Are GMOs the climategate of the left?

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by GGG

You can't taste the difference between organic and non organic versions of the same food. If you blind folded yourself and tasted 3 samples you would not be able to pick out the one that is different provided all are the same age. Organic food has the same nutritional value as non organic food..

what horrible disinformation, you most definitely can tell the difference. Well I can. If you blindfolded me I guarantee I would know. GMO does not have the same nutritional value as GMOs, how can you say something so blatantly untrue? GMO carrots don't even taste like carrots, I could tell GMO apart from organic carrots just by smelling them. Wait.... are you trolling me here?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by AcGold

what horrible disinformation, you most definitely can tell the difference. Well I can. If you blindfolded me I guarantee I would know. GMO does not have the same nutritional value as GMOs, how can you say something so blatantly untrue? GMO carrots don't even taste like carrots, I could tell GMO apart from organic carrots just by smelling them. Wait.... are you trolling me here?

Note I said you can't tell between organic and non organic of the same species.

I stated it may be possible between gmo and non gmo because they are different species. You were using organic and non jmo interchangeably which is not correct.

[AcGold]

I know the difference, you know the difference didn't think it would be an issue because it's common sense. Obviously not all non-gmos are organic. However, it would be nice if they made it more clear in stores.

[ripTDR]

For me, the problem I have is the seemingly revolving door between monsanto and the fda. Personally I'm a skeptic. I will always assume the worst when it comes to big money corporations and when they are sleeping in bed with the guys who make the policies, i have a problem with that.

How bout a complete separation of Monsanto and any governing body?

And also why shouldn't any producer be able to label their stuff as gmo free?

Or rGBH free??

How can anybody defend this??
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...nto-vs-milkman

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I know the difference, you know the difference didn't think it would be an issue because it's common sense. Obviously not all non-gmos are organic. However, it would be nice if they made it more clear in stores.

Multiple studies have shown that organic foods don't differ enough in taste that people can tell the difference. Even those who swear they can.

As for GMO vs non-GMO, I can't tell the difference

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by ripTDR

For me, the problem I have is the seemingly revolving door between monsanto and the fda. Personally I'm a skeptic. I will always assume the worst when it comes to big money corporations and when they are sleeping in bed with the guys who make the policies, i have a problem with that.

How bout a complete separation of Monsanto and any governing body?

And also why shouldn't any producer be able to label their stuff as gmo free?

Or rGBH free??

How can anybody defend this??
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...nto-vs-milkman

1) There is no revolving door. Just a made up story about a person called Michael Taylor being head of FDA which is false

2) Labelling fights are everywhere in many nhp/food areas. There's two arguments against this. Number one: Who and how does one designate "Non-GMO" to prevent false advertising. There would need to be yet again another governing body. Number two: The company is protecting the thousands of costumers from people avoiding their product.

I'm not sure number 2 is a good enough reason to not label, but an entirely defendable position for Monsanto to make.

While the use of rBGH has been shown not to be harmful to humans, it does likely lead to increase in incidence of mastitis. This means more antibiotics are used. This does impact antibiotic resistance somewhat, so there's a defendable position here. However, I don't see Monsanto fighting the labelling as evil.

3) What's to defend here? Lawsuits to protect product are not ethically terrible and incredibly commonplace .

[ripTDR]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

1) There is no revolving door. Just a made up story about a person called Michael Taylor being head of FDA which is false

2) Labelling fights are everywhere in many nhp/food areas. There's two arguments against this. Number one: Who and how does one designate "Non-GMO" to prevent false advertising. There would need to be yet again another governing body. Number two: The company is protecting the thousands of costumers from people avoiding their product.

I'm not sure number 2 is a good enough reason to not label, but an entirely defendable position for Monsanto to make.

While the use of rBGH has been shown not to be harmful to humans, it does likely lead to increase in incidence of mastitis. This means more antibiotics are used. This does impact antibiotic resistance somewhat, so there's a defendable position here. However, I don't see Monsanto fighting the labelling as evil.

3) What's to defend here? Lawsuits to protect product are not ethically terrible and incredibly commonplace .

if they are not ethically terrible, then why do they feel the need to do it?

its a free market. why cant a producer of milk proudly state that their product is rGBH free? if the consumer is properly educated, then let them make the decisions. monstanto wants to take that equation out of the purchasing power of the consumer. the only tool that they have left to make a statement(right or wrong)

as for big business in bed with government or at they very least, people with influence, a quick google search shows all sorts of examples.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I know the difference, you know the difference didn't think it would be an issue because it's common sense. Obviously not all non-gmos are organic. However, it would be nice if they made it more clear in stores.

