But let's talk about what's really important...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Virtually everything we eat is "genetically modified", and has been for centuries. Every animal, every fruit, every crop.

When you take a tomato, and breed it to produce big tomato fruit - that's "genetically modified".

American Indians developing corn? Selection is "genetically modified".

Cows giving 20 gallons of milk a day? Their genes have been "genetically modified" by breeding selection.

I don't understand why people fear "genetically modified" foods - except they don't know what DNA and RNA are, and the terms are scary?

Or they don't understand how eating DNA and RNA from another animal - like a cow - doesn't turn you into a cow? But they think that eating cow DNA will alter their own DNA and cause cancer? While not understanding the concept of denatured proteins, how your own body treats foreign proteins, etc ....

You are obviously using a different definition of "genetically modified". If not, there would be no need for such labeling. If everything was genetically modified then there would be need to differentiate GMO from non-GMO.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are obviously using a different definition of "genetically modified".

How so? Genetically modified is genetically modified, whether you do it by selecting two racehorses to breed together, by covering flower fruits so you can pollenate them by hand, or combining genes from different breeds.

If not, there would be no need for such labeling. If everything was genetically modified then there would be need to differentiate GMO from non-GMO.

What definition are you using? Every single thing you eat is already genetically modified. Where shall we draw the line?

I have many concerns about our abilities to genetically modify crops and the inadvertent results of changing them, we've been doing genetic modifications for thousands of years. But my concerns lay more with pest resistence, removing original crops from gene pool availability, monogenetic crops, etc.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

How so? Genetically modified is genetically modified, whether you do it by selecting two racehorses to breed together, by covering flower fruits so you can pollenate them by hand, or combining genes from different breeds.



What definition are you using? Every single thing you eat is already genetically modified. Where shall we draw the line?

I have many concerns about our abilities to genetically modify crops and the inadvertent results of changing them, we've been doing genetic modifications for thousands of years. But my concerns lay more with pest resistence, removing original crops from gene pool availability, monogenetic crops, etc.

If all foods are already genetically modified then which foods were going to be required to be labeled under the new law? By the way, Prop 37 used pretty much the same language as the law in Europe which requires GMOs to be labeled. Since you are the expert, you can explain to everyone which GMOs are required to be labeled since you think all foods are GMOs.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If all foods are already genetically modified then which foods were going to be required to be labeled under the new law?

I agree that's a problem, and that's the question. Only foods that are GMO and have been for years like seedless grapes and navel oranges? Every chicken? Only foods that have gene insertions from other species? Foods that are manipulated to be pest-resistant? What if it's done in a test field, rather than in a laboratory greenhouse?

What do you think? Which of those should be labeled as GMO?

If a farmer has a particularly good looking crop and he then uses the seeds of that crop, nobody would define that as "genetically modified". All species evolve over the years. Nobody would call these species "genetically modified".

They certainly are, when certain genes are selected for by the growers, and other former genes are eliminated on purpose. That's exactly what genetic modification is.

When Monsanto alters DNA in a laboratory, that would be "genetically modified".

That is exactly my point. What do you think is the difference between Monsanto altering DNA in a laboratory, and the DNA alterations selected by farmers over 5 years?

The product is often the same.

Foods have been genetically modified for centuries. In modern America our foods have become uniform in size and appearance, ship well, last forever, at the expense of nutrition and taste, due to genetic modification.

Good lord - look at apples in a supermarket. They taste nothing like apples should. We killed off the species of banana we were eating 40 years ago because they were genetically modified and were wiped out by disease. The bananas we eat today are entirely different (also genetically modified)

I'm more concerned about how the genetic modifications done over the past 80 years to our foodstuffs, so they can ship across country, have ruined the nutritional composition, taste and variety.

There was nothing confusing about the law.
I don't know why you're trying to confuse people.

I never said there was, and I'm not trying to.

People know what "genetically modified" means, notwithstanding your disingenuous attempt to confuse people and tell them that all food is genetically modified.

Fine - define what you mean by "genetically modified". Give a definition right here, right now.

That's my point. The words are scary. But people don't really understand what it means.

I don't care if people want their food to be labeled for GMO. I have no respect for Monsanto, in spite of your ridiculous baseless assumption.

But people in the USA have very little knowledge of what "genetically modified" means. So you define it right now, so we're both on the same page.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree that's a problem, and that's the question. Only foods that are GMO and have been for years like seedless grapes and navel oranges? Every chicken? Only foods that have gene insertions from other species? Foods that are manipulated to be pest-resistant? What if it's done in a test field, rather than in a laboratory greenhouse?

What do you think? Which of those should be labeled as GMO?



They certainly are, when certain genes are selected for by the growers, and other former genes are eliminated on purpose. That's exactly what genetic modification is.



That is exactly my point. What do you think is the difference between Monsanto altering DNA in a laboratory, and the DNA alterations selected by farmers over 5 years?

The product is often the same.

Foods have been genetically modified for centuries. In modern America our foods have become uniform in size and appearance, ship well, last forever, at the expense of nutrition and taste, due to genetic modification.

Good lord - look at apples in a supermarket. They taste nothing like apples should. We killed off the species of banana we were eating 40 years ago because they were genetically modified and were wiped out by disease. The bananas we eat today are entirely different (also genetically modified)

I'm more concerned about how the genetic modifications done over the past 80 years to our foodstuffs, so they can ship across country, have ruined the nutritional composition, taste and variety.



I never said there was, and I'm not trying to.



Fine - define what you mean by "genetically modified". Give a definition right here, right now.

That's my point. The words are scary. But people don't really understand what it means.

I don't care if people want their food to be labeled for GMO. I have no respect for Monsanto, in spite of your ridiculous baseless assumption.

But people in the USA have very little knowledge of what "genetically modified" means. So you define it right now, so we're both on the same page.

I would use the same definition as everyone else:

"Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species."

"Such methods are used to create GM plants – which are then used to grow GM food crops."

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/public...0questions/en/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The definition is exactly how it is defined in the law:

"Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species."

"Such methods are used to create GM plants – which are then used to grow GM food crops."

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/public...0questions/en/

That's exactly the definition I'm using, Rupert. Anything that doesn't occur naturally in nature. Seedless oranges, for example. Giant strawberries. The guy that covers the tassels on corn, then pollenates the corn by hand. That's genetic modification.

You can do that in a field, as has been done for thousands of years, or in a greenhouse, or in a backyard, or in a laboratory greenhouse.

So the point you brought up is: which foods should be labeled, and why? Only those who have interspecies genes? Or every other altered gene? (which is pretty much everything we eat)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's exactly the definition I'm using, Rupert. Anything that doesn't occur naturally in nature. Seedless oranges, for example. Giant strawberries. The guy that covers the tassels on corn, then pollenates the corn by hand. That's genetic modification.

You can do that in a field, as has been done for thousands of years, or in a greenhouse, or in a backyard, or in a laboratory greenhouse.

So the point you brought up is: which foods should be labeled, and why? Only those who have interspecies genes? Or every other altered gene? (which is pretty much everything we eat)

There are something like 61 countries that require labels on GMOs. Natural selection that has occurred over thousands of years does not qualify as a GMO food. The definitions are very clearly written in the laws as to what would be considered a GMO food. The law in California was going to be pretty much the same as the law in Europe. When DNA is altered in a lab to produce a plant that doesn't occur naturally, I think that pretty much defines it. The law is referring to genetically engineered crops in a laboratory, not natural selection.


http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regul...gineering.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...ified_organism

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

How so? Genetically modified is genetically modified, whether you do it by selecting two racehorses to breed together, by covering flower fruits so you can pollenate them by hand, or combining genes from different breeds.



What definition are you using? Every single thing you eat is already genetically modified. Where shall we draw the line?

I have many concerns about our abilities to genetically modify crops and the inadvertent results of changing them, we've been doing genetic modifications for thousands of years. But my concerns lay more with pest resistence, removing original crops from gene pool availability, monogenetic crops, etc.

If a farmer has a particularly good looking crop and he then uses the seeds of that crop, nobody would define that as "genetically modified". All species evolve over the years. Nobody would call these species "genetically modified". When Monsanto alters DNA in a laboratory, that would be "genetically modified".

There was nothing confusing about the law. I don't know why you're trying to confuse people. People know what "genetically modified" means, notwithstanding your disingenuous attempt to confuse people and tell them that all food is genetically modified. Monsanto should hire you as a propagandist.