Right to Know: GMO

[Charolotte Caxton]

Quite correct, Pussycat, I don't give up on the belief that all life is sentient because I love steak, and I don't stop wearing my favorite outfits because I am aware of the slave labor that created them, but I do not pretend that modified food is the beginning of our problems,either. Vote for non genetically engineered foods? What if those foods are actually better for us?

Should they label how many calves were turned into veal on each of our milk cartons?

Should they label how many chickens were debeaked and crippled for our omlets?

Why don't we just get to the root of the problem, there are too many people, and that is why these mass productions of food are necessary.

If we didnt need to feed millions, we would not need Genetically Modified.. whatever O stands for. 

 

[Bree Giffen]

I voted for the labelling. I've read about Monsanto off and on for many years.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Lol, unless I eat you first

---

Anytime, love. Anytime.

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Lol, unless I eat you first

---

Anytime, love. Anytime.

 

---

Darn, I knew I worded that wrong too late :smileyfrustrated:

[161488303349]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

I listen to several late night talk shows and this issue has come up a lot recently with CA leading the way to mandate that the genetically-modified food be labeled so at least consumers can make an informed choice.

I pray it passes so that other states will take the cue.

---

Thank you Czari. I hope so, too.

It is my understanding that GMO foods,

the first of which appeared in the mid-1990s

, have been banned in some nations already. Labeling will be at least a beginning.

---

where GM been banned isnt really a ban. ban like not ever never

where i live most GM is banned but only bc the longterm effects on other plants is unknown. when can be shown that there is no bad effects on other plants then is approved

+

dont need no GM to make us unhealthy. can just order supersize McDonald burger and Coke

+

agree about the labelling tho. all food ahould be labelled. ingredients and stuff. so people can make informed choice

[Melita Magic]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

I'm not sure why you're being obscure about what corporation is involved when the title of the video begins "David versus Monsanto."

There's no end of things to get upset about if you go looking.  Your issue is about a corporation protecting their invention.  How about corporations patenting human genes they didn't invent but simply discovered information about.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread872664/pg1

Another tiny issue.  GMO refers to the modification of genetics via genetic engineering techniques.  That different from selective cross breeding.  It's explained a bit at the beginning of this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

---

On the title, my bad, but it isn't like it was a secret anyway. It's mentioned many times in the documentary (I wonder if anyone commenting actually bothered to view it? I don't mind if people don't view it but then I don't feel they have much right to talk about the documentary they didn't watch, or to speak 'with authority' the topic they know nothing about.) If  you had watched the docu your question about human genes is in there too. So I am guessing you didn't watch it? No one should be able to patent any 'higher life form' or any foods. (They address that and many other points.) 

This isn't just "my issue" and it isn't the only one I care about. But ask yourself why corporations are spending so much money and effort to avoid labeling, if this is all harmless? Ask yourself if you want the company that brought us DDT and Agent Orange to be the ONE source for food. They've already permanently altered some crops.

I've already spoken about the "another tiny issue" - GMO is completely different than what NATURE has been doing for thousands of years, or however long seeds and plants have existed on this planet. COMPLETELY different. I wish people would understand that. The patent alone gives a corporation the right to confiscate, and keep and control, FOOD, and SEEDS which means they can eventually, if all seeds contain the crap they spliced in, control LIFE on this planet. That means, they can set the quality as low and prices as high as they wish, just for a start. ONE source for all food. Think about that. In light of their current tactics, what would they actually do if they had nothing holding them back.

I wish people would watch the video or at least learn what GMO means, and stands for, before commenting here. Some people are going to give weight to every opinion no matter how uninformed. Just because some of the people in the thread are regular forum posters. 

Charolotte, that last bit was to you. If you don't even know what GMO is, why do you keep saying it's not a big deal? "Maybe it's better for  us?" Not so much. Nor have GMO existed forever, nor are they normal, nor are they harmless.

Pussycat, very wise and very well said, thank you.

The apathy out there stuns me sometimes.

PS 16, thank you for your comment too, please explain in more detail why you think GMO isn't really banned in some countries? And which ones? Thanks.

 

 

 

[Melita Magic]

---

Kobuk Farshore wrote:

---

Melita Magic wrote:

 

I do wish Prop 37 also included (labeling) meat from animals that had been fed GMO grains, but I guess that would be the next ballot.

