Cheerios To Go GMO-Free 419
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "ABC News reports that General Mills has ended the use of genetically modified ingredients in Cheerios, its flagship breakfast food. General Mills has been manufacturing its original-flavor Cheerios without GMOs for the past several weeks in response to consumer demand. Original Cheerios will now be labeled as 'Not Made With Genetically Modified Ingredients,' although that it is not an official certification. 'We were able to do this with original Cheerios because the main ingredients are oats,' says Mike Siemienas, noting that there are no genetically modified oats. The company is primarily switching the cornstarch and sugar to make the original Cheerios free of GMOs. Green America has been targeting Cheerios for the past year to raise the profile of the anti-GMO movement. 'This is a big deal,' says Green America's Todd Larsen. 'Cheerios is an iconic brand and one of the leading breakfast cereals in the U.S. We don't know of any other example of such a major brand of packaged food, eaten by so many Americans, going from being GMO to non-GMO.' For its part, General Mills says, It's not about safety,' and will continue to use GMOs in other food products."
GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:3, Insightful)
Genetically modified food feeds over a billion people who would not otherwise be able to eat given the arable land available. The "organic" craze is for marketing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5amLAMRQk5I
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a commonly quoted number. See Green Revolution. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
True, the so called "Green Revolution" is not principally due to Genetically Modified Organisms, at least not in the sense those words are used today. (The above referenced wiki article on this subject is about as biased as anything I've ever seen on wiki, bordering on the vitriol normally seen regarding political campaign.)
However, there is no doubt that prior methods of gene selection (breeding) resulted in massive increase in grain crop yields, with Rice crops developed in the US saving many different countries in South East Asia from huge famines. Resistance to pests was accomplished by selective breeding long before gene splicing was invented. But there is no doubt that these grains were genetically modified.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Interesting)
Selecting something is not modifying it. Genetic modification (in today's context) is about producing individual specimens with modified or new genes, not just differently mixed genes of its parents. Trying to muddle this is dishonest.
Actual genetic modification is going to be the biggest revolution in human history, possibly biggest revolution in the history of life on this planet if we don't destroy our civilization before it becomes as ubiquitous as cell phones are today. Saying it's just extension of what we've been doing for millenia is like saying updating globally accessible Wikipedia article with mobile device on-location and real time is just extension of prehistoric people drawing stuff in sand with a stick. Sure, it is, if you select your viewpoint carefully.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
If you actually study the green revolution and agriculture, it is indeed an accurate figure.
The only difference between modern GMO food and previous versions, is that radiation mutation was used to create the variants. Now, with targeted gene sequencing and replacing there is no need to use messy, time consuming and partially random radiation mutation methods.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think many people would have much less of a problem with GMO foods in general if Monsanto's business practices weren't so oppressively evil
While I am not a fan of finding myself defending some big multinational, here's the problem with that thought: it didn't start with Monsanto. The fear mongering surrounding GE crops started with the Flavr Savr tomato, developed by a small company called Calgene. Then Monsanto come along and people say 'GMO foods are bad because of Monsanto.' Well, that is clearly ignorant of the history of the matter, and furthermore, a lot of the 'evil' things Monsanto does, like suing farmers for being cross pollinated
Sense of scale (Score:4, Interesting)
You have to keep sense of scale in mind here. Consider that in the year 1000 there was an estimated 310M humans on the whole planet. The USA alone exceeds that today. It only hit 3B in the '60s, and is up to 7B today.
As such, in order to gain credit for 1B people, GMO only needs to be about a 14% productivity boost over all the other methods you mention in order to be able to be credited with 'saving' 1B from starvation. If you consider that starvation need not be fatal, the necessary boost to simply keep people from 'experiencing starvation'*, due to uneven productivity and such is much less.
*Say, a period of 30 days or more without sufficient nutrution = 'experiencing starvation'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Radiation mutation in agriculture is a myth, it was the favorite whipping boy of the same people who cry about current GMO gene splicing technologies.
