KingCyrus: GMO's are not labeled in the United States. Individual States which have tried to require labeling backed down in the face of lawsuits.

Yoyoyozo: "If there were poison in the seeds, they couldn't keep it a secret."

The seeds are patented as a pesticide. They don't just contain a poison: they are the poison.

Jece, a few states require labeling. I think Hawaii was the first and there may be some in New England too.

bo_sox48:

Nope:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/
http://righttoknow-gmo.org/states

Only Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut have passed bills requiring labeling, but these haven't been implemented. For example, see:
http://www.vtrighttoknowgmos.org/vermonts-gmo-legal-battle-heats/

Meanwhile, HR 4432, which is currently being considered in Congress, will undo this minimal process.

The Maine and Connecticut bills won't go into effect until other states follow suit.

Did Hawaii ban GMOs altogether?

Wow, you champions of GMO's truly are uninformed. I wonder if Yoyoyo the impressive knew that the government subsidizes farmers for NOT growing crops on their land in efforts to control food. Not have enough food? You have to be joking.

It has nothing to do with making the crop "better". It has everything to do with increasing the crops resistance to Round Up so insecticides can be sprayed all over them until harvest time.

And if you don't think that Round Up spray has adverse effects on humans, take a look at the leading killers in the medical industry present day.

Hint: It has nothing to do with guns, knifes, or bombs.

Mmm... Gotta have GMO's - got to make them mine!

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

In closing, Monstano pays a lot of money to keep you in the dark about these. Eventually, the truth will be brought to light - but not today.

A good UNBIASED documentary regarding GMO's is called OMG GMO. It's about a father on the search for more information surrounding the mystery behind them. No agenda either way - but what he finds out is pretty life-changing.

Good luck!

Food Inc. is a good documentary for those of you who are interested in the topic. It only makes passing references to the use of GMOs, but it *does* cover the conglomerate monopolies on the food supply in great detail.

Yeah, that's "unbiased?" Lol... no, it's not, and that's coming from an environmwntalist and conservationist.

The United States doesn't need more food. We do anpretty shitty job of distributing our food to the hungry and we do a god-awful job at preventing food waste. There are a lot of other parts of the world (W/NW Africa, E/SE Asia, Latin America) that need far more consistent, stable agriculture, and then they need to learn how to distribute it properly so that everyone eats. Traditional agriculture will never feed 8 billion people, especially given the changing monsoon cycles and water shortages around the world, but *safe* GMO agriculture could if done right.

Food Inc. is a far better piece and it dishes on Monsanto, who deserves all the shit the world can throw, along with Tyson and IBP (and I think Perdue if I remember correctly), not the science itself.

@Myx: You linked to leading causes of death, but you never linked said causes of death to GMOs.

Also, here is a review of GMO OMG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAniQ5WCRX4

@bo sox, were you expecting a different result? Yeah, I consider his initial intentions to be unbiased. He seemed interested in finding out real information vs villainizing Monsanto. What's wrong with either of those things? I've watched Food, Inc. as well, although its been awhile.

@VashtaNeurotic - I wish it were as easy as googling your death via GMO for you, but unfortunately there's this:

6. The biotech industry uses "tobacco science" to claim product safety.
Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a "large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge." Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

Source: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

Btw, that reviewer can say what he will... it was a informative documentary regardless. Besides, reviews are subjective. I liked it, and think people should watch it, which negates that youtuber's review. Now the counts even.

@Myx: A review of your source: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-organizations/institute-for-responsible-technology-ifrt/

Can you give me some (credible) papers, or articles with actual citations?

@Vash - If you're interested, research it yourself. You're an idiot if you think Monsanto papers are going to be published incriminating themselves.

Actually, you like reviews, here's mine: Eat as many GMO's as you can. You'll be fine.

Ta ta.

What a quality debate we just had.

@Myx: So, you use faulty and/or biased sources and refuse to link to any actual papers. All you seem to have done is fear-mongering without any SOLID evidence backing you up.
Also, just because a company endorses a product doesn't mean there is something wrong with it, especially when the FDA agrees with them.

"GMOs are fine"
"No, I'd say they're dandy"
"I'm cool as long as they're labelled"
"GMOs are pretty bad guys"
"Let's not have GMOs, actually"
"No, you're wrong, GMOs are clearly evil"
"You are a complete dumbass because GMOs are very evil"
Is that what just happened?

Yup.

Really what's there to debate? It's a bunch of "my scientist says blah". There's too many polarizing scientific viewpoints out there, too much money, far too much skin in the game for BigAg. I'm not debating anyone else's research, or what I've read where, but I've witnessed the horrors enough to know what our government seems to be OK with fucking over the populace provided we don't shout too loudly.

One things for certain, we should have as many facts available as possible when making choices at the grocer - why are people so opposed to this? Will the inorganic farmer be put out of business? If so, isn't that how capitalism works? Supply and demand? I want to know where my money is going.

@Myx: First off, there is a reason why you look at the consensus, because it is the best way to decrease the influence of biased parties. And the consensus is that GMOs are actually safe.
Source: http://bit.ly/1lySoNa

Also, just because I know GMOs are safe does not mean that there are not concerns about them. If someone doesn't want to eat GMOs, they should be able to know which consumables contain them. There is the issue of patenting the genes of GMOs, as it could cause a monopoly on them, but that did not seem to be the crutch of your argument.

TL;DR
There are some problems with GMOs, but safety isn't one.

@ bo_sox

My concern with GMOs is far outweighed by my concern with the monopolization of our food supply by no more than 5-7 conglomerates.

Are GMOs themselves bad per se? I don't know, and I suspect that the scientific jury is still out. From what I've gathered, it could be the same idea as nuclear power; generally good but precautions must be taken. Are companies like Monsanto leveraging GMOs to control the entire food supply? Yes, and that's a scary fact.

On Food Inc., an alarming claim was made that Monsanto developed a soybean breed (via genetic engineering) that is immune to the effects of RoundUp (a Monsanto weed-killing product). That's all well and good, but the only problem is that I consume soybean products and *I'm* definitely *not* immune to RoundUp. Now this RoundUp-proof soybean plant accounts for over 90% of all soybean plants in the US, and Monsanto is actively trying to make the other 10% extinct.

@Vash Im wary for several reasons, primarily because the money is on the side that suggests they're safe. What do scientists that are opposed to GMOs have to gain? It's not notoriety, many scientists before them have denounced GMOs and have gained very little from what I can tell. I'm also curious why Monsanto would spend $$ trying to keep their name off such a "revolutionary" development. If that were truly the case, wouldn't they want to let everyone that they created a product with potential to save humanity from starvation? What motive would they have to hide it? And, if your product is so effective/safe, why then the countless lawsuits against farmers who grow organically when accidental cross-field contamination occurs? Why should you need that petty cash? I get they spent a lot on r&d, but aren't they farmers first?

@Myx: You do realize that if a scientist was able to prove GMOs were, in fact, not safe (and for the record there are many different types of GMOs), that would actually be a pretty big break. The problem is that all the evidence points to GMOs being safe.

"I'm also curious why Monsanto would spend $$ trying to keep their name off such a "revolutionary" development. If that were truly the case, wouldn't they want to let everyone that they created a product with potential to save humanity from starvation?" Not really, they are not out to "save humanity", they are out to make money. Talking about such capabilities and then not following through would damage their reputation further. It also helps that keeping the information on the "down-lo" them by people not realizing what a hold they have one the market of GMOs.

"if your product is so effective/safe, why then the countless lawsuits against farmers who grow organically when accidental cross-field contamination occurs?"
Because Monsanto is filled with assholes who like money. They sue farmers for using "their" patented product, even though it was used accidentally. Kind of how Disney would sue you for using Mickey Mouse as your spokesman.

Why should you need that petty cash? I get they spent a lot on r&d, but aren't they farmers first?
You see, the thing is, Monsanto is not nice. Monsanto is a corporation. They like power. Your fear of buying GMOs for health reasons is misplaced, but I understand your mistrust of Monsanto.

TL;DR
Monsanto is evil, but GMOs aren't.

@Gunfighter ...

"From what I've gathered, it could be the same idea as nuclear power; generally good but precautions must be taken."

It's impossible to say right now whether the two are comparable as neither of the two are widely considered safe and the science behind them is pretty unstable in that new ways of making the technology safer are coming out all the time. The science of nuclear power hasn't even reached a pinch of its potential - fission can be good, but safe, stable fusion would absolutely change the world for the better in a heartbeat. The same could be said for GMOs - we are at the stable fission stage right now, only we are a lot more concerned with it than we are with nuclear power because a) nuclear power doesn't affect everyone, b) nuclear power isn't in everyone's backyard, and c) we don't eat nuclear output. Hopefully.

"Now this RoundUp-proof soybean plant accounts for over 90% of all soybean plants in the US, and Monsanto is actively trying to make the other 10% extinct."

Food, Inc. came out some time ago. I imagine that 10% is nearly extinct now. I can certainly find out once I'm back in Indiana if you remind me - farmers are the best resource on this matter.

@MyX ...

"Im wary for several reasons, primarily because the money is on the side that suggests they're safe. What do scientists that are opposed to GMOs have to gain?"

The money is not "on the side that suggests they're safe," it's invested in the side that assumes they are safe and is responsible for making it safe. That's what investments are, and if they do in fact turn out to be safe and they are able to manufactured to massive profits, those investments pay off. If not, those investments by companies like Monsanto or Syngenta don't pay off and they go back to advertising weed killers.

Had you suggested that these manufacturers and all of their subsidiaries need to be cautious, prioritizing the science over profits, I would agree with you. That's plainly obvious to anyone outside of these companies, but we both know that the ones inside the companies often fail miserably in that sense. Instead, you're feeding us some kind of conspiracy. You would actually be a helpful advocate for safe production and proper bioengineering if you could refrain from trying to stop something that's already happened, accepting the fact that GMO food is a necessary part of our future in order to sustain the world's populations, and start putting your energy into ensuring that the manufacturers and the investors are focused on the output of food, not the intake of a few extra pennies.

Vastha: Scientists HAVE proven that GMOs aren't safe, but every time they do, Monsanto comes in and discredits them as a scientist so hard that their career is entirely ruined and their proof becomes irrelevant. Though I hate citing the book, Stuffed and Starved details an encounter a scientist had shortly after proving this with people from Monsanto via email. He was quickly fired and his paper was revoked.