 

---

As Charlotte pointed out, all mass-produced food has been messed with, so whether it has a GMO-free label on it or not is sort of irrelevant, as are vague standards like "organic." Really the only way you have a clue what you're eating is to grow/raise/hunt for yourself, although even then you're either using seeds & animal-stock that are the product of hundreds of years of selective breeding and recent engineering, or you're smacking a salmon over the head that's spent the last few years swimming in oceans full of polluted gunk.

Basically we're all screwed, it's just up to the individual as to how much poison he or she consumes.

Yep, I'm jaded on this issue. :}

 

 

---

Jaded isn't the word I would choose. Uninformed seems more accurate.

Organic is not a vague term. There are legal qualifications to be labeled organic. (Of course, it doesn't mean that certain huge corporations aren't trying to squeeze out legit organic farmers by slapping that label illegally on food that definitely isn't. They have been caught doing just that.)

Yes I agree it's good to grow your own food, if you can; but that is not practical for most people and it would mean never traveling far, too. But that isn't the only way to make sure food is healthy - not by a longshot. Just because a corporation is large or wealthy does not mean they should have zero accountability.

As the documentary went into, there are studies that show how harmful eating GMOs can be. I would say 'are' but I am trying to avoid going too far out on this limb in print.

Pollution is a concern as well, of course. A lot of these same companies are the ones polluting oceans and water with chemical 'gunk' as you put it. And many of these companies are also trying to make it so that only THEY own certain major water ways. So it isn't just food they are after; it's water, too. The two basics for every life form on this planet. They want to hold all of the chips, so to speak. (GMO corn chips I guess.)

Since you raise the excellent point that raising our own food is a good thing, I'd urge people to think about supporting organic seed banks (but not the one controlled by the Bill Gates Foundation and Monsanto. Lol. That's for their use; even they know  you can't make seeds infertile and have food for long.) 

Within a generation or two, seeds will be the currency life will trade on.

[Phil Deakins]

It's not a new story. If my memory is correct, the company goes after their customers' neighbouring farmers whose land received the seeds naturally from their neighours crops who bought them. I don't like saying this but I don't believe they could get away with that anywhere but in the U.S.

However, your conclusion is wrong, imo. For one thing, it's only in the U.S. and, for another, the company doesn't, and never will, own the planet's food supply.

 

[Qie Niangao]

Everything is way more complicated than it seems on the surface. Enough more complicated that I can almost understand industry's worry about labelling: people will make choices based on those labels, but will be unequipped to make informed choices.

For example, much is made of the fact that certain GMOs produce infertile seeds, by design. Environmenally, that's actually a feature, not a bug, but it's also not unique to GMOs; F1 hybrids, for example.

It's also wishful thinking that organic farming practices could feed the current population of the planet in the manner they've come to expect. Among other problems with scaling up organic farming at this point, organic crops depend on the "herd immunity" conferred by the vast majority of crops not being limited to organic pest control.

But the complexities circle in on each other, too. Originally, "Roundup Ready" GMO crops dramatically reduced the amount and toxicity of herbicides needed to control weeds, and with reduced petroleum input for mechanical cultivation. That's a significant net ecological benefit.  But almost immediately, from year to year, evolution took over, and the weeds developed tolerance to Roundup, and we're pretty much back where we were before.

Good timing for Monsanto, though: the patent on Roundup Ready soybeans expired in Canada in August 2011. Starting next crop year, many farmers will be able to plant Roundup Ready soybeans from their own 2012 crops.

In any case, unless the earth's population starts shrinking instead of growing, eventually genetically modified food sources will be necessary, regardless of changes in diet. That's not to say that current GMOs are all good, only that future GMOs will be essential.

[Pussycat Catnap]

I may have sounded way over dramatic last night but my point was basic and simple:

Just because the odds are overwelming, just because the solution of the day doesn't fix everything, is no reason to give up or ignore. Make your fixes one at a time, in small steps or large. Over time, perseverance wins.

The only time to give up, is when you've decided to switch sides.

 

 

[161488303349]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Ew, I just had a disturbing thought, if we could grow our own limbs, from our own cells, would it be the most moral thing to eat that? If we are what we eat, shouldn't we eat ourselves? Ewwwwwww!!!

---

lol

if SLers have anything to do with it then prob end up grow about 10 arms and go tentacly (:

[161488303349]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

PS 16, thank you for your comment too, please explain in more detail why you think GMO isn't really banned in some countries? And which ones? Thanks.

