For those who dont want to eat GMO foods

as long as we label all the other things that are not science based that people have a hunch night be bad for us as well then im all for it.

or you could read the product label.

Is this the scientific consensus then: transgenic foods aren't bad for us?

Isn't choice the real issue here? I have a gut feeling that trangenic foods are bad for us. But I consistently feel that the science is biased.

How about we label it and let the consumer decide?

I wonder what effect the labeling would have on the price of food in general (totally neutral statement btw not trying to make a point)? Since GMO free foods would obviously be the preferred choice, would that force the price of food that is currently already non-GMO up since they can make a bigger profit margin on it? And would it force products that do use GMO sources down in price? Or would all of it just come up as GMO sourced products lose their regular profit margins and have to raise the price to balance out production costs?

Personally I haven't seen any solid scientific evidence that the stuff is bad for us, but I have seen plenty of evidence that Monsanto and their ilk are a wrecking ball for agricultural industry. I've got no issue with sticking it to them on moral grounds alone, however the price of food shooting through the roof would not be a fun ride.

But I consistently feel that the science is biased.

How about we label it and let the consumer decide?

Even if science is biased, I can guarantee you one thing - the op-ed crap out there carries a far greater bias. The true nature of science is the ability to change theory when evidence is presented that is contrary to current theory. The "anti-science" articles consistently show that they are unwilling to adapt to new information.

Regarding labelling, where does it stop? Do we label every food with everything that some crackpot theory says may/may not be bad, just because the opinion is out there? We'd waste a lot of trees making labels bigger than the ear of corn they're attached to.

If folks don't want GMO foods in their diet, fine … but at least make the decision on the basis of real information and not pseudoscience.

Kn.

Its not a tumor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/monsanto-corn-study-france_n_1896115.html

did they separate the results of the pesticide fed rats from that of the gmo rats or were they grouped together? They were not very clear on that, I think pesticides are far more of an issue and would rather food labeling for that.

Is this the scientific consensus then: transgenic foods are bad for us?

?

did they separate the results of the pesticide fed rats from that of the gmo rats or were they grouped together? They were not very clear on that, I think pesticides are far more of an issue and would rather food labeling for that.

Also this ^

I would much rather have a label showing what kind of pesticide use the product has been through when it comes to feeding my family. Here's something we KNOW is toxic and harmful and we're still fully in the dark about when it comes to product labels.

the vast majority if GMO products go into animal feed.

sugar western canada is derived from non gmo sugar beets however some companies still buy high fructose corn syrup ie (Coke and Pepsi)

Wheat is non GMO so thats not an issue

margarine and canola/soybean oil are really the big ones that you may consume directly that's not put into a bunch of prepackaged shit. if your really concerned that the sugar in your coke came from a GMO corn plant in my opinion your barking up the wrong tree.

if your really concerned that the sugar in your coke came from a GMO corn plant in my opinion your barking up the wrong tree.

Hey man it's my right to drink 8L of Coke a day, eat nothing but processed foods, and fast foods and not take any responsibility for my diet. I have the right to blame all that on the evil agri-corp scientists that are doing things I simply don't understand.

Using the same arguement,it could be said that we have been supporting unsustainable populations around the world through the use of GMO crops.

Have we done this out of compassion or greed?

I agree, I have a hard time being nice to someone with more than 3 kids, but that has been
going on for quite some time. GMO started as a way to increase yields, reduce crop damages
from drought bugs and such. Our food stopped being produced out of compassion the moment
we stopped growing our own.

better yet, read the study itself and form your own opinion:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

Good find…

Take this GMO shills
http://www.naturalnews.com/037262_GMO_Monsanto_debate.html#ixzz27KEvPHUY

I agree, I have a hard time being nice to someone with more than 3 kids, but that has been
going on for quite some time. GMO started as a way to increase yields, reduce crop damages
from drought bugs and such. Our food stopped being produced out of compassion the moment
we stopped growing our own.

When I talk about unsustainable populations,I mean places where food does not grow and we drop rice and wheat out of C-130's.

Good find…

Take this GMO shills
http://www.naturalnews.com/037262_GMO_Monsanto_debate.html#ixzz27KEvPHUY

Oh my fucking god you found something more biased and less credible than cooterpunch.

Seriously, two paragraphs in and the floor was dripping with retardation.

Kn.

Looks like Prop 37 was defeated.

Looks like Prop 37 was defeated.

So that puts and end to that then…

:lol: