nature due to expert reports.

However, the process is the same. It doesn't matter whether GMO is benefitial (which is not defined anyway), what matters is whether it survives in the market. I am all for educating consumers to make informed decisions. However, you will need to respect their decisions. For example, I like to eat Whopper. Are they healthy? Probably not. However, it's my decision what I eat, not yours or anybody else's. You can tell me why Whopper is not healthy, but you can't dictate my choice.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Archanfel

[segnosaur]

I suspect that he was quoting some non-scientific nonsense that's been passed around by the pro-organic crowd. (The reference he gave wasn't to a peer-reviewed paper, but to a company selling organic farming services... not exactly the most unbiased source you might find.)

But yet no bias when dealing with Monsanto and GMOs?

Do you even know what the term 'peer reviewed' paper actually means?

It means a scientific article which has been passed to other experts in the field for evaluation. They examine the paper for flaws, and if there are any problems with (for example) the methodology used in the experiments, the paper will get rejected. (Even if it was Montanto itself that was funding a study, those doing the reviews have nothing to do with the company.)

This is in comparison to the non-scientific article published by HJ, where his "source" was some pro-organic company, and the results have such obvious flaws (e.g. an "organic" content of ~2%? really?) that anyone with any sort of background in botany or chemistry would have said "this is B.S.".

[bush_cheney2004]

...I suspect that he was quoting some non-scientific nonsense that's been passed around by the pro-organic crowd. (The reference he gave wasn't to a peer-reviewed paper, but to a company selling organic farming services... not exactly the most unbiased source you might find.)

Good call, as the source itself takes exception to the posting and usage of such comparisons outside of the original intended context. ProfitPro LLC is an Ag consulting company based in Albert Lea, Minnesota, USA.

The study “2012 Nutritional Analysis – Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn” was an analysis of corn itself and not the soil.

The analysis was conducted by an independent, outsourced, major food company at the request of one of our growers, and the results were then provided to that grower, who, in turn, made available a copy of the analysis to ProfitPro. The food company purchased the corn from the grower at a substantial premium over market because of the quality of his non-GMO corn.

This information was intended for our customers only.

ProfitPro did not give permission for any other web site to use or publish the study.

Additional side-by-side studies will be conducted this coming year.

http://www.profitproag.com/products.htm

[GostHacked]

BS.

Your body knows the difference. Even if you do not know that arsenic is bad for you, once you ingest it, your body sure as hell knows. Same with GMOs. you may not know the difference, but your body sure as hell does.

And to your second part, I treat it like I treat Waldo in the AWG camp.

I wonder why there have not been any human testing for GMO foods.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx

Why aren’t you running human clinical trials on GM crops?

Because existing food crops are recognized as safe, the logical starting point for safety assessment of a GM food is to ask “what’s different?”

Safety assessment can then be appropriately focused on what is different about the GM crop. All GM crops are analyzed and compared to non-GM counterparts in order to determine whether they have similar concentrations of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, amino acids, fiber, vitamins and a variety of other components. Two crops which are alike in all respects are said to be “substantially equivalent.”

But different enough to patent.

When a new protein (not normally found in that plant or in other commonly consumed foods) is introduced into a plant, the safety of that protein does need to be addressed. It is standard practice to use animals to test any introduced proteins. Animal testing requires very high doses of the test substance be given. These levels are, by design, many times higher than those which people would actually consume. In GM crops and foods derived from them, introduced proteins are usually present only in minute amounts. Because the levels of protein are so low, it is impossible to test high doses by feeding crops directly to animals. Instead, a purified version of the introduced protein is used in animal studies.

If you become allergic to something that you were not allergic to before, it may be because of a gene from the item you are allergic to has been genetically modified into what you are eating. Take a peanut gene and splice that into something like tomatoes, and now you become allergic to tomatoes because of the peanut gene.

And still no testing on humans,..... well that might be wrong, we are all test subjects.