The actual truth is that the major advances in the Green revolution was by good old fashion selective cross breeding by (mostly american) scientists to increase wheat, rice and corn production, and developed new strains that changed India from the famine capital or the world to a large net food exporter.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:4, Informative)
Nope, this is a lobbying message subsidized by Monsanto and co, it is actually very possible to feed everyone with the food we create and the land we have. More importantly, it hides the fact that GMOs are not at all used to feed the aforementioned starving peoples. Quite contrarily, GMO seeds have been repeatedly used for market domination through legislative bullying, most infamously ending in the suicide of farmers in india due to non-affordable seed prices after Monsanto cleared the market from other companies by undercutting and legal bullying before rising the cost.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, this is a lobbying message subsidized by Monsanto and co, it is actually very possible to feed everyone with the food we create and the land we have. More importantly, it hides the fact that GMOs are not at all used to feed the aforementioned starving peoples. Quite contrarily, GMO seeds have been repeatedly used for market domination through legislative bullying, most infamously ending in the suicide of farmers in india due to non-affordable seed prices after Monsanto cleared the market from other companies by undercutting and legal bullying before rising the cost.
In other news today, 1/3 of the world is now Obese.
We don't need no stinkin' GMO food, it's all about making seed banks all bound to Intellectual Property and making money for Monsanto, et al. Call a horse a horse.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
There's reasonable evidence that the prevalence of obesity is related to the liberal use of high-fructose corn syrup on prepared foods. And a part of the reason for that use of corn is GM corn. More of the reason, of course, is government subsidies, Of course the government subsidies are totally unrelated to lobbying from Monsanto, the vendor of the GM corn seeds. And the only legal vendor of those seeds.
Yeah, I'd have a lot less problem with GM foods, if they weren't leading to monopolization of the food provision chain by one or a very few companies.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I'd have a lot less problem with GM foods, if they weren't leading to monopolization of the food provision chain by one or a very few companies.
Then you should advocate for less restrictions of GE crops. Many in academia would love to be able to release new GE lines of crops, but cannot because the high regulatory burden favors large companies like Monsanto. Ironically, people who are ideologically opposed to GE crops and demand greater regulation are shielding Monsanto from competition.
FUD... (Score:5, Informative)
Quite contrarily, GMO seeds have been repeatedly used for market domination through legislative bullying, most infamously ending in the suicide of farmers in india due to non-affordable seed prices after Monsanto cleared the market from other companies by undercutting and legal bullying before rising the cost.
I have been following farmer suicides in India for a long time. The reasons are complex. They include crop failure at an inopportune time, non-seasonal and extended droughts, and inability to pay debts from unscrupulous moneylenders and so on. Monsanto or its pricey or unaffordable seeds directly causing a farmer to suicide - you might be able to find one or two examples, but that's not the norm.
Monsanto is famous (or infamous) in India for their GMO Bt Cotton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bt_cotton [wikipedia.org]. But Bt Cotton is only cultivated in the state of Maharashtra...suicides happen in many other states too. And given the options for cotton seeds, BT Cotton may not be that bad an idea.
I agree Monsanto is borderline evil and creepy. There are valid reasons to argue genetically modified crops are a bad idea (or a good idea), but you should not add Indian farmer suicides to make a point. That's FUD.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
Even before GMO foods were invented we allowed a lot of produce to rot in this country for various reasons. The problem isn't that we don't have enough land or good enough seed stock. Feeding people (or not) usually has to do more with local politics and who controls the land.
It's like how the entire Irish potato famine was very avoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
Feeding people (or not) usually has to do more with local politics and who controls the land.
Sometimes, but...
Sometimes it's a matter of transport. Iowa has no shortage of pork at all, but the cost of shipping it to China before it loses its freshness may sometimes be more than the Chinese feel like paying.
Sometimes it's a matter of not-so-local politics. See also farm bills, agricultural subsidies and price controls coming out of Washington DC - all done in order to keep crop prices artificially high.
Sometimes it's a question of being held back/destroyed on suspicion of disease. Happens a lot, esp
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes it's a matter of transport. Iowa has no shortage of pork at all, but the cost of shipping it to China before it loses its freshness may sometimes be more than the Chinese feel like paying.
