There's no credible negative affect on human health from them.

Come at me.

All crops have been genetically modified. It's just that we've recently found short cuts.

What about Frankenfoods? GMO's just aren't natural. How can you prove they are safe?

Monsanto! Grrrr!

Subbing in for some lolz

look, i'll eat whichever fruit/veg looks best/tastes best.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizab...b_4064134.html

Couple things. There's two stances, one much more aggressive than the other.

The first is that some folks want GMOs banned entirey. The second stance, which I support, is a desire for states to be able to decide whether or not foods should be labeled as GMO vs non-GMO. When polled, 93% of Americans support the latter stance

I understand there is currently no scientific consensus that GMO foods affect health adversely relative to organic/non-GMO. In fact, I understand the consensus is that GMO foods are safe. That being said, GMO foods are exposed to way more chemicals and there has been 0 long term studies on GMO vs organic. I think the lack of long term studies is the biggest hole in the argument that GMOs are 100% safe. Given that unknown, I am simply for allowing people to make their own call when buying food.

so they don't affect health of humans, have no mechanism to, but we neeeed to study them long term?

also, isn't the point of some modifications that we don't need to use as many chemicals sprayed on them?

why do you want labels if there's absolutely no evidence it matters?

Hint: you either believe they do cause harm or you're a complete ****ing moron


Probably both actually.

Are you saying they couldn't be modified in a way that has nasty consequences or that they wont be?

and are you including bad environmental consequences as well as being harmed by consuming them?

Then why not label them?

Because we don't negotiate with terrorists, that's why.

Sounds like a perfect place to let the market sort things out...

yeah requiring labeling isn't the market bro. That's the opposite.

I think of it as containment. We fight them on the labeling front to keep them preoccupied with something pointless and away from anything that matters.

We could engineer poison in to food!

Of course no one has. For some weird reason
Has nothing to do with GMOs.

Giving the consumer the information to make an informed choice about the product they buy isn't letting the market decide? WTF?

No, forcing labeling that gives no useful information is not letting the market decide.

It's useful if you want to know what is in your food. You mean companies shouldn't be forced to put labels on their food that have the potential to reduce their sales?

It's useful to know what's in your food. That's why many products are forced to list their ingredients. It's not useful to know if it's been genetically modified. It's about as relevant if someone named steve made the packaging.

kerowo, what would that label say? "This product contains genetically modified organisms, just like every other thing people have been eating since the advent of agriculture"?

I don't really care, I'm just laughing at Ikes saying labeling GMO foods isn't letting the market decide. The pro-GMO side is doing a ****ty job of getting it's message out if GMO foods truly are harmless. They should be countering every kook on the internet claiming GMO food is dangerous.

Forcing people to do something isn't the market bro. Anyone can market their own food as GMO free and morans will pay 2x for it. However, when you starting using the force of the state to make people do ****, it's not the free market.

There's no message to get out. People are afraid of something we've literally been doing for millennia, because science is scary. There is no counterargument to that.