  

---

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/organisms/

 

basically everything is banned until can be shown to not be hazardous or a threat. when can show that your whatever is not then is ok to make and sell

+

they also doing new legisaltion on natural products as well. have to show that a advertising claim to provide a benefit can be proven

the natural health industry is welcome this new legislation bc is lots of rubbish being sold as a benefit when none exists

[Charolotte Caxton]

You said it was an hour long, so I was just going off your summary. What does the O stand for? Yes, I agree food should be labeled so that persons can make informed decisions.

[Dillon Levenque]

Melita, the issue I have with Prop 37 has to do with some posts that have already been made about how genetically modified organisms have been prohibited or that foods containing them must be so labelled in other COUNTRIES. California, while it does have an economy larger than many actual countries, is not one. We're a state. We've done this sort of unilateral stuff before and I've never liked it. If GMO ingredients need to be so labelled in the US the decision should be made at the national level.

Considering we're teetering on the edge of financial collapse it seems to me that right now our efforts would be better served dealing with that than establishing a new California-Only labelling requirement, fighting that through the courts, and then creating the beaurocracy to deal with it.

[161488303349]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

Everything is way more complicated than it seems on the surface. Enough more complicated that I can almost understand industry's worry about labelling: people will make choices based on those labels, but will be unequipped to make

informed

choices

---

yes that one comes up quite a lot in the debates. the industry usual claims that labels dont help with this all by themselfs. that need consumer education as well. so unless get consumer public education at same time then is waste of money. dangerous even. so they claim

most ordinary people go: wut??? when hear some industry person make this claim. most people say is just best to start with clear and understandable labels and if i need some more education then i will get myself later if i actual need it. which i wont need to do, if the labels written properly in the first place

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

16 wrote:

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

Everything is way more complicated than it seems on the surface. Enough more complicated that I can almost understand industry's worry about labelling: people will make choices based on those labels, but will be unequipped to make

informed

choices

---

yes that one comes up quite a lot in the debates. the industry usual claims that labels dont help with this all by themselfs. that need consumer education as well. so unless get consumer public education at same time then is waste of money. dangerous even. so they claim

most ordinary people go: wut??? when hear some industry person make this claim. most people say is just best to start with clear and understandable labels and if i need some more education then i will get myself later if i actual need it. which i wont need to do, if the labels written properly in the first place

---

Unfortunately, ordinary people (perhaps including me) don't know much more about how the world works than they did 2000 years ago. I'll take the surveys with a grain of salt (only a grain), but it appears that a third of Americans believe in witches, a third in ghosts (don't know if it's the same third), 75% believe in the paranormal, nearly half believe in young Earth creationism. So, one could understand the trepidation anyone might feel in trying to explain the molecular biology of foodstuffs.

The business dynamics of GMO aren't much different than for hybriding methods. As Qie mentioned, the variability (and often weakness) of F1 offspring has long been seen as a benefit for hybrid seed producers, as it forces farmers to return each year for new seed. In GMO, where it's understood that modifications may have unintended consequences, engineering for sterile offspring prevents (we hope) their proliferation and could be viewed as a safety net.

I do understand the concerns that GMO techniques introduce variations not likely in nature, such as inserting fish genes into plants. But genetic mutations also produce "monsters". I don't pretend to have a grasp on the probabilities that we'll create a dangerous mutant vs. the probability that nature will do it, but as conscious actors, we do have a responsibility to proceed with caution and be as transparent as possible about what we're doing.

With respect to patenting lifeforms, as in software patents, it's a huge mess. Some time ago, I read of a lawsuit (perhaps by Monsanto) against a farmer who's crops had been infiltrated by a neighbor's seed and/or pollen. Through no fault of his own, that farmer produced crops containing patented genes. I'd certainly not support the use of patents to allow a gene owner to release genes into the wild that can "infect" innocent crops with the hope the courts will then award damages to the gene owner.

[161488303349]

is quite a few parts of discussion going on now in the thread. ethic, economics, safety and others

+

just about the labels. simple labels just have a list of ingredients on them. is then up to people to learn about them if they want. or not as they like

if i see something new on the supermarket shelf then i will have a look. am not a chemist but after a time can recognise what i dont want to buy

i think that having labels is better than not having them

+

is a bit like watching American Idol. am not a singing teacher eithr but after a time even i can now know what is meant by pitchy and why my ears hurt sometimes (:

 

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

I voted for the labelling. I've read about Monsanto off and on for many years.