Its not like China has any problems raising pork of their own. Half the world's pig population is in China.
The problem is their back-yard farming techniques are inefficient. Its often more efficient to import from the US.
They are buying US Port producers [businessinsider.com] lock stock and barrel simply to gain efficiency.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:4, Insightful)
Who needs to go to India for evidence of Monsanto raids on farms? We've had stories of thess actions posted on /. for years, further, they are well documented in legal proceedings, where Monsanto goons have appeared with local law enforcement dragged in as their flunkies, to seize farms where they suspect a farmer is reusing seed or is using crop seed contaminated from a neighboring GMO field. All they need is their expert witnesses to show up in a court and state that Farmer Brown has some of their IP in his field, without paying them and he's done farming this year and likely stuck with a ruinous monetary settlement.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/08/09/13/militants-wreck-gm-rice-test-farm [abs-cbnnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you actually looked into the actual court cases surrounding Monsanto?
You would be surprised. The examples that people trot out of "Farmer Brown" as you say, had the farmers lose in court as they were deliberately and knowingly taking GMO seeds.
Monsanto will in fact, pay farmers for any crops contaminated via cross pollination for farms that do not have an agreement.
The truth of the matter in agriculture is much more complex than all the IT people here on Slashdot would have you believe.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you actually read the case [wikipedia.org]? Schmeiser lost because he was indeed using Monsanto's seed without a license, but was fined only $1 because he did not benefit from the GMO seed in any way. He used RoundUp to kill weeds in the ditches surrounding his crop, but not on the crop itself. There was no motive for him to "deliberately and knowingly take GMO seed
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:4, Insightful)
We throw away over half the food we produce, and we let the commodities market manipulate the prices. We don't need GMOs. You're just spreading propaganda.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
The existence of GMOs have NOT boosted production in the slightest. What GMOs do is make the plants immune to a particular herbicide. This herbicide immunity, by the way, is an immunity being acquired by other "pest" plants which were the original target of the herbicide.
In the absense of GMOs the people would still be fed. GMOs do not represent a world-saving technology. What they represent is a danger to the world's food supply not only because it comes under control of a small collection of companies, but because it reduces the varieties of plants available. In the event a disease develops to wipe out these GMOs, there may be extreme starvation and human suffering due to the continual growth of GMO use.
Please shill for Monsanto elsewhere. You're just wrong about so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Try again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [nytimes.com]
There was an article right here on slashdot which served to announce the problem which had been speculated to happen eventually has been confirmed.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm seriously sick of this ignorant crap. There is absolutely no known possible mechanism for GM foods to cause cancer because they're GM. If you're going to speculate, at least look into real possible risks like those associated with glyphosate salts used in agriculture. If you're going to attack GM, focus on the real issues like intellectual property associated with staple crops.
Also, look up mutation breeding, which is how most of our non-GM foods came into existence.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm seriously sick of this ignorant crap. There is absolutely no known possible mechanism for GM foods to cause cancer because they're GM.
That's kind of like all the anti-drug people who say that there is no scientific proof that marijuana has any medicinal value. It was absolutely true. But the reason it is true is because you needed the DEA to give you a permit [norml.org] to work with banned drugs and they only like to give out permits projects researching adverse effects, not beneficial effects.
Same thing with GMO's -- the testing coverage of GMOs is very weak. There is this get out jail free card they use to legally avoid testing called substantial equivalence [wikipedia.org] - the theory is that if you are just mixing genes from two different kinds of food, then its all good. They do very limited testing to make sure there is nothing obviously wrong (like the potatoes genes haven't turned the new GMO crop into belladonna) but the basic testing is all that's ever done if they can claim equivalence. Of course they do this because comprehensive testing would be really, really, really expensive. So, you know, let the customers beta test it.
So yeah, there is no known mechanism because no one is looking for one.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Interesting)
How much of our planet's fossil fuel resources should we continue to mine for large-scale agriculture, before we have the conversation about why there are so many starving third-worlders, and what we might do to control overpopulation?
I see this assertion time after time -- that we must feed 8, 10, 15 billions of people -- without asking the question, "Does the planet need that many people?"