I think you are misunderstanding something fundimental here, as if you go to a local farmers market and buy fresh fruits and veg you can definitely tell the difference from say what you find at your supermarket.

To suggest you can tell the difference because of a change made to the "dna" of a organic plant is pretty much impossible. How its grown, how long from picking in the field to your mouth matters the most, you can have two fields identical in GMO and non GMO and there would be no discernible taste difference, unless humans have evolved a magical way of tasting changes in genetic information of a plant.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Multiple studies have shown that organic foods don't differ enough in taste that people can tell the difference. Even those who swear they can.

As for GMO vs non-GMO, I can't tell the difference

just because a study says so doesn't make it true. It depends on the kind of food, some non-organic food is close in taste like Broccoli or strawberries while others aren't even close (such as spinach and carrots).

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by ripTDR

if they are not ethically terrible, then why do they feel the need to do it?

To protect their customers and thereby their own market share. Again, these types of business protecting lawsuits are normal business practices.

its a free market. why cant a producer of milk proudly state that their product is rGBH free? if the consumer is properly educated, then let them make the decisions. monstanto wants to take that equation out of the purchasing power of the consumer. the only tool that they have left to make a statement(right or wrong)

Yes and no. I agree the consumer should have choice, but Monsanto should be allowed to legally challenge that, no? If they're wrong, their lawsuit will fail. Should we have labelling requirements for cow species? Cow diet? Whether they are allowed to free graze?

When we make such claims, there's certain health claims (real or imagined) that inevitably get attached and the consumer needs to be protected. How do you verify whether the milk is from a rBGH free cow? Who pays for that?

Is not a black and white issue.

as for big business in bed with government or at they very least, people with influence, a quick google search shows all sorts of examples.

Totally agree, but Monsanto is no better worse that literally thousands of companies. I totally disagree though on the revolving door fabrication

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I find the large majority of GMO food to be inferior to organic food in taste and nutritional value, all except for celery, organic celery actually tastes worse. You guys can argue about the safety of GMO's but at the end of the day there are noticeable differences in quality between GMO and non GMO food. If people want the cheaper GMO option they should be allowed, it's supposed to be a free market. But hating on people for preferring organic food is silly, the best of all is people who say there is no difference between organic and non-organic foods.

AcGold can you provide a source to support your claim that organic foods are superior In nutritional value?

If I missed it sorry.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

AcGold can you provide a source to support your claim that organic foods are superior In nutritional value?

If I missed it sorry.

go to a normal grocery store and an organic store and look at the produce. Strong smell and strong color are associated with nutritious food while the GMO counterpart often has relatively no smell, color or taste. Think for yourself, have you ever yourself actually tested it and looked at the difference in food quality? You get the normal spinach and it's floppy, damp and light green while the organic kind is crisp, dark green with a strong taste of spinach. The nutritional difference between the two should be obvious, the quality of food correlates to its health benefits. Why do I need a study to back up what's common sense?

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by AcGold

The nutritional difference between the two should be obvious, the quality of food correlates to its health benefits. Why do I need a study to back up what's common sense?

You can make a claim about taste and smell and I might agree with you. But without an independent study, you can't claim superior nutritional value based on common sense. And if there is an independent study, why hasn't the non-gmo side brought it out? I'm guessing because if one was actually done, there was no difference.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

just because a study says so doesn't make it true. It depends on the kind of food, some non-organic food is close in taste like Broccoli or strawberries while others aren't even close (such as spinach and carrots).

I think you're mistaking good tasting food with organic. There's bad organic and good. There's good non-organic and bad. The organic part of the equation is not what makes produce taste good or not. Does using a different pesticide change the taste? I doubt it has as much impact as soil quality, sun light, species/genetics, planting technique, crop rotation, harvesting technique, storage technique, etc, etc.

[hesh329]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you're mistaking good tasting food with organic. There's bad organic and good. There's good non-organic and bad. The organic part of the equation is not what makes produce taste good or not. Does using a different pesticide change the taste? I doubt it has as much impact as soil quality, sun light, species/genetics, planting technique, crop rotation, harvesting technique, storage technique, etc, etc.

Just to add to this thought. The farming practices used by the farmer will have more of an effect on the nutritional value of food than GMO vs non GMO. If a farmer is constantly using the same field each year without letting it rest or planting another crop that help rejuvenate it than yes there is a nutritional deficiency.

