What about genetic modification is inherently bad? Monsanto is evil sure, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept, and the GMOs themselves haven't been shown to react.

I'm usually the sensitive liberal who jumps on any cause, but this one is dumb.

GMOs are necessary to provide for the current and future population. That requires proper distribution, which won't happen, but it's the only way to have a chance. Eat local and organic if you can afford it and push for safe production of GMOs. Also, fuck Monsanto and their lawyers. Don't ban them though.

I see nothing wrong with labeling food as GMO. I thought that was already required? At least in the US.

I think GMO is fine. But only as long as GMO muffins are banned. The muffin popularity is already too high and making them cheaper will only add to the problem.

Byron, this muffin mania needs to end...

I've been silent on the issue for 24 hours. My movement has been dormant for 24 years and my people have been persecuted for 24 decades. Now we are done ending things for you pro-muffin, nut sacks.

@CB: What happened? Did the muffin man steal your girlfriend? Because I am thinking the muffin man stole your girlfriend.

You do know that all modern food is genetically modified, it's just that is was done by breeding it at a slower rate than what is now called GMO food. While some genes from GMO foods wouldn't normally be added, doing it outside a lab doesn't mean it didn't happen. All food is bred for desired traits from animals that will survive in different terrain and climates to plants.

That Jonagold apple is a GMO of Jonathon and gold delicious apples by grafting a branch of one apple type onto another. It didn't exist before man modified two different apple types together. You don't see it needing to be labeled.

Corn is the result of a thousand years of farmers modifying maize from a tiny cob to what you see today.

Coincidentally, I read (skimmed through since it was school-assigned and it was repetitive as fuck and I didn't give a shit) a book (that was very heavily skewed against any corporation that happens to exist, not just Monsanto, literally every company that exceeds a certain size. His hardcore bias got seriously annoying really quickly) in AP Lang very much about the food industry, and I'm writing a policy paper over the break for AP Gov regarding GMOs. So, basically, if you could keep discussing this through January 4 by midnight Central Time (when the paper is due) that'd be great. But KingCyrus, I do know that labeling of GMOs is not required by the FDA currently.

Muffin man took my muffginity. He pinned me down and forced me to swallow his muffin top. It was lumpy and gross and it tasted of salted caramel. I've never been the same.

<<While some genes from GMO foods wouldn't normally be added....>>

And there is the problem, Randomizer--the effect of those artificially added and modified genes on us humans and on the environment is still very much unknown.

One of the big concerns that people have about GMOs is the patenting of them. Companies say that if the designed this crop then they ought to own it, and if it turns up somewhere without their consent then it should violate copyright law. The problem with this is that organisms spread naturally to other places, so if someone happens to have your GMO in their field it could have gotten there through natural processes, not just by them stealing it, making this a tricky situation for enforcing. There's also the ethics question: is it ethical to copyright a lifeform?

I'm largely against GMOs, not because they are inherently bad, but because their implementation is. I suspect this is true for the majority of people who stand against them at the moment.

GMOs:Democrats::Benghazi:Republicans

GMOs are no more or less dangerous than any other earth shattering technology we have or are about to get. That is, used well and in the right hands they can be helpful, and used badly or by narrow interests they may destroy us. Naturally the world tend towards the latter because the greedy rich own everything, so on balance I am nervous about GMOs

Simple food fact that is also an indictment of the shit world we have: there is enough food grown every year to feed everyone well, but one in six are hungry. There's no excuse for that.

Politics?

Money? (I'm assuming Yoyo was answering Thucy's question, so I used the same format. My answer is actually better)

Money. Politics. They go hand and hand. Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have the infrastructure to have sustainable agricultural system. India exports a shitton of food while its population starves. The United States could help them out... but there's politics involved and no one likes politics.

Thucy 2016 - a kumquat in every pot!

I was just commenting to my sons about what a well-learned forum this is - truly quite unique among internet groups. UNTIL NOW.
Really, for a group of individuals that understand that actions taken in a country distant to your own position ripple down to affect your own position - you really have absorbed the party line in a way that is beneath you.
I have been a farmer, and medical researcher, and let me tell you GMO is all about the $$$. It is not about sustainability. I am for progress, and not against GMO in a blanket way, but given the fact of how they impact the ecology of the earth in such a radical way I think studies of network-effects of their introduction need to be completed.
An example - BT corn - a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis that produces the BT toxin has been inserted into corn, soy, beets. When insects eat the plant they ingest the toxin made by the plant from the inserted gene and die (This toxin is not exactly the same as is produced in the native organism).
BT toxin is not "safe" (articles to follow). when we consume food products that have been BT-modified we ingest BT. BT can be found in the blood of humans. BT alters our gut microflora - our intestinal biome markedly. This biome affects our immune system, our auto-immune tolerance, our inflammatory state, our digestion and absorption of nutrients.
Even more concerning is that the level of BT toxin in the soil is building up - this is changing the microbial balance of the soil in ways that limit nitrogen fixation, nutrient availability, and disease resistance to other non-BT susceptible organisms. These are ecological shifts on a monumental scale - ironic that it is a microscopic monumental change.
Articles discussing effects of BT on mucosal immunity are frightening when one considers this interface is the heart of immune regulation in the body.