GMO is a non-solution to a problem that we could much more easily prevent.
The only winner in GMO is the patent holder who collects the royalties.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the alternative involves a whole lot of death and/or overly-intrusive governmental control of one's life (e.g. China's "one child" policy)... well, good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say to you what I say to everyone who suggests "reducing the surplus population": you first.
Somehow though it's always the "third world" that needs population control: you know, those foreigners, those threatening not-quite-people who we could do with fewer of. I get tired of seeing such BS.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
The first world generally has negative population growth, not counting immigration. So yes, it is the third world that needs population control, and there is nothing racist about that statement. I suppose you could debate whether the first world should be putting pressure on them or just let them figure that out themselves, but the pressure is applied via strings attached to foreign aid: are you suggesting we should stop giving them aid and just let them starve?
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Informative)
Many developed countries already have low or declining population growth so again; us first? Working on it. Who's next?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'White Man' feedling the third world is part of the problem. When the UN air drops in tons of free grain, it completely decimates any motivation on the part of the local population to grow their own grain, because it drops the price of the grain to near zero. It wipes out local producers completely.
The solution is technology transfer: help the local producers obtain the means to locally grow the food the local people need.
This, however, does not give the large Agribusinesses in the first world tons of
Re: (Score:3)
Not "wrong". Untested, unproven, with insufficient research on safety. Also, GM crops have thus far failed to deliver on the higher yield claims: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html [ucsusa.org]
Well, let's see. Your first link leads to a German academic
Re: (Score:3)
Untested, unproven, with insufficient research on safety.
Ignoring all [usda.gov] this [biofortified.org] perhaps. Hey, if they are so untested, why is it that all those things currently awaiting approval listed on the APHIS site are not yet on the market? Is it our of Monsanto's altruistic concern? And why can't university labs muster up the funding to jump past the regulatory hurdles? Which is it, not tested, or Monsanto cares?
Also, GM crops have thus far failed to deliver on the higher yield claims
Note how they specify 'in the United States' with the implication that GE crops were supposed to improve yields. You do realize there is more to agriculture than
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Interesting)
We know this. GMO-free is a marketing term for affluent pananoid yuppies. It is not something that will ever feed mass numbers of needy people.
No, it's about being open and honest about what goes into your food. We in California had such a staggering amount of BS inserted into a campaign season, regarding GMO product labeling, that consumers were completely baffled what the impact was going to be and voted with the most convincing and well backed ads. Therefore we do not have a state statute requiring the labeling of food as containing all or part GMO components.
That was pretty damn insidious by Pro-GMO Big Ag.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:4, Insightful)
What is a non-GMO food anyhow? Aren't all of our modern foodstuffs heavily modified through centuries of selective breeding? Labeling food with made-up categories doesn't seem to help.
Let's face it: what the hipsters really want is food labeled "not associated with any Evil Corporation", as if inefficiency were something to be proud of. We already have the "Organic" label for you losers, can't you be content with that?
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's about being open and honest about what goes into your food.
Okay, what gets labeled? Personally, I want to know if my peanuts have genes for nematode resistance bred in from other Arachis species? Or maybe what resistance gene (Ph-3, Ph-5, ect) is in my tomato. Maybe I'd like to know what rootstock my pear was grafted onto. I'd also like to know if my carrot was the result of a doubled haploid hybrid. Tell me what line of wheat is in my bread, and if it is the result of a mutation breeding line. Is my banana the result of tissue culture? What bud sport of appl
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, so far, we're not too stupid to have labels required for ingredients, for % of nutrients...
We're not too stupid to have labels required on things like fish, to know what their country of origin is....
So, what's the deal with giving us a label to know if it is GMO or not? I'd dare say, most people too stupid to study this and make an "informed decision" are likely not ever going to bother looking at the labels.
But for those that do want to know..what's the harm? When is having information about your food ever a bad thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Because "GMO" is not a scientifically meaningful category of food. It's like labeling food for whether it was at one point stored in containers with the number "13" printed on them, or whether it was ever touched by a Mennonite priest.
When it's not actually information and instead reinforces superstition and irrational fears.
If you are going to have food labeling laws, then make
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is to be gained by informing consumers when they just can't really understand the issues! This is what you're saying and not even in other words- that's just what you're saying. It's disgusting. I can see why you posted AC.
It's called having faith in democracy and the ability of the polity to sort out issues. If that doesn't sound reasonable to you, then why not head off to N. Korea where the leaders think just like you do.
Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not getting it. It's not about the absolute rightness or wrongness of GMO . It's about the fact that a very significant portion of the people WANT GMO labeling.
People also want a lot of things I could do without, but so what. Who am i? Who are you? Who is Monsanto to decide we can't know true facts about the things we put in our bodies???
The worst disasters in history haven't been because people had too much information some of which was useless. The worst disasters come about because some small segment of our population thinks it knows what's good for the rest of us and tries to impose it's will on us. So that's shit like Vietnam and all kinds of imperialism generally. People want this- it means something to them. People also want kosher shit because it MEANS something to them. People want country of origin labeling for meat for GOOD reason- because some nations practice poor CJD defense and some don't. People want dolphin free tuna because it MEANS something to them and their value system. Stop telling people what should and should not be significant to them.
Just. Stop it.
Also, as a matter of fact, you don't know that all present and future GMO products are not unsafe in ways people fear. I know what because I looked into it and decided for myself that the risk it low, but by no means zero. By no means.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not getting it. It's not about the absolute rightness or wrongness of GMO . It's about the fact that a very significant portion of the people WANT GMO labeling.
People also want kosher shit because it MEANS something to them. People want country of origin labeling for meat for GOOD reason- because some nations practice poor CJD defense and some don't. People want dolphin free tuna because it MEANS something to them and their value system. Stop telling people what should and should not be significant to them.
I'm confused. Are you advocating that all food should be labeled "Non-kosher" if it isn't kosher? And that all seafood should be labeled "May have dolphin" if it may have dolphin?
I am perfectly fine with kosher shops labeling their food kosher, and for EarthTrust and the Earth Island Institute creating dolphin free labeling. I am also perfectly fine with food producers using GMO-free labeling if they wish. Forcing people to put a big GMO label on all food that uses it is where I draw the line. Just like I d
Re: (Score:2)
Why do idiots such as yourself keep repeating this nonsense? Who, exactly, is 'beholden' to Monsanto? Farmers choose to plant GMO because, even though they have to pay mean old Monsanto, it is more profitable for them than planting non-GMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Clear and obvious logic isn't going to win any contests around here.
Obviously there's a gun to the head of all farmers, worldwide.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter.
The important part is that you located him --- his village has been notified and arrangements have been made for his return.
Pointless at this poiht (Score:5, Insightful)
> For its part, General Mills says, It's not about safety,' and will continue to use GMOs in other food products.
Correct. It's not about safety. It's about giving customers what they want, which is the result of scientifically illiterate scare tactics by talking heads making a career of it.
It's all one stupid cluster fuck anyway. Science keeps developing ways to make food even cheaper, and government keeps deliberately forcing the price up to help farmers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pointless at this poiht (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointless at this poiht (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite right.
This is about politics rather than science. The corporate shills want to make this strictly about food safety in order to distract from the abuses of companies like Monsanto.
Any regime that doesn't allow for a farmer to save and replant his own seeds needs to be torn down, burned, and then bombed.
Re:Pointless at this poiht (Score:4, Insightful)
Attack the real problem, then! We can feed the planet and get rid of patents on organisms at the same time. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
Re:Pointless at this poiht (Score:5, Interesting)
For me its a result of Monsanto patenting food staples and suing world + dog. I don't agree with a few multinationals owning patents of the world's food staples so I will do everything I can to avoid GMO products for this reason and this reason only. And I will continue to warn everyone I know against purchasing GMO products until they are no longer patented and the companies stop abusing the patents. THe End.
Ok, this is the first argument I've heard against GMO that I can support. And with that, I just joined the anti-GMO boat...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. It's not about safety. It's about giving customers what they want,
So far so good...
which is the result of scientifically illiterate scare tactics by talking heads making a career of it.
And then you blow it, demonstrating that you don't know how capitalism is supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No Cheerios is a premium product marketed to those scientifi
The problem isn't GMO (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the patents like what Monsanto is doing that are the problem. There is no health issues.
Re:The problem isn't GMO (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no health issues.
You can't say that honestly. Initial indications are of harm from glyphosate residues and retained b.t. toxin, at least in pregnant women in the latter case. The truth is we don't know the effects very well and we do know that irresponsible farmers aren't using roundup-ready processes diligently.
Unfortunately, reckless use has caused unrelated crops like golden rice to be rejected out of fear, which very definitely causes harm (not to mention boatloads of corn bound for starvation areas rejected in Zimbabwe and Zambia out of similar fear).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are literally hundreds of studies out there and most of them are either inconclusive or show no evidence of harm. See here: http://biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
Citations needed.
Actually, glyphosate
Re:The problem isn't GMO (Score:4, Informative)
Recent EPA regulatory actions have been to allow INCREASES in glyphosate residues in food because of proven long term safety.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate [wikipedia.org]
Epidemiological studies have not found associations between long term low level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.
The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity. The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.
Primary references available in Wikipedia article.
Re: (Score:3)
Not proving the association is not the same thing as proving safety.
The EPA is a bad joke.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the patents like what Monsanto is doing that are the problem. There is no health issues.
There is no grammar either.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no grammar either.
Grammar died from eating GMO Cheerios. It wasn't pretty. The doctor thought it was "old age", but after some helpful discussions with my cousins Vito and Louigi he issued an amended death certificate.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no health issues.
That is my one beef (no pun intended) with GMOs. We don't know this since the new foods are not submitted to any set of standard safety testing protocols.
If you think about it GMO food should be treated even more strictly than a new drug because after all you take medicine just for a few days while you ingest GMO foods for the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Great! Let's just see your numbers and . . .
> I don't need numbers.
Oh, I must be new here . . .
Once again the gut beats the mind (Score:2)
Sometimes I wish I had intestines for brains, so I wouldn't be annoyed by the stupidity of the rest of the world.
It would also be cool to have an ass hole on my forehead.
Re:Once again the gut beats the mind (Score:4, Funny)
It would also be cool to have an ass hole on my forehead.
. . . Google can help you out with that . . .
TPP will make it illegal (Score:5, Informative)
The TPP will make it illegal to label your food GMO free and no, it won't matter what your nation's legislature had to say on the topic or would like to say later. The TPP will supercede the laws of you nation's legislature:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/obama-trans-pacific-partnership_n_4414891.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.nationofchange.org/trans-pacific-partnership-and-monsanto-1372074730 [nationofchange.org]
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_tpp_tafta_monsanto_protection_act_on_steroids/ [fooddemocracynow.org]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-r-shaffer/tobacco-symbol-of-corrupt_b_4439416.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.naturalnews.com/041965_tpp_gmo_labeling_monsanto.html# [naturalnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The TPP will supercede the laws of you nation's legislature:
No, it won't.
I made the mistake of reading a few of those links, and it's all crazy speculation and blatant misinformation to sell ad-space on sites that sell wheat germ and homeopathy in their spare time.
Re:TPP will make it illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah you're wrong. It will ban GMO labeling , country of origin labeling and many other of the same types of consumer information that, people think is important to them (which I actually don't except that other people do want these things and they have the right to know )
Letter form Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, to the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk:
from: http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23 [house.gov]
First, past FTAs incorporate the WTOâ(TM)s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade rules, which are deeply problematic. These rules set ceilings on signatory countriesâ(TM) domestic food safety standards. As a result, WTO panels have ruled against the U.S. meat country-of-origin labeling requirements and voluntary dolphin-safe tuna labels in challenges brought by other WTO countries. We must learn from the record of WTO implementation and modify the food safety-related rules of U.S. trade pacts to best protect the public health, starting with a TPP FTA.