[TimG]

Your body knows the difference. Even if you do not know that arsenic is bad for you, once you ingest it, your body sure as hell knows. Same with GMOs. you may not know the difference, but your body sure as hell does.

You are reciting mantras of your anti-bio tech religion. They are not arguments. Show some evidence that the 'body knows'.

And still no testing on humans,..... well that might be wrong, we are all test subjects.

Testing on humans? This is meaningless nonsense. Human drug trials use double blind study to determine if a drug has an effect that exceeds the placebo effect. Human testing makes no sense when the expected result is 'no measurable effect'.

Feeding overdoses to animals is only way to determine if there are unexpected consequences of a new protein but those results are not reflective of the real world. That is why this statement is important:

All GM crops are analyzed and compared to non-GM counterparts in order to determine whether they have similar concentrations of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, amino acids, fiber, vitamins and a variety of other components.

If they are substantially equivalent then there is no reason to believe there is a concern. Edited May 30, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Once you manipulate the gene through a breeding program, you are manipulating the eggs and sperms in a way since the producer of that egg was manipuated to begin with.

Wrong. Cross breeding within a species is NOT genetic manipulation.

Does mother nature really understand the cascading effect of a mutation? No. The rule is simple,the survival of the fittest. I suspect the market understand it far better than mother nature due to expert reports.

Nature and genetic mutations happen all the time. Due to environmental changes that prompts them to evolve or change as a species.

However, the process is the same. It doesn't matter whether GMO is benefitial

Sure it does. If it was not beneficial in some way, it would not be pushed out like it is.

(which is not defined anyway), what matters is whether it survives in the market.

So money is a driving factor here when you bring markets into the equation.

I am all for educating consumers to make informed decisions. However, you will need to respect their decisions. For example, I like to eat Whopper. Are they healthy? Probably not. However, it's my decision what I eat, not yours or anybody else's. You can tell me why Whopper is not healthy, but you can't dictate my choice.

I have no problem with you eating GMO foods if you want to. I simply want a label that says that a product or what ingredients are GMO. You nor I can have that choice if neither of us do not know the difference.

BK is not good for you as is with most fast food which is heavily processed. And we are told to stay away from processed foods that contain High fat, high caloric and high salt intake and low nutritional value.

I am all for choices, when we have clearly labels products tat inform us of the difference. If you chose to eat BK all day every day, that is your choice. But in the end, your body knows the real deal.

[waldo]

Do you even know what the term 'peer reviewed' paper actually means?

It means a scientific article which has been passed to other experts in the field for evaluation. They examine the paper for flaws, and if there are any problems with (for example) the methodology used in the experiments, the paper will get rejected. (Even if it was Montanto itself that was funding a study, those doing the reviews have nothing to do with the company.)

This is in comparison to the non-scientific article published by HJ, where his "source" was some pro-organic company, and the results have such obvious flaws (e.g. an "organic" content of ~2%? really?) that anyone with any sort of background in botany or chemistry would have said "this is B.S.".

yours is quite a 'purist' definition of peer-reviewed. In any case, again, as I stated, your labeling of that source is incorrect... again, it markets/sells products for both conventional/probiotic and organic production.

again, I am not taking up the validity of the study reference posted by MLW member 'Hudson Jones'. You also could have/should have identified your actual source that steered you to the Nature study as well as provided you with a few of your 'sound-bites'... the 'Monsanto Blog' - here:

Edited May 30, 2013 by waldo

[Archanfel]

Once you manipulate the gene through a breeding program, you are manipulating the eggs and sperms in a way since the producer of that egg was manipuated to begin with.

Wrong. Cross breeding within a species is NOT genetic manipulation.

Does mother nature really understand the cascading effect of a mutation? No. The rule is simple,the survival of the fittest. I suspect the market understand it far better than mother nature due to expert reports.

Nature and genetic mutations happen all the time. Due to environmental changes that prompts them to evolve or change as a species.

