Chipotle Becomes the First to label GMO's

[ClosedCaption]

Chipotle Starts Labeling GMO Ingredients On Website Menu

But it turns out that even at Chipotle, you can't escape genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which were developed in the '90s to increase farmers' productivity but have been dogged by criticism from some health advocates and environmentalists. The chain recently became the first fast-food chain to label the ingredients it uses that contain GMOs; the list is deep in its website, not in stores. And 12 of the 24 ingredients listed on the site are affixed with a red "G" -- indicating the presence of GMOs.

Chipotle's executives agree that the ubiquity of GMOs on the menu is disheartening. The company has historically campaigned for legislation that would mandate the labeling of GMOs in all venