9 ms·

This disgusts me. I have a right to know what is in the food I (might) eat. If indeed there is no risk from GMO products (plant or animals), or animals given an

This disgusts me. I have a right to know what is in the food I (might) eat. If indeed there is no risk from GMO products (plant or animals), or animals given antibiotics, or cows given hormones to increase milk production, etc. then it falls upon those industries to educate and convince me of this point-of-view, not to hide the information or (in some cases) make it illegal to report the GMO/non-GMO status.

sschueller 9y ago
I agree, I didn't notice how much I care until I recently went on vacation and there was no declaration on the restaurant menu on where the meet comes from and what it may contain. Edit: For clarification, I live in Switzerland
- eru 9y ago
  "May contain beef"?
  - sschueller 9y ago
    Antibiotics, groth hormones etc. Restaurants here are required to declare origin of the meat and will clearly state meat from certain places may contain those extra ingredients.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > no declaration on the restaurant menu on where the meet comes from and what it may contain. I actually don't know what you mean here. Do restaurants normally list the farm they get their meat from? Around here (Pittsburgh, PA) I don't think I've ever seen that, except at the "eat local" places, where it's basically their selling point, but they're not the norm.
  - jackhack 9y ago
    Yes, country of origin. Did that beef come from China, Argentina, United States, or Switzerland? For instance, I do not eat eat oysters from China (due to their record of gross pollution) or japanese seafood after the Fukushima incident (which continues to poison the ocean).
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      > Fukushima incident (which continues to poison the ocean). More than all the coal plants and mines in the US?
      - jackhack 9y ago
        Yes. Orders of magnitude more. While it's commonly understood that coal-fired power plants release more radiation than (properly operated) nuclear plants per year, with Fukushima we are talking about a core meltdown and uncontrolled release for nearly a decade! We are talking about anywhere from 100 to 400 Tons of contaminated water per day. It is truly a man-made disaster being ignored. https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+tons+of+water+per+day https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+tons+of+water+per+... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/fukushima-radiation-has-contaminated-entire-pacific-ocean-and-its-going-get-worse http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/fukushima-radiation... https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376607-leakage-radiation-fukushima-japan/ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376607-leakage-radiation-fukushim... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-with-japans-nuclear-waste-six-years-after-disaster.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-wit...
    - kobeya 9y ago
      The oyster example makes sense, although it is pretty exceptional given shellfish are basically harbor water filters. The Japan fish prohibition seems like overreacting. The effect from Fukushima on fishing from the pacific would not be measurable and dwarfed by other concerns such as plastic and mercury. I have a hard time thinking of general reasons why you’d care of the meat was from, say, USA vs. New Zealand. Assuming you trust your local regulators that approved the meat for import.
toufka 9y ago
What kind of label would you like to see in this case, where an 'ingredient' has been removed? In this case a particular gene is being repressed, so that protein will be in less abundance than usual - nothing has been added, but one particular gene has been removed. I would doubt anyone would disagree with you in wanting to provide accurate information about what you are consuming. The question is, does a generic "GMO" label tell you anything useful when applied as a label, and conversely, does it tell you anything useful when not applied as a label? I'm not sure that label provides any meaningful information.
jimktrains2 9y ago
> I have a right to know what is in the food I (might) eat. Because you (or anyone?) certainly knows all the genes that have been selected via cross and selective breeding and all possible ramifications, right?
- whitepoplar 9y ago
  Critics are typically ok with selective and cross breeding, and not ok with transgenics. This makes sense as they're in completely different risk domains. I'm far more comfortable with genetic alternation happening via natural mechanisms than by transgenics. The latter relies on the "genius" of the human, something which is inherently fragile.
  - pathseeker 9y ago
    Naturalistic fallacy at work. There is no evidence that cross breeding is any safer than transgenics.
    - whitepoplar 9y ago
      This is the same tactic the tobacco companies used when people suspected harm caused by cigarettes. When you introduce a foreign process to the world, it's up to the introducer to prove harmlessness, not for the consumer to prove harmfulness. There have been, to this day, no long term tail-risk studies done on GMOs.
    - jmcdiesel 9y ago
      Whitepolar... You cannot prove something is harmless. Thats literally the opposite of science... you can not prove a negative.
      - whitepoplar 9y ago
        Sure you can, though only probabilistically. That's precisely why fiddling with something as critical as the food supply is a bad idea, as it's likely we'll only discover potential problems when it's too late.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Labelling GMO/non-GMO status tells you nothing about what is actually in the food you eat, in the same way that labelling Scrum/non-Scrum status tells you nothing about what is in the software you use. The only thing a label that says “GMO” would tell you is that there has been more regulatory review of what is in it than if it wasn't a GMO.
- jackhack 9y ago
  Scrum is a process. When you use software you don't use Scrum or Waterfall. You use the software When you consume food, you are consuming the GMO/non-GMO elements by definition.
exabrial 9y ago
Antibiotics: don't make it into your beef in an amount that will affect your life. You can consume more drugs by drinking tap water in LA. Hormones: I guess we should ban birth control as well, correct? Because that's all it is... But, I believe in a free society, so if people wish to remain ignorant of science, that's their prerogative. But it's important to recongize those are just marketing campaigns: there is nothing "healthier" about eating beef raised antibiotic/hormone free, all other things being equal (living conditions for the animals).
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  The issue many people have with antibiotics and hormones aren't always about what is made into the food. (Though, yes, there are a lot of people that worry about that.) Issues around proper usage of antibiotics, especially now with the constant emergence of new resistant strains of bacteria is one concern, along with proper disposal and excess dosage making it into the environment. There are also animal welfare issues and concerns, I'm unfortunately not well-versed enough in ranching to know how true those are. (And as a vegetarian find growing animals for food repulsive to begin with.) Hormones stem again from animal welfare issues. It's unfair to just toss out all concerns over hormones and antibiotics just because some concerns aren't merited or as merited.
- seszett 9y ago
  > Hormones: I guess we should ban birth control as well, correct? Because that's all it is... We don't usually give birth control hormones to male humans. I don't know if they are bad when they are given to animals (it's forbidden here in Europe) but female hormones are definitely not good to developing children or adult males. They're just good/neutral (well, not functionally neutral of course, but not causing unplanned disruption) to adult females because they're part of their normal physiology.
  - exabrial 9y ago
    > We don't usually give birth control hormones to male humans. This comment presents a false premise. The amounts in beef are ridiculously small, especially when compared to other foods. Any "advantages" to "hormone free beef" are pseudoscience and a marketing campaign, and that's it.