The FDA has also engaged in extensive harmonization of food safety standards, as required by the WTO SPS rules and our past FTAs. If a TPP FTA is to include food safety harmonization, then it must ensure existing U.S. standards are not weakened. I believe this should include requiring that harmonization may only be conducted on the basis of raising standards toward the best standards of any signatory country and that, with respect to the United States, such international-standard setting should provide the public an opportunity to comment while maintaining an open and transparent process.
In addition, the past FTA model includes the establishment of new SPS committees to speed up implementation of mechanisms to facilitate increased trade volumes, including âoeequivalenceâ determinations. The equivalence rule requires the United States to permit imports of meat, poultry and now possibly seafood products that do not necessarily meet U.S. food safety standards. I firmly believe that all food sold to American consumers must be required to meet U.S. safety standards, and that a TPP FTA should not include equivalence rules as the basis for the United States accepting food imports.
Finally, past FTAs allow for private enforcement of extensive foreign investor rights. Under these rules, foreign food corporations operating within the United States are empowered to demand compensation from the U.S. government in foreign tribunals established under the United Nations and World Bank if U.S. regulatory actions undermine their expected future profits. Even when the United States successfully defends against such attacks, such as in the NAFTA investor-state case brought by the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade over the U.S. ban on imports of live Canadian cattle after the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in Canada, the initial filing of the challenge has a chilling effect on policymaking and the U.S. government must spend millions on a legal defense. Accordingly, I believe a TPP FTA must not include investor-state rules that would allow corporations to weaken U.S. food safety in foreign tribunals thereby unnecessarily placing American consumers at risk.
The food safety issues raised by the TPP FTA negotiations are expansive and in many instances already controversial. Failure to deal with these issues during the negotiations will only create more opposition to a prospective agreement. I therefore urge you to act in the interest of public health and maintain the United Statesâ(TM) strong lea
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember this- I'm here all night (another Friday night on /. loser!!) , so the more you talk, the more you give me a chance to rebut and further explore this topic.
Stop the TPP- contact your congressperson this weekedn!
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp [eff.org]
TPP > PIPA + SOPA
Glad to hear it - Cheerios now on my shopping list (Score:2)
The consumer is always right, no matter what those who think they are our Lords and Masters say.
Free Market Works (Score:3)
Bravo General Mills and thank you for making my favorite breakfast cereal without GMOs. The market place works. Consumer demand is a far better way to set things than regulations. All we're asking for as consumers is to know what's there so we can make decisions. It worked. Bravo to the free market and capitalism.
the ultimate sign of affluence. (Score:5, Insightful)
for almost all of human history, we all lived on the edge of starvation...one bad crop or inablilty to hunt due to injury or migration, and we were starved...to death.
read malthus.
now, we have so much food we attack those who supply it for us....the irony is unreal.
i don't know if GMO food is "dangerous" or not....i don't think anyone here really does....but i do know one thing.
only a population with WAY more food then it could possibly dream of needing could ever have this debate.
Good On You, GM! (Score:3)
GMO is worse than heavy processing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:GMO is worse than heavy processing? (Score:4, Funny)
I have seen Cheerios commercials where the Cheerios talk --- and I was like "Talking Cheerios? WTF --- that can't be natural?" --- so all this talk about Cheerios being natural but yet some of them talk. I know the truth.
And Cheerios are made by a the GM company --- and we all know GM stands for "genetically modified".
I smell a conspiracy and I am sharing the evidence. What did they do to those Cheerios to cause them to be able to speak? The answer is obvious.
And oh yeah (Score:3)
If you want thew ability to distinguish GMO from non-GMO in your grocery store then you better act fast because Obama is about to try to ram through the Trans Pacific Partnership which will permit the WTO to ban GMO labeling the way it bans meat country-of -origin labeling and dolphin-safe labels:
Letter excerpt from
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, to United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk,
full letter:
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23 [house.gov]
First, past FTAs incorporate the WTO's sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade rules, which are deeply problematic. These rules set ceilings on signatory countries' domestic food safety standards. As a result, WTO panels have ruled against the U.S. meat country-of-origin labeling requirements and voluntary dolphin-safe tuna labels in challenges brought by other WTO countries. We must learn from the record of WTO implementation and modify the food safety-related rules of U.S. trade pacts to best protect the public health, starting with a TPP FTA.