---

Sadly Monsanto won this round.

We'll get there, eventually...

 

 

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

I voted for the labelling. I've read about Monsanto off and on for many years.

---

Sadly Monsanto won this round.

We'll get there, eventually...

 

 

---

I was really sad to hear Prop. 37 failed. 

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

It very frustrating.

Because lets look at it like this:

- If you think GMOs are the best thing since sliced bread, you'd want to label them. Tang used to make millions advertising itself as the health drink cooked up in a lab for Astronauts. Plenty of sugar substitutes advertise as 'science to improve your life.'

- If you think they're harmful and should be cautioned so as to avoid, you'd want to label them. Cigarrettes, Alcohol, etc.

So who would not want them labeled? Someone who wants you to use them, but isn't sure their product can stand on its own - so feels a need to hide what they're selling.

This isn't like having a pseudonym so you can be 'yourself' online... "something to hide" actually works as a rational here.

 

This bill wasn't about outlawing GMOs, it was about truth in advertising.

If you think GMOs are the ideal future, get out there and brand it. Be Tang.

 

As to Monsanto and their whole campaign of secrecy... if your public image is so vile, so bad, that you have to hide the connection between you and your products... maybe you're going about something in a very wrong way, and need to start doing some soul searching.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

I think a lot of the reason that companies resist labelling GMO's is precisely because of the "Unknown Fear Factor". What sort of label could you put on a GMO that people would comprehend and trust? What combination of words, few in number, could you concoct that would both communicate the healthy, beneficial nature of your product and also make people understand it well enough to trust unequivocally?

The mere concept of "Genetically Modified" anything is so rife with voodoo, scary science and the ultimate unknown that people will immediately fear it. In this day and age, anything that has even the slightest whiff of being altered scientifically will also immediately cast the shadow of mistrust and fear upon it.

Just based on recent (past few decades) history, people will instantly avoid any product that contains something artificial. That's why the "Organic" sections of a supermarket exist; because people want their food stuffs to be 100% "Natural" and without the taint of science or the hand of Man upon it. Even something so innocuous as having been harvested by a robotic machine can cause people to steer clear of a product.

BTW: Notice my use of the term "robotic". In truth almost 100% of our food stuffs, including those foods sold as "Organic" are harvested by machines. But when you add that word "Robotic", it suddenly takes on a much scarier, darker more untrustworthy sense.

I don't know enough about GMO's in general, or the latest debate regarding infertile seeds, to make a valid judgement as to their safety. But I do understand how the fear of technology and the mistakes of the recent past could so prejudice shoppers as to completely destroy a product's possibility of success. Thus I can also understand why companies would not want to be forced to place such a label on their products.

FWIW: I could quite rightfully hang a sign on my own forehead that says "Scientifically Altered Human Being". I daresay that people would cut me a VERY wide path as I walked around in public .. just based on that sign. But all it means is .. I've had surgery in the past and some of my daily functions are aided by technological devices. Anyone with a replacement heart valve, contact lenses, metal reinforcements in their bones .. or any of a 1000 other "Scientific Alterations" could wear the same sign. But regardless of the real benefit, or even the absolute necessity for the alteration to restore full functionality and life, the sign itself would sew such fear that people would avoid anyone labelled thus with an almost panic-stricken fervor.

So I have to agree .. labelling GMO's would serve no real valuable purpose, but would absolutely ensure that no one would ever buy the product.

[161488303349]

you make good arguments for the whole fear factor. is many people quite scared by organisms that don't occur "naturally"

can see this in the whole "natural" health industry as well. like somehow medicines packaged as "natural" are somehow better than lab created ones. when most of them are not

 

+

on top of this tho is the other thing about organic. is the treatment of animals in produce food. like chicken batteries and pig and cattle cages. more and more people not want to buy products from that kind of farming. i wont myself

+

other one is food producers who not careful about where they source their ingredients. like Cadbury. when people find out they change to palm oil. and people find out they was source from Borneo. the rainforests the habitat of the oragutangs was being cut down there by the palm oil industry

so people stop buy chocolate off them

i did. i not buy from Cadbury anymore either. they say they not doing anymore. but is lots of other chocolate makers. i find this other brand that not use palm oil so i get that one. i quite like it now as well. so i will not change back

 

[Melita Magic]

Well, the whole 'fear factor' thing is a red herring. Most people don't even know what GMO is. Most people had never heard of it. Thank you to those who were for the labeling, and who commiserated with me when Prop 37 was defeated. That is a huge blow against consumer rights.

Labels don't seem to affect what people buy, other than those who care about labels. Cheetohs and Pepsi are still flying off the shelves. Just because organic foods are available doesn't mean junk foods are now forbidden, nor would labeling make them so. Nor would labeling make junk foods less popular. It's already the law that things like MSG must be put on the label. Did it slow sales? Has all that's come out against NutraSweet slowed sales of Diet Coke? Neither would foods labeled "Contains GMO" be doomed to languish. (Because frankly, most people can't be bothered to care.) Again: red herring.

I'm not sure where "labeling costs for the entire world" is coming from. (The factories would produce the labels, not California government.) That must have been part of the fear campaign the GMO companies were putting out there. Along with lies like "your food costs will go up $400 a year." Instead it makes sense that the "no on 37" ad campaign costs will be passed along to the consumers, (irony!) but, if GMO are harmless, why did the companies fight so hard for people NOT TO KNOW? (Just as Monsanto sued each U.S. state, successfully in four states, to make it illegal to put "does not contain bovine growth hormone" on dairy labels. Why don't they want you to know? How can it be legal for them to tell other companies they can't label their foods as NOT containing Monsanto's growth hormone? Makes you wonder why they are so afraid of their creations being known to be in consumables.)

According to our local news, the companies spent "at least 60 million, probably more when finally counted" for their "No on 37" ad campaigns. (No on 37 ads inundated Tv and radio in the past weeks, with fearful lies.) As Pussycat wisely pointed out, why would labeling be a bad thing, if the product is actually "better for us" as someone else surmised? I'd further ask: Why wouldn't they be spending that 60 million dollars on something more productive, or even, on an ad campaign about how good GMOs are for you? Because they know better, is my answer.

The real problem is apathy or ignorance about how harmful GMOs are to the environment, to farmers, and to consumers. Terminator genes are not natural or productive (they are the opposite of that) which is why they are not found in nature. I come from hundreds and hundreds of years of farm families. You want, most of all, diversity and strength and fertility in genetics. Having to go back for 'new seeds' means starting over rather than breeding for strength or features. That is why there are organic heirloom seed banks. Heck, even the GMO companies know it's wise to keep a variety of fertile seeds which is why they have their own special cave of them, in Norway, under 24 hour guard. The seeds are hermetically sealed, and the cave is paid for by Monsanto, the Bill Gates Foundation and if memory serves, the Rockefellers. Is that a good thing? Or is that sinister?

Personally I don't trust the people who gave us DDT and Agent Orange (and those were 'good for us' too they said) to be in charge of life itself. Yes, infecting crops with unwanted GMO is a major major concern, not only for those farmers but, due to that, all crops can be quickly made GMO, making there no other choice but to go to the people with the patent for your every morsel of food. Won't be able to have pets; won't be able to afford to feed them. Livestock must eat and so meat prices will go up also. Want to live on mushrooms? That will be about all that wouldn't be affected by this, if every crop were GMO, and all that grew from the ground were under patent. You would not be able to as much as plant the seeds from that apple you had for lunch and grow your own food. It would be ILLEGAL. I don't know why people can't see to the end game on this. There is one. There always is one, with the folks you are dealing with on this issue.

Terminator seeds are not a good thing. They are never a good thing. Round Up Ready crops are not able to be replanted from current crops because those are terminator seed crops. GMOs required more and more Round Up which was predictable and many ecologists predicted ahead of time. Farmers wouldn't listen. They heard you can increase yield, yada yada. As shown in the documentary, they were then threatened, harassed, searched, and sued, to keep silent. I don't want to reiterate what's in the documentary because they do a much better job than I can here. Also it's stronger to see and hear for yourself from the people it happened to.

Yes, Madelaine, the farmer (whose crops were infected unwillingly by GMO, and harassed) was pursued by lawsuits for six years. (He is a main focus of the documentary. Might want to watch it.) Did he win in the end? Not really, in my opinion. But his courage is amazing. Not everyone has it in them to be Norma Rae or Karen Silkwood, though, and most farmers just sign away their free speech, and that of future generations, to avoid being sued. It isn't about being scared by lack of nature but when someone reshapes and patents FOOD you had better be concerned, before it's too late. All I can do is try to warn people to THINK.