I think AcGold might be noticing a difference because certain companies/farmers use different practices but again that's more difficult to prove or disprove without seeing how that grower runs their farm.

I think if you planted GMO and non GMO seeds side by side and gave them the same treatment the nutritional value would be the same along with taste. Besides taste and nutrition value are very subjective, the soil, crop rotation, sunlight, type of water in area all have an effect on nutrition and taste.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

go to a normal grocery store and an organic store and look at the produce. Strong smell and strong color are associated with nutritious food while the GMO counterpart often has relatively no smell, color or taste. Think for yourself, have you ever yourself actually tested it and looked at the difference in food quality?

Why do I need a study to back up what's common sense?

Because it's not common sense. Food that looks and smells better might be better for you. That is common sense. The idea that food grown with different pesticides or 0.001% (made up number, likely still too big) difference in genetic make-up being better tasting is a bigger leap in logic


Edit: Meant tasting different, not healthier. That's a different discussion

[Itse]

Being a leftist I would say that yes, GMO is somewhat our version of climate denial. It's however not as much a left/right thing as people make it out to be IMO, plenty of anti-GMO people on the right too.

As to the labeling, this is very typically an issue that the markets can't really solve. It's simply unreasonable to expect that consumers could make anything even close to an informed decision on the topic. Labeling doesn't solve the issue one way or the other, it would simply be yet another way for people to self-identify while shopping.

My wife is a biochemist. She doesn't claim to be able to make an informed decision on GMO. She's "pro"-GMO because she looked into the scientific consensus on the field, which according to her pretty much says that it's a good tool that should be used. I'm taking her word for it basically. (I did look into it myself too.)

Also, Golden Rice. Get it out there.


As for unrational things that the left opposes, nuclear power is even worse. Nuclear power is relatively speaking an excellent source of energy any way you look at it really, the science is clear and the experiences largely positive.

But even so, I know many generally very smart, very thoughtful people who oppose nuclear power because OMG RADIATION. It's sad, but there's not much you can do.

"You can not reason people out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

Well you can to some extent, but scaring the crap out of people is just way faster, so it seems like a lost fight.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by AcGold

what horrible disinformation, you most definitely can tell the difference. Well I can. If you blindfolded me I guarantee I would know. GMO does not have the same nutritional value as GMOs, how can you say something so blatantly untrue? GMO carrots don't even taste like carrots, I could tell GMO apart from organic carrots just by smelling them. Wait.... are you trolling me here?

Technically a GMO is any genetic modification. So unless the genetic modification is something that affects taste, you won't be able to tell the difference. The kind of differences you are talking about have to do with growing and transport practices, not whether or not it is GMO.

[driveway]

Here's a british review of the available literature on Organic vs Non-Organic nutritional value.

Note, they are not specifically comparing GMO and non-GMO, but 'conventionally produced foodstuffs' would have to include GMO foods.

http://multimedia.food.gov.uk/multim...appendices.pdf

no evidence of a difference in content was detected between organically and conventionally produced crops for the following nutrients and other substances: vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids, titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant non-digestible carbohydrates, β-carotene and sulphur.

HOWEVER

Significant differences in content between organically and conventionally produced crops were found in some minerals (nitrogen higher in conventional crops; magnesium and zinc higher in organic crops), phytochemicals (phenolic compounds and flavonoids higher in organic crops) and sugars (higher in organic crops). In analysis restricted to satisfactory quality studies, significant differences in content between organically and conventionally produced crops were found only in nitrogen content (higher in conventional crops), phosphorus (higher in organic crops) and titratable acidity (higher in organic crops).

The executive summary concludes:

There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

1) There is no revolving door. Just a made up story about a person called Michael Taylor being head of FDA which is false.

Yeah, not made up.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersO...ds/default.htm

Deputy Commissioner is the highest position in Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, so that is accurate in the context of the article.

The accuracy of the rest of your post is also questionable, as there are many studies that show definitive links between rBGH and various forms of cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...growth-hormone
http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clea...h-hormone.html

You have to understand that there are some very powerful interests that make gobs of money off of Monsanto's cornering of markets. Anyone that attempts to stand up to them gets crushed. Even when the truth tries to get out, these powerful interests shut them down.

http://www.nationofchange.org/2-fox-...ilk-1385184532

This particular suit resulted in changes to laws about the press, where the requirement for the press to act in the public's best interest, and tell the truth on issues of health and public safety, were dismissed. News bureaus are now able to say what ever they want and bury the truth, if their management so desires.