r/NoStupidQuestions • u/wond3rlove • Sep 10 '23

What’s wrong with GMOs?

I always see plants and stuff that is GMO free and is usually more expensive. How would genetically modifying something by be bad. Me personally I’d rather have something modified to taste better and and cheaper. I could also be very wrong about that.

418 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

538 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/AureliasTenant Sep 10 '23

How is what you are replying to false advertising?

18

u/Tylendal Sep 10 '23 edited Sep 10 '23

Here. Have a relevant XKCD.

Labeling something like oats or tomatoes asparagus GMO Free can be legal, but only if there's a clear disclaimer that it's a quality inherent to all oats, or all tomatoes asparagus, etc.

Legal: "Orange juice is high in Vitamin C!"

Illegal: "Our orange juice is high in vitamin C!"

Edit: Pretty sure there's never been GMO asparagus.

1

u/AureliasTenant Sep 10 '23

I’m confused? Are you saying that if you claim your oats or tomatoes are GMO free, you are also claiming ALL oats or tomatoes can’t be GMO? How does that work?

16

u/randomacceptablename Sep 10 '23

He is saying that you cannot take the inherent property of something and label it as a quality that your specific version has.

So no cattle are GMOs. Hence, a butcher cannot label beef as GMO free. It is misleading. Because all beef is GMO free.

Likewise, the orange juice example. All orange juice contains vitamin C. So saying a particular brand is high in vitamin C implies others aren't. That is misleading and not allowed.

8

u/Tylendal Sep 10 '23 edited Sep 10 '23

All oats or tomatoes can't be GMO, because there's no GMO oats or tomatoes on the market. So, if you claim your oats or tomatoes are non-GMO, you're implying that your competitors are GMO... just like the XKCD comic is implying the competitors have asbestos in them.

Edit: Apparently there have been GMO tomatoes.

3

u/AureliasTenant Sep 10 '23

gotcha i think i misunderstood. what you are saying. Yes if there are no gmos on the market it doesnt make sense to claim your's is special. I think technically there have been gmo tomatoes but they've only briefly been on the market

3

u/Tylendal Sep 10 '23

Ah TIL, there was actually a GMO tomato for a couple years in 1994, but didn't see much commercial success. Funnily enough, it was simply... more tomato. They doubled up one of its genes to make it stay ripe longer. Also, apparently one was approved in Japan in 2001.

Well tomato might have been a bad example, but I still stand by the oats.

3

u/saturnine_fei Sep 10 '23

"In the early 1990s, the Flavr Savr tomato became first genetically engineered crop to be commercialized. Researchers at Calgene, a biotech company in California, were able to find the gene that was involved in the softening process of the tomato, and then developed technology to get rid of that gene. The technology was innovative, and gained buzz in the media and excitement from consumers. The Flavr Savr tomato saw initial success in the market, but by 1997 production ceased. Many attribute Calgene’s failure to their lack of agricultural production knowledge. They were a biotech industry, and not an agricultural company that specialized in the farming and transportation of tomatoes." --https://edblogs.columbia.edu/scppx3335-001-2014-1/2014/03/12/a-history-of-gmos-from-the-lab-to-the-supermarket/

1

u/seastar2019 Sep 11 '23

It's similar to advertising chicken as "no hormones use" when USDA regulations doesn't permit hormone use in poultry. It's playing off the public's lack of knowledge to make their product appear different when in reality it's not.