However, the process is the same. It doesn't matter whether GMO is benefitial

Sure it does. If it was not beneficial in some way, it would not be pushed out like it is.

(which is not defined anyway), what matters is whether it survives in the market.

So money is a driving factor here when you bring markets into the equation.

I am all for educating consumers to make informed decisions. However, you will need to respect their decisions. For example, I like to eat Whopper. Are they healthy? Probably not. However, it's my decision what I eat, not yours or anybody else's. You can tell me why Whopper is not healthy, but you can't dictate my choice.

I have no problem with you eating GMO foods if you want to. I simply want a label that says that a product or what ingredients are GMO. You nor I can have that choice if neither of us do not know the difference.

BK is not good for you as is with most fast food which is heavily processed. And we are told to stay away from processed foods that contain High fat, high caloric and high salt intake and low nutritional value.

I am all for choices, when we have clearly labels products tat inform us of the difference. If you chose to eat BK all day every day, that is your choice. But in the end, your body knows the real deal.

Ah, I was going to ask you how you broke my quotes into pieces, looks like you haven't perfected the technique either.

Yes, my body knows and I know too. However, I choose not to care too much. Life is short, I do what I want, not what's best. There's also no evidence that natural foods are necessarily better. The best way to eat is to take pure nutritional pills for everything, but who would do that? According to my doctor, I am perfectly healthy.

I am not sure why you want GMO labeled. All so called organic ones are proudly labeled, therefore, if you see an unlabelled one, you know it's GMO. Other than increasing the cost of GMO, what are you trying to achieve?

It would be fairly stupid to label the detailed nutritional values too. First of all, it's near impossible. Secondly, they are useless. Thirdly, the vast majority of the people don't understand them anyway. Do you read the labels on your bread? I don't. I buy whichever is on sale that day. If you want it labeled, it should be a simple label saying it's GMO, maybe with a unique product ID. The experts can publish papers on the detail benefits/harm these products have. Do we want all fruits to be labeled with detailed nutritional values and/or grafting history?

I am not against labeling as long as it's does not increase the cost significantly. Really, if people care, the market would have caused them to be labelled already since nobody would buy unlabelled food. The reality is people don't care enough.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Archanfel

[GostHacked]

TimG, on 30 May 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

You are reciting mantras of your anti-bio tech religion. They are not arguments. Show some evidence that the 'body knows'.

Save your religion mantra for someone else.

Scenario : we have two items that look exactly the same and taste exactly the same.

Item A - has high nutritional value and low fat.

Item B - has high fat and no nutyritional value.

Both items look the same and taste the same, but how they get processed in the body is quite different and the body sure knows what it needs and what it does not need. One will make you fat and the other will make you healthy.

Remember when Olestra was said to be good for the body because it replaced a certain fat in some products? You may not know the difference, but your body does, Olestra was pulled ... due to .. anal leakage.

Testing on humans? This is meaningless nonsense. Human drug trials use double blind study to determine if a drug has an effect that exceeds the placebo effect. Human testing makes no sense when the expected result is 'no measurable effect'.

Feeding overdoses to animals is only way to determine if there are unexpected consequences of a new protein but those results are not reflective of the real world. That is why this statement is important:

If they are substantially equivalent then there is no reason to believe there is a concern.

If a GMO is not different from non-gmo, then tell me what is so different about the plant that they need to patent it?

And what enabled them to be able to patent a life form?

I do suggest taking a look at the article I posted from 2004 regarding how the agricultural industry handles seeds then and now. We used to have a public seed bank where seeds were traded and intellectual property rights did not exist. Now through many changes in the laws to back up these biotech entities has sidelined the traditional way of how seeds were distributed by and for farmers. Now you have fewer choices and the seeds come from only a select few companies compared to the large number of farmers who used to do this themselves. Now instead of freely selling and trading seeds, they have to obtain a license just to use a Monsanto product. All this does is help a company like Monanto and does not provide any benefit for next years crop because now they need to buy seed every year from that company. No longer can they even save seeds from this years crop to plant next year. Monsanto will sue your ass for doing what farmers have been doing for centuries, and that is saving seeds for next years planting.