*Vázquez RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, De La Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scand J Immunol. Jun 1999;49(6):578-584.

*Vázquez-Padrón RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, de la Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sci. 1999;64(21):1897-1912.

*Vázquez-Padrón RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, Martinez-Gil AF, de-la-Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. Feb 2000;33(2):147-155.

And yes, it is true that there is VERY LITTLE HUMAN science published on the effects of the ingestion of GMO. This article.. http://www.biosafety.ru/ftp/domingo.pdf pubmed reference= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10.1080%2F10408390601177670

The abstract from this paper reads "According to the information reported by the WHO, the genetically modified (GM) products that are currently on the
international market have all passed risk assessments conducted by national authorities. These assessments have not indicated
any risk to human health. In spite of this clear statement, it is quite amazing to note that the review articles published in
international scientific journals during the current decade did not find, or the number was particularly small, references
concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods. In this paper, the scientific information
concerning the potential toxicity of GM/transgenic plants using the Medline database is reviewed. Studies about the safety of
the potential use of potatoes, corn, soybeans, rice, cucumber, tomatoes, sweet pepper, peas, and canola plants for food and
feed were included. The number of references was surprisingly limited. Moreover, most published studies were not performed
by the biotechnology companies that produce these products. This review can be concluded raising the following question:
where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?"

The internet is a place that can be steered by those with enough money and enough funding to create data and thought streams beneficial to one's cause. FB, Google, and the like feed us what we 'like' and modify our news streams. Medical literature is corrupt as can be with many fake authors and dubious journals.

It takes independent thinkers - such as represented by those on this forum - to question the party line, and consider the effect to the system as a whole of a single-powerful intervention. The GMO story is VERY complex, and is way too large of a potential impact to be swept under the rug by "If my government (that also does "X" where X is something you highly disapprove of) approves of it then it must be OK"

Yoyoyozo - your assumptions that GMO have a net benefit depends upon the statistics you use. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

The fact you see so little research out there on this is because - as quoted by the article... "To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

You bring up valid points but the truth of the matter is that is one form of GM corn. That doesn't make GMO inherently bad. GMO may be about money, but sustainable is a side effects nonetheless. We alter genes that make corn more fertile, higher yeild, and grow bigger and that is a fact. The United states has done a huge amount of research on GMO; what are you even talking about. That was a scare like 10 years ago but that's what has pushed all of the research that has gone forth. Almost every college student studying agricultural science in the past 5 years has written a thesis on GMOs (exaggeration but you get the point) and there is even continued scientific discussion about it. BTW the article you linked me to doesn't work but I would love to read what it said. Also your sources are a bit outdated. We know WAY more about food and GMOs than we did in 1999.

I'm refering to your first article, not the one you just suggested to me. I will read it now.

You are right that GMO in itself is in no way evil, ... and hold amazing promise for system-wide good. I just want to see more data - and for an industry that is as large as the seed-sales and herbicide sales and technology sales that Monsanto represents we should have a shitton more research published. But as I said, independent research on GMO is very hard to find due to the contracting of the company on the use of the seeds.

We humans are an arrogant species (and I obviously rank in that category well) - and we boldly go forth not attending to the potential for unintended consequences. GMO right now is about the money - pure and simple. Its monoculture is diminishing the diversity of land, intestinal biomes, potential seed sources, and economies. Diversity in biology is king. Where it exists there is resilience, where it does not, calamity can strike quickly.

Ok I read it and this doesn't make GMOs bad. The companies are. They could be abusing their power to prevent the recreation of their product by other companies, not necessarily to prevent scientific research. Even if they were, what are they going to hide? These businesses are consisted of people, Ben. If there were poison in the seeds, they couldn't keep it a secret. Hell, McDonalds couldn't keep their "pink slime" a secret.

yoyoyozo - Here is that reference again - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10.1080%2F10408390601177670

yoyoyozo.... you trust too easily methinks. I hope you are right.

I would even go so far as to say the companies are not bad, but instead we as a culture have abandoned the Precautionary Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle And this is the scary part. We boldly go where profits, fame, and power lead us without enough concern for the ripple effects of our actions. IMO GMO fits into this category.

Personally, I wouldn't buy GM foods, but I'm against banning them and I'm perfectly fine with their cultivation as long as the following things are addressed:

They receive labeling in stores,

The property rights of adjacent non-GMO growers are respected; there is the threat of cross pollination altering non-GMO farmers crops.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetically-modified-crop/