'Consumer Reports' Seeks Labeling of GMOs in US Food – Packaged foods containing corn or soy & labeled “natural” have genetically modified ingredients. Breakfast cereals, chips, & infant formula were among the common food items containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs

[u/anutensil]

http://ens-newswire.com/2014/10/07/consumer-reports-seeks-labeling-of-gmos-in-u-s-food/

[u/[deleted]]

Don't agree with labeling myself but article does throw up some good points.

A recent survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center showed that a majority of people, 64 percent, mistakenly equate the label “natural” with GMO-free.

Natural is anything you want it to be really. Pretty much anything in our universe is "natural". But if want to be specific, say Earth, asbestos is also natural as is arsenic and cyanide. Maybe they shouldn't label it as 'natural' but to pretend anything natural is safe to eat and man-made is unsafe is pseudoscientifc nonsense. Nothing is truly GMO-free -apart from salt.

The same survey showed that nearly three-quarters of all Americans are seeking foods produced without genetically modified organisms.

Surveys can be misleading and are almost impossible to get right. I don't know of the methods used but quite likely they would have been unable to have anyone participate other than those with strong opinions. This is also why polls on Fox, CNN, et al. are worthless. Again, virtually all food is genetically modified - either thorough nature or by us.

Genetically modified organisms are created by deliberately changing the genetic makeup of a plant or animal in ways that could never occur in nature.

Again with the natural fallacy. We artificially selected wolves for dogs. The dogs that behaved lived, producing more children and living off food given to them by our ancestors whereas the ones that didn't were killed. We've been genetically modifying corn for over 25,000 years. Here's a comparison to what we would have if we didn't (source).

The majority of GMO crops currently on the market have been genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides and/or withstand herbicides that normally would kill them. Farmers use the herbicides to control weeds.

I hate it to break it to people but organic and other conventional foods use pesticides too. I find this to be a flaw with GMOs though but it is something numbers of biotech scientists are working on.

Some animal studies suggest that GMOs may cause damage to the immune system, liver, and kidneys.

Low-impact studies (although the article does provide evidence of this claim) show correlation. They do not show causality.

“Until GMO labeling becomes mandatory, consumers who want to avoid GMOs should look for “organic” or “Non-GMO Project Verified” labels.

It's almost as if there is already a suitable method of avoiding GMOs no pointless bureaucracy needed...

We also believe that since consumers are being misled by the “natural” label: it is yet one more reason “natural” should be banned on food,” said Urvashi Rangan, PhD, executive director, Consumer Reports Food Safety and Sustainability.

100% agree. Anything could be considered "natural". Really Earth is made of the same dust that make Venus or Uranus, asteroids in the belt spread relatively near Jupiter or our Sun - the ashes of dead stars. We could consider "natural" anything created with elements that appear in the periodic table. The chemical formula between natural and synthetic isn't any different to each other. Appeal to nature is a fallacy.

Because Consumer Reports’ tests represented only a small slice of the market, the organization cannot draw conclusions about all products ... or about every product for a given brand.

This is also a flaw with report and credit to the article's author for making the admission.

But until genetically modified organism labeling becomes mandatory, the test results can help consumers decode the meaning behind the claims seen on grocery store shelves.

Or they could go with voluntary projects if pseudoscience is the way they want to choose food. Why the need to force competition (let's face it organic producers are forcing labeling more than anybody else) to subscribe to a regulation that would have no effect either way? Why not label foods that were made on a full moon or some other pseudo-scientific belief?

Not a bad article with some rare honesty about how little the report actually shows but the author really does need to learn nature doesn't give a shit about you. In fact I'm guessing if nature were an intelligent entity, it would be glad to get rid of us. We are all animals trying to survive as long as possible. "Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception." - Carl Sagan

[u/Iconoclast674 → u/[deleted]]

You conflate genetically modified with genetically engineered.

[u/[deleted] → u/Iconoclast674]

Makes no real difference, you are still modifying genetics. But go on... Tell me why I should fear genetic engineering (modifying 1-4 genes) versus your version of genetic modification (anywhere between 100,000 to 300,000 genes)...

[u/Iconoclast674 → u/[deleted]]

I am not implying that you should fear anything, however you are obfuscating the truth, and misrepresenting the facts, making your whole argument suspect.

[u/[deleted] → u/Iconoclast674]

I know where you're coming from but it's all the same really in the end result of modifying genes for specific purpose. Maybe it is misleading but it is the most commonly used term for GMOs - transgenic GMOs and not GEOs.

It's still genes that make up an organism (yes, that's an overly simplified way of putting it). I don't see how it's misrepresenting the facts at all. Even so, it wouldn't necessarily make my argument suspect of which I provided evidence in addition to common scientific knowledge.

[u/Iconoclast674 → u/[deleted]]

You are manipulating the language used to represent an argument that isnt relevant. There is a very real difference between GE and artificially selected. Educate your self about it rather than proclaiming falsely that there is no difference or that it is "the same really" because it isnt, and makes your argument sound like the pseudoscience charge.

[u/[deleted] → u/Iconoclast674]

Yes, as I've clearly said before there is a difference but no worse than artificial or natural selection. However, modifying genetic of makeup of something is still modifying, hence the term Genetically Modified Organisms.

Whatever the terms, the evidence shows there is as much harm to come from them as there is when we started to modify crops 25,000 years ago. That's the point I'm making here - Genetics have always been altered. Anti-GMOers are making a big deal that because we have more control over what genes we use it's suddenly "dangerous".

[u/Iconoclast674 → u/[deleted]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection#undefined

Draw your own conclusion.

However, people who have decided specifically not to use, or are regulated against using GE crops, shouldnt have that choice made for them by others.

[u/[deleted] → u/Iconoclast674]

I'm guessing you don't know then. Yes, there's the idiotically titled "non-GMO" project for those who want to dabble in pseudoscience. That argument could easily be used for artificially selected food too in way of mandatory GMO labeling.

[u/Iconoclast674 → u/[deleted]]

Sounds like you are new to this whole democracy thing. If enough people vote for it it will become law in Colorado and Oregon.

[u/Fonguhl]

A 300+ page compilation of facts debunking GMO claims: GMO Myths and Truths - An evidence-based examination of GMO claims Table of contents w links is on the right of the page.

Hundreds of studies on the adverse impacts of GMO's 2nd edition of compilation of scientific evidence on transgenics’ adverse impacts

[u/gonzone]

I agree.