16 I agree with you that there should be legal standards for words like "diet" and "natural" and I would vote for that. The consumer has a right not to be led down the primrose path.

I know it isn't possible to always buy fair trade or organic and also that those are more expensive. The GMO companies used that in these hard times to make people fear voting for Prop 37. It still lost (last I checked) by a smallish margin. 

Keep in mind that over a million people voted AGAINST harsher punishment for human traffickers as well, if you think all voters are informed or logical. Who wouldn't want harsher punishment for human traffickers?? At least that Prop. passed, though.

Thanks to everyone for participating but I still wish those in favor of GMO would really look harder into the issue and be sure what you read isn't disinformation put out by those billion dollar companies with larger agendas than bank books. And WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY it's good for you, and eat your peas. Make sure they are not GMO ;p

G = Genetically M = Modified O = Organism by the way.

 

Oh and PS about the video. That's been nagging at me. I wasn't doing anything shady at all. I copied and pasted the URL from an article, from which (link) I had also viewed the video originally. So, I only saw the video in motion. It's when the video is stopped that the title appears on top of it. Not sure why that was singled out, but, because that bothered you enough to mention and in case it was still bothering you Qwalphi, that's what happened. I did see later in the thread that it said Monsanto, but, they are not the only ones producing GMO and not the sole company who paid for the no on 37 campaigns either, although they are the #1 contributor on "No on 37" according to the voter information sites. Anyway it bothered me that someone might have thought I was trying to be cagey or something. That wasn't the case. It isn't something I could hide if I wanted to, since the company is mentioned many times in the video. The video is to show you what has already happened, when they are not even in total control of the food supply yet. So you know what  you really are dealing with. But it's just a drop in the bucket. There were many companies who paid for the "No on 37" campaign. Billion dollar companies can fund a lot of advertising. Those lobbies are very hard to beat. Look what it took to bring down Big Tobacco. Meanwhile if you want to know who probably has GMO in their foods, just look at the list of companies who paid for "No on 37." Also, learn the past of some of these companies you are defending, and you might not be so quick to mourn about them possibly losing some sales. Reminds me of the people who still believe Big Pharma really cares.

I really thought people would watch the documentary and did not intend this to be a lecture or a harangue. I hate that and I'm sure most of you do, too. But, neither do I want false statements made by people who don't want to really learn what GMO even is, or watch the documentary presented, before they defend GMO. So if I had an ounce of integrity I had to address those issues again. 

[Melita Magic]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

I don't know enough about GMO's in general, or the latest debate regarding infertile seeds, to make a valid judgement as to their safety. 

(snip)

So I have to agree .. labelling GMO's would serve no real valuable purpose, but would absolutely ensure that no one would ever buy the product.

---

No offense but, if you don't know about GMO or what's going on behind and around it, then, maybe you can't make an informed decision on the wisdom behind people being able to at least know it's in their food. For people to at least know who or what they are paying money to support. Yet you are definitively stating that there is no valid reason to label.

 

[Melita Magic]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 In GMO, where it's understood that modifications may have unintended consequences, engineering for sterile offspring prevents (we hope) their proliferation and could be viewed as a safety net.

I do understand the concerns that GMO techniques introduce variations not likely in nature, such as inserting fish genes into plants. But genetic mutations also produce "monsters". I don't pretend to have a grasp on the probabilities that we'll create a dangerous mutant vs. the probability that nature will do it, but as conscious actors, we do have a responsibility to proceed with caution and be as transparent as possible about what we're doing.

 

---

I addressed much or most or all of the rest of your post, I think.

To these portions:

GMO

cannot be controlled

. As is explained in the documentary, not to beat a tired drum. Even teh case you mention is featured at length in the documentary, which I am emphasizing as strongly as I am because it's on a private channel and only available for free viewing until November 10.

Pollen is spread on birds, insects and wind. It cannot be stopped in any way, from infecting other fields. Some crops are already and permanently altered and will never be anything but GMO again. Again, it's in the video.

Transparency is the opposite of what some of these companies are known for. To think otherwise is a naivete none of us can afford any longer. You can avoid pills somewhat, but you cannot avoid food. This is nothing less than mankind's future at stake.

I'm not one to stand on a street corner with a sign saying "The End is Coming" but, this should be taken with ultimate gravity.

What mistakes nature sometimes makes it also offsets or corrects (except maybe the platypus.) Labs determined to own everything that grows, not so much.