"the people most worried about GMO foods don't seem to know or care about the many crops that were created by exposing seeds to high amounts of radiation or chemical mutagens"
I think you're right in pointing out that there is general ignorance about the roles of radiation and chemical mutagens. These have been around for a long time, introduced when there was less focus on the methods of food production. I think if there were more awareness placed on these aspects as well, people would be interested in, say, labeling for this, too.
As for the labeling of organic, what is acceptable under that label is also a contentious issue, with lobbying on both sides. To assume that those who prefer to buy organic are knowingly accepting that mutation-bred foods should be labeled organic I think is a little disingenuous. Of course, lines have to be drawn somewhere, if we've got a binary label, and that's why some would like more detailed labelling.
>...To assume that those who prefer to buy organic are knowingly accepting that mutation-bred foods should be labeled organic I think is a little disingenuous.
Disingenuous? I certainly didn't claim that people who buy organic understand what they are buying and I don't appreciate your insinuation. I simply said that these crops have not prohibited by any nation's organic standards.
I apologize. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. The word "disingenuous" was ill-chosen and I can see that I should have phrased it better. Let me try again.
I'm responding to this phrase:
"crops with random genetic mutations are sold as organic and have been in the food supply since 1930"
As you say, this simply says that these crops are allowed to carry the organic label. It's a small move from here to say that people accept these crops as organic. And then another small move to say that since transgenic crops are no different from these other crops, that transgenic crops should also be accepted as organic. Is this fair? This is the sense I get when reading your "What is ironic about the GMO debate" phrase. Perhaps the shoulds are a bit strong. How would you change my analysis?
You've rightly pointed out where I made a mistake in my use of "disingenuous". What do you think of the rest of what I wrote? Is there anything you agree with, at least in part? If not, what's your take?
>…It's a small move from here to say that people accept these crops as organic. And then another small move to say that since transgenic crops are no different from these other crops, that transgenic crops should also be accepted as organic. Is this fair? This is the sense I get when reading your "What is ironic about the GMO debate" phrase. Perhaps the shoulds are a bit strong. How would you change my analysis?
What I find ironic about the GMO debate is simply that it appears many of the people opposed to GMOs know little about the precursor to GMO even though mutation breeding has produced many of the crops we grow. If someone is worried about inserting one known gene into a plant, I would assume they would be much more worried about eating plants that were exposed to radiation/chemicals to create multiple random genetic changes. (Or maybe people wouldn't be as worried about GMO crops if they did know the long history with mutation breeding - I don't know.)
I don't think most people have any idea that crops created through mutation breeding are labelled "organic" so that was another unexpected fact. In terms of the "organic" label, I just believe in truth in advertising. It seems like it should be very clear to the consumer what it means when a food is labelled "organic". I wasn't trying to make a judgement as to what should be labelled "organic". I wouldn't say the marketing of the "organic" label has been fraudulent, but many consumers do have a misleading idea of what they are buying.
- There are people who don't know a lot about earlier methods of causing mutations such as chemicals and radiation as applied to crops (labeled organic or otherwise, I suspect)
- There should truth in advertising/labeling for food. We've been talking about the organic label, but I think we both agree that it shouldn't be limited to just organic, correct?
I think your points about random mutation possibly being more worrisome than targeted (transgenic) mutation, or perhaps knowledge of what's been done in the past may alleviate fears is right on the money. It'd be good to raise awareness of this as well.
What do you think? Substantially accurate representation? Anything to add/subtract/modify?
>...I think we're pretty close to being in agreement.
Well... I think we agree on part of this and disagree on other parts...
I think producers should be free to market their products as organic, cage free, free range, kosher, etc, and the consumers should understand what the label means. I think more work needs to be done here to make sure consumers know what they are buying.
I am opposed to mandated labeling of anything unless there is a scientific basis for it being a safety concern - potential allergens, etc. For that reason, a GMO food that has passed EPA, FDA, USDA and state regulations as being safe should not have to be labeled - besides imposing a cost on food, it would likely confuse the customer as the implication would be there are health risks compared to other food. If a producer wants to indicate a product as GMO or not GMO, they should be free to do so, but it shouldn't be imposed on them by the government.
I think you're right in pointing out that there is general ignorance about the roles of radiation and chemical mutagens. These have been around for a long time, introduced when there was less focus on the methods of food production. I think if there were more awareness placed on these aspects as well, people would be interested in, say, labeling for this, too.
As for the labeling of organic, what is acceptable under that label is also a contentious issue, with lobbying on both sides. To assume that those who prefer to buy organic are knowingly accepting that mutation-bred foods should be labeled organic I think is a little disingenuous. Of course, lines have to be drawn somewhere, if we've got a binary label, and that's why some would like more detailed labelling.