sschueller 9y ago

I agree, I didn't notice how much I care until I recently went on vacation and there was no declaration on the restaurant menu on where the meet comes from and what it may contain. Edit: For clarification, I live in Switzerland

eru 9y ago
"May contain beef"?
- sschueller 9y ago
  Antibiotics, groth hormones etc. Restaurants here are required to declare origin of the meat and will clearly state meat from certain places may contain those extra ingredients.
jimktrains2 9y ago
> no declaration on the restaurant menu on where the meet comes from and what it may contain. I actually don't know what you mean here. Do restaurants normally list the farm they get their meat from? Around here (Pittsburgh, PA) I don't think I've ever seen that, except at the "eat local" places, where it's basically their selling point, but they're not the norm.
- jackhack 9y ago
  Yes, country of origin. Did that beef come from China, Argentina, United States, or Switzerland? For instance, I do not eat eat oysters from China (due to their record of gross pollution) or japanese seafood after the Fukushima incident (which continues to poison the ocean).
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    > Fukushima incident (which continues to poison the ocean). More than all the coal plants and mines in the US?
    - jackhack 9y ago
      Yes. Orders of magnitude more. While it's commonly understood that coal-fired power plants release more radiation than (properly operated) nuclear plants per year, with Fukushima we are talking about a core meltdown and uncontrolled release for nearly a decade! We are talking about anywhere from 100 to 400 Tons of contaminated water per day. It is truly a man-made disaster being ignored. https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+tons+of+water+per+day https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+tons+of+water+per+... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/fukushima-radiation-has-contaminated-entire-pacific-ocean-and-its-going-get-worse http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/fukushima-radiation... https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376607-leakage-radiation-fukushima-japan/ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376607-leakage-radiation-fukushim... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-with-japans-nuclear-waste-six-years-after-disaster.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-wit...
  - kobeya 9y ago
    The oyster example makes sense, although it is pretty exceptional given shellfish are basically harbor water filters. The Japan fish prohibition seems like overreacting. The effect from Fukushima on fishing from the pacific would not be measurable and dwarfed by other concerns such as plastic and mercury. I have a hard time thinking of general reasons why you’d care of the meat was from, say, USA vs. New Zealand. Assuming you trust your local regulators that approved the meat for import.

toufka 9y ago

What kind of label would you like to see in this case, where an 'ingredient' has been removed? In this case a particular gene is being repressed, so that protein will be in less abundance than usual - nothing has been added, but one particular gene has been removed. I would doubt anyone would disagree with you in wanting to provide accurate information about what you are consuming. The question is, does a generic "GMO" label tell you anything useful when applied as a label, and conversely, does it tell you anything useful when not applied as a label? I'm not sure that label provides any meaningful information.

jimktrains2 9y ago

> I have a right to know what is in the food I (might) eat. Because you (or anyone?) certainly knows all the genes that have been selected via cross and selective breeding and all possible ramifications, right?

whitepoplar 9y ago
Critics are typically ok with selective and cross breeding, and not ok with transgenics. This makes sense as they're in completely different risk domains. I'm far more comfortable with genetic alternation happening via natural mechanisms than by transgenics. The latter relies on the "genius" of the human, something which is inherently fragile.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  Naturalistic fallacy at work. There is no evidence that cross breeding is any safer than transgenics.
  - whitepoplar 9y ago
    This is the same tactic the tobacco companies used when people suspected harm caused by cigarettes. When you introduce a foreign process to the world, it's up to the introducer to prove harmlessness, not for the consumer to prove harmfulness. There have been, to this day, no long term tail-risk studies done on GMOs.
  - jmcdiesel 9y ago
    Whitepolar... You cannot prove something is harmless. Thats literally the opposite of science... you can not prove a negative.
    - whitepoplar 9y ago
      Sure you can, though only probabilistically. That's precisely why fiddling with something as critical as the food supply is a bad idea, as it's likely we'll only discover potential problems when it's too late.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Labelling GMO/non-GMO status tells you nothing about what is actually in the food you eat, in the same way that labelling Scrum/non-Scrum status tells you nothing about what is in the software you use. The only thing a label that says “GMO” would tell you is that there has been more regulatory review of what is in it than if it wasn't a GMO.

jackhack 9y ago
Scrum is a process. When you use software you don't use Scrum or Waterfall. You use the software When you consume food, you are consuming the GMO/non-GMO elements by definition.

exabrial 9y ago

Antibiotics: don't make it into your beef in an amount that will affect your life. You can consume more drugs by drinking tap water in LA. Hormones: I guess we should ban birth control as well, correct? Because that's all it is... But, I believe in a free society, so if people wish to remain ignorant of science, that's their prerogative. But it's important to recongize those are just marketing campaigns: there is nothing "healthier" about eating beef raised antibiotic/hormone free, all other things being equal (living conditions for the animals).

jimktrains2 9y ago
The issue many people have with antibiotics and hormones aren't always about what is made into the food. (Though, yes, there are a lot of people that worry about that.) Issues around proper usage of antibiotics, especially now with the constant emergence of new resistant strains of bacteria is one concern, along with proper disposal and excess dosage making it into the environment. There are also animal welfare issues and concerns, I'm unfortunately not well-versed enough in ranching to know how true those are. (And as a vegetarian find growing animals for food repulsive to begin with.) Hormones stem again from animal welfare issues. It's unfair to just toss out all concerns over hormones and antibiotics just because some concerns aren't merited or as merited.
seszett 9y ago
> Hormones: I guess we should ban birth control as well, correct? Because that's all it is... We don't usually give birth control hormones to male humans. I don't know if they are bad when they are given to animals (it's forbidden here in Europe) but female hormones are definitely not good to developing children or adult males. They're just good/neutral (well, not functionally neutral of course, but not causing unplanned disruption) to adult females because they're part of their normal physiology.
- exabrial 9y ago
  > We don't usually give birth control hormones to male humans. This comment presents a false premise. The amounts in beef are ridiculously small, especially when compared to other foods. Any "advantages" to "hormone free beef" are pseudoscience and a marketing campaign, and that's it.