Those who deprive us of that choice want to force us to eat something that we don't want to eat.

to base our choices.

In one sense GMO food is labeled now -- if it is processed food and lists HFCS in the ingredients, that is GMO. If it lists canola, soy or corn then there is a very good chance it is GMO corn, soy or canola.

There is a certification available for foods free of GMO:

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

We had like a 1000 tomatoes this year! Was giving them away by the sack load and still have more than enough.

Leaving bags of zucchini on peoples' doorsteps in the middle of the night?

is when we visit friends with zuccini.

Zucchinis! Yes...wow, you are a good guesser! Oh um...I just rang the door bell so if you can run you might want to do so now!

That's why Whole Foods gets most of my food dollars.

The biggies to watch for are corn, soy, cannola. All are available at Whole Foods non-GMO.

For fresh produce I try to get organic at the local farmer's markets.

There is NO credible evidence that GMOs are harmful. In fact EVERYTHING you eat, whether it's "natural" or not has been modified. Wheat, corn, soybeans are all distinctly different than their ancestral forms.

I challenge your assumptions.

I could care less if you challenge my beliefs. It works for me. How's your health, dear?

Just like anti-vaxers on the left and climate change deniers and creationists on the right. The anti-GMO movement has made me really cynical about the intellectual capacity of the left.

Sid

It still amazes me that the part of the political spectrum that embraces logic and science, still fears the science of GMOs.

people equate fear of GMOs with climate change denial or being anti-science in general.

Are these folks, for example, just anti-science wing nuts?

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

This, and pharmaceuticals.

The inability of so many to separate the science from the economics is just astounding.

They don't want people to know about the GMO's in the food they buy. This is exactly the same reasoning used by the people putting the TPP together in secret, because people -- if they knew -- would oppose it.

I choose not to purchase or consume GMO food. I'm with the OP, I do not need scientific studies to choose not to purchase or consume GMO food.

It's the hand of the marketplace. I look for the organic GMO free label on products I purchase with the intent to consume.

Selective breeding is NOT genetic modification, thus your statement that "EVERYTHING you eat has been modified" is demonstrably false.

GMO proponents love to equate the 2 to muddy the waters. They aren't the same at all.

If GMOs were certifiably "harmless", the food companies would be happy to promote their use in our food, rather than spend a lot of effort and money to suppress such information.

There is a big leap between crossbreeding similar species of plants and animals versus putting pig genes into plants and vice versa.

Overuse of antibiotics has created numerous antibiotic resistant germs, and there is already some evidence that the genes that make plants resistant to Roundup have already been transferred to the weeds in the wild.

The point is that these chemical companies, in their pursuit of profit at any cost, are reaching way beyond their level of "expertise" and may be destroying agriculture for centuries. I say centuries because it may take that long for "nature" to undo the damage corporations are doing to the ecosphere.

chemicals associated with Agent Orange in GMO foods.
Will try my best to find report I read that in.

Foreign scientists.

And of course, there are many publications that have alerted Americans to the fact that Gm crops require more pesticides than before the innovation came along. That doesn't require much science, just looking at how much pesticide was used per acre back in the late 1980's, and early 1990's and then look at the situation now.

They are created to allow Monsanto to sell more of their harmful pesticides and herbicides.
GMO crops are referred to as "Roundup Ready".

Yields have increased with the use of less pesticides.

It does does improve our food supply.

that is not what this paper concludes.

Conclusions
Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16?years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

in the defense of Monsanto's claim to own your life, from the stomach out.

We're not better off.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use

But in a just-released paper published in the peer-reviewed Environmental Sciences Europe, Chuck Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, shreds that claim. He found that Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology, which dominates corn, soy, and cotton farming, has called forth a veritable monsoon of herbicides, both in terms of higher application rates for Roundup, and, in recent years, growing use of other, more-toxic herbicides.


Benbrook found that overall, GMO technology drove up herbicide use by 527 million pounds, or about 11 percent, between 1996 (when Roundup Ready crops first hit farm fields) and 2011. But it gets worse. For several years, the Roundup Ready trait actually did meet Monsanto's promise of decreasing overall herbicide use—herbicide use dropped by about 2 percent between 1996 and 1999, Benbrook told me in an interview. But then weeds started to develop resistance to Roundup, pushing farmers to apply higher per-acre rates. In 2002, farmers using Roundup Ready soybeans jacked up their Roundup application rates by 21 percent, triggering a 19 million pound overall increase in Roundup use.

Since then, an herbicide gusher has been uncorked. By 2011, farms using Roundup Ready seeds were using 24 percent more herbicide than non-GMO farms planting the same crops, Benbrook told me. What happened? By that time, "in all three crops [corn, soy, and cotton], resistant weeds had fully kicked in," Benbrook said, and farmers were responding both by ramping up use of Roundup and resorting to older, more toxic herbicides like 2,4-D.

You anti-science folks can't even keep your propaganda straight.

First of all glyphosate (aka Round Up) is not a pesticide. It is an herbicide. And yields have not increased:

Learn the definition of words before you hop out of the kiddie pool:

Pesticide:a chemical preparation for destroying plant, fungal, or animal pests.

As for yields, yielding the same amount, or even less is a perfectly acceptable alternative to plowing the soil (resulting in runoff and nutrient loss) multiple applications of traditional pesticides, and still having yield drop due to infestations - all things that result from growing traditional seed varieties in the age-old (read un-scientific) way. SO, perhaps yield-per-dollar is a better way to put it, but farmers have absolutely benefited from using GMO seeds. It's called science.

Finally, Amaranth didn't develop glyphosate resistance overnight. The fact that plants are developing resistances to glyphosate isn't some evil thing, it's evolution. The fact that other plants can develop glyphosate resistance naturally, should be the nail in the "GMO crops are unsafe" argument. But instead, we have to hear how crops with glyphosate resistance were designed by that devil Monsanto, so we will die because of them.

Science for the win, every time.

I'll give you the semantic "pesticide" thing so the score is actually 2 to 1.

But on science only I'm up 2 to zero.

Yields have NOT increased. but pesticide use HAS increased. Not even Monsanto is pushing these myths anymore.

They're not the same, you know. Several widely life-saving medicines, such as insulin, are produced mainly by GMOs, for example, freeing hundreds of thousands of sheep and pigs from medical harvest. Corn and other crops engineered to express Bt-- the same Bt that is sanctioned for use on organic produce-- require significantly less pesticide in labile form, e.g. sprayed into the environment.

Finally, it's real easy for people from wealthy countries to ignore the desperate need of farmers in other countries to increase yield and decrease the environmental impact of agriculture. GMOs hold great promise in that regard. For example, GMO sweet potato that is resistant to sweet potato feathery mottle virus (SPFMV) increases yield over nonresistant varieties.

There are lots of similar examples. My point is that too often the debate about GMOs is actually about something else entirely, and that's exacerbated by the debaters having vague or downright erroneous understanding of what genetic engineering is and how it is done.

Though I must admit, there is a risk that there could be long term effects from GMO corn etc.

Small risk, yes, but a risk nonetheless.

So why should I eat GMO food when I don't have to?

Not to mention that Monsanto and others support legislation making it harder and harder to establish Organic practices and markets.

Everybody is all about capitalism until the consumers say boo and then someone has some bullshit communal platitudes to tell us how to spend our little money the way they see fit.

Of course you may avoid anything you wish. But it's something else entirely to discount and ignore the conclusions of dozens of major scientific and medical organizations and professional groups who have reviewed the available data and concluded that GMOs are safe and not materially different from any other food in agricultural production.

Doing so is simply and blatantly anti-science. It is flat earthism, creationism, and climate change denial all rolled up into one deliberate, obtuse, scientifically illiterate package.

It's one thing to say: " I fear and distrust GMOs no matter what real data demonstrate, so I'm simply going to avoid them." That's a personal decision, like saying "I won't eat peaches from Pennsylvania." It admits no argument or counter evidence. It is rigidly dogmatic, but that's a person's right. But it's something entirely different to dismiss the real science simply because it conflicts with one's preconceived biases, and when those preconceptions are rooted in scientific illiteracy and irrational fear, it's a real shame.

your life? Of course not. what's with your indignation. I simply said I choose to eat in a certain way and it works for me. It's not just about gmos. Eating locally as much as possible is good on many levels. and eating locally for me, means no gmos because none of the many small organic farmers here use gmo seeds. and I know these guys and trust them. and as I said, in the past, too many products have been touted as safe- including scientific studies- and have turned out not to be. I don't buy into the seriously flawed anti gmo studies, but I'm not convinced that gmo seeds are a good thing.