Aside from the potential health risks, farmers no longer have the ability to control their own farms like they used to.

Even organics contain GMO or some type of pesticide unless the stuff was grown on land never touched by pesticides, which in this day and age is almost impossible.

[GostHacked]

Archanfel, on 30 May 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

Ah, I was going to ask you how you broke my quotes into pieces, looks like you haven't perfected the technique either.

Quote system is problematic indeed.

I am not sure why you want GMO labeled. All so called organic ones are proudly labeled, therefore, if you see an unlabelled one, you know it's GMO. Other than increasing the cost of GMO, what are you trying to achieve?

As stated there are 3 potential categories, and I agree with them.

GMO

NON-GMO

Organic.

It would be fairly stupid to label the detailed nutritional values too.

It's also stupid to have a nutritional label with everything at a 0%. I love it when I am handed a bottle of water and several ingredients are listed as well as saying 'not a significant source of vitamins/minerals', while listing other items and showing 0%.

First of all, it's near impossible. Secondly, they are useless. Thirdly, the vast majority of the people don't understand them anyway.

How can anyone understand them when they are not properly labeled? Deliberate obfuscation is why people are confused.

Do you read the labels on your bread? [/quite]

Yes, and it still does not tell me what I want to know.

I don't. I buy whichever is on sale that day. If you want it labeled, it should be a simple label saying it's GMO, maybe with a unique product ID. The experts can publish papers on the detail benefits/harm these products have. Do we want all fruits to be labeled with detailed nutritional values and/or grafting history?

Being informed is not a bad thing.

I am not against labeling as long as it's does not increase the cost significantly. Really, if people care, the market would have caused them to be labelled already since nobody would buy unlabelled food. The reality is people don't care enough.

The cost bit is nothing more than a scare tactic. And the only reason that organic stuff is so expensive is that there are more guidelines in order to be certified as organic. Organic farms are also smaller and do not have the yield of larger industrialized corporate farms which deal with volume to be cost effective. Organic farmers are also NOT subsidized like the rest of the agricultural industry, no government backing. Why?

The majority of us agree here that labeling of some kind is warranted and in most cases, welcomed.

[TimG]

Both items look the same and taste the same, but how they get processed in the body is quite different and the body sure knows what it needs and what it does not need. One will make you fat and the other will make you healthy.

I asked you for evidence that there is an measurable difference between GMOs and not GMO. Hypothetical assertions are not evidence.

a GMO is not different from non-gmo, then tell me what is so different about the plant that they need to patent it? And what enabled them to be able to patent a life form?

What is the difference between roma and beesteak tomatos? Both are hybrids with different characteristics. You can measure the difference but from a human nutrition point of view they are equivalent. If one of those hybrids was developed by a company then they are entitled to patent on that hybrid.

The same thing is true of GMOs. Each strain has unique characteristics which make it useful but the part that humans eat is equivalent to non-GMO varieties.

Edited May 30, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

I asked you for evidence that there is an measurable difference between GMOs and not GMO. Hypothetical assertions are not evidence.

Never claimed by hypothetical as evidence.

What is the difference between roma and beesteak tomatos? Both are hybrids with different characteristics. You can measure the difference but from a human nutrition point of view they are equivalent. If one of those hybrids was developed by a company then they are entitled to patent on that hybrid.

Hybrids through grafting is not the same as genetic manipulation on the DNA level. And no I do not agree with companies having the ability to patent a life form. As far off as it may seem, if we genetically modify humans, that can be patented as well. Future humans could be the property of a company.

People need to really think about all the implications of how GMOs came about and how companies like Monsanto want complete control over the food industry.