Contact your Congressperson right NOW! :
http://www.exposethetpp.org/ [exposethetpp.org]
quadrotritiCherrios (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But then they'll make the wrong decision!!1!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The corn starch? Gimme a break! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most consumers don't have a scientific background. What they do have is a memory of how many 'harmless' things turned out to be anything but. For example, the trans fats in margarine. For another, cigarettes. So when consumers see a bunch of agribusinesses fighting tooth and nail to not label GMO foods, it naturally makes them wonder what they're trying to hide.
They may be wrong, but they're not idiots. They've just been lied to far too many times.
Re: (Score:2)
So when consumers see a bunch of agribusinesses fighting tooth and nail to not label GMO foods, it naturally makes them wonder what they're trying to hide.
And when labelling something with a phrase that people are being misled into believing means "poison inside", any sane business will fight against having to bear that label. There is nothing to hide, it's protection from rampant hysteria. It's happened before. Irradiated foods were going to make people glow in the dark and fearmongers wanted them all labelled so people could be scared away from them, too.
They may be wrong, but they're not idiots.
citation required.
They've just been lied to far too many times.
That's certainly true.
Re: (Score:3)
They may be wrong, but they're not idiots.
Same could be said of the top dogs in the anti-GMO movement, to some degree. You could write a book on the things most people don't know about plants and agriculture. But only one issue gets singled out, genetic engineering. That makes it look undesirable. It is a weasley thing to do, to single out one thing and, in the name of 'consumer freedom' give absolutely no background information or necessary context, but that's the frustrating situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
All corn is GM corn. The stuff we call "corn" did not evolve naturally, but by extreme pressure by human farmers. The stuff we eat cannot grow without human intervention and is anything but natural. Just because we didn't modify its genetics through a test tube doesn't make it non-modified genetically.
Re: (Score:2)
Take your pick. Low harvest yields or risk herbageddon.
Re: (Score:2)
Start a Kickstarter fund, with the Top Backer prize being a free trip back to 1601 to rescue the time traveler
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How big do you have to be before you get to have shills?
I mean Whole Foods profit rose 20% [bloomberg.com] in Q2 of 2013, and Hain Celestial, the owner of Earth's Best Organic, boasted a 21% [hain-celestial.com] increase in net sales in Q1 of 2013. I have no idea what Michael Pollan made in 2013, but I doubt it would be a tenth as much if he wasn't a big name in the (insert preferred adjective)-foods circle, selling books to concerned eaters, and getting appearance fees from talking on shows and at events.
Does Monsanto have some patent on havi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cue the organic food fanatics for the same countdown.
Both sides of the argument are full of hyperbole and bullshit. As per usual, the truth lies between.
Re: (Score:3)
But there's nothing *inherently* worse about GMO products than products modified through regular, boring, done-that-way-for-thousands-of-years artificial selection.
In a strictly moral or practical sense, I agree. My issue is that regular, boring seed selection has a millenia-long safety record; GM does not. We have not had enough time to ascertain any long-term effects, if there are any. We are rushing headlong into a new technology that a not insignificant amount of research shows might not be wise to rush into.
Basically, I urge caution, research, safety. And that's where most of us "anti-GMO nutjobs" actually stand.
Re:Here it comes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question. Is ANYONE eating plants that aren't G (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time this subject comes up, someone comes to raise the objection you're raising.
Those people are trolls.
So are you.
Breeding is not the same as GMO, and no amount of claiming that it is will make it so. It simply isn't. You can get results with GM that you cannot get by breeding, which proves the difference. And before GMO, nobody was splicing animal genes into plants, period. It may have happened in nature, but nobody then went on to plant a whole field of that organism.
Re: (Score:3)
No one cooked with microwaves until recently; that doesn't mean that microwave cooked food and oven cooked food are substantially different.
You're engaging in prevarication by using as an example a situation which is not remotely congruent. That's a cheap tactic for cheap people. We know that microwave ovens lack the energy to twiddle DNA, which is ironically precisely what we're doing when we create GM organisms, which makes your example especially stupid. For stupid people.