You probably scoff at food systems such as the one that folks here have worked so hard to develop. I don't.

I'm not indignant. I asked an honest question and expressed my opinion, informed by twenty-five years of work as an ecologist. And where on Earth did you find any evidence of my scoffing at anything that works?

Your OP disparages the vast majority of scientists whose "stinkin' studies" produce data at odds with the anti-GMO movement's irrational fears. Any thread on the topic here will provide lots of illustrations, including the utterly absurd assertion that GMO crops are poisonous, cause cancer, and likely dandruff, too. So I think my asking how you reconcile your fears with all those studies and the professional opinions of tens of thousands of working scientists is reasonable, and germane. No snark intended at all.

...as to which products are GMO and which are not.

Another problem is that there is gene transfer "in the wild" from fields with GMO plants to fields in which there are GMO-free crops.

Then companies like Monsanto sic their lawyers on the hapless farmer whose plants were compromised and demand payment for the farmer's "stealing" the genes.

Moreover, many of the studies "proving" GMO foods "harmless" were very short term and often subsidized by the corporations that make or use the stuff.

These studies are in the same league as the studies "proving" that burning fossil fuels has no substantial effect on the climate.

There are quite healthy people who don't worry a bit about GMOs either. Might as well proudly attest to wearing garlic around your neck since you've never been bitten by a vampire.

Garlic has antibiotic properties. Heavy use of garlis has been known to stave off infection and is a preventative.

Thus, using it to ward off vampires was somewhat understandable since the people knew it could help ward off disease or cure some disease.

Seriously, you might want to look into some old wive's tales. There's a lot of truth in some of them.

...and between eating garlic and wearing it around your neck.

That's quite a long stretch you're making to find "wisdom" in superstition.

Garlic was known to have antibiotic properties, thus when the legends and myths of "undeath" became prevalent, the peasantry turned to what they knew as the closest thing to a cure all as the cure against the myth.

And while it's certainly an understandable process how simple, observable curative properties are applied in desperation in ways that don't make a lot of sense, it's not laudable because it's predictable.

....oops I meant GMOs

.... why would I take ANY risk when there is no benefit to me? That is what risk taking is all about, potential reward. There is no potential reward in eating GMO food, not ANY.

People want to bring "science" into it, "science" has nothing to do with it. Feeding something to someone and noting they didn't immediately die is not "science" anyway. The folks with the logic deficit are those telling me I should "trust" someone even though their profit depends on it. Bullshit.

so why not let folks read labels and decide for themselves?

This is just like the abortion issue, the gay marriage issue, etc.. the GOP preaches up and down about "freedom" but then wants to make all of our decisions for us.

Snap!

The most important quality GMOs possess under present law is economic. They allow corporations preemptively to claim ownership over seeds in the possession of others, and to demand extortionate tribute payments from the world's peasants, and be they barefoot and starving. It's hard to imagine any business model was ever as forthrightly evil.

Is it just this subject where this applies or is that your general outlook?

I guess as I see it, if GMO foods are so great, why are corporations fighting the labeling of food?

If it is what I eat, why can't I know?

but even if every study over the next 100 years says GMOs are 100% safe, have no effect on local ecology or and entomologists find no issue with it I'd still like to know what I'm eating and have the choice through labeling to pick my own food.

Just like sugar is safe, I still like having it on the label so I can determine which brand I'd prefer, the one with 2 grams per serving, or the one with 10 grams per serving. Same with salt. Or protein. Or carbs. It's about choice and it's telling that so many people are fighting against giving people the choice. When I hear, "we can't label it because anti-science people will use their anti-science beliefs to choose something that's not GMO because they are too stupid to know that GMOs are safe" I hear the same arguments that are always used against providing people choices. The whole mentality that 'we know what is best for you, so tut tut' is not just a republican or a religious point of view, it permeates some scientific circles too.

I should get to decide what I put in my mouth, whether or not you think it's what's best for me. The end.

It's fine for the producers to sell these products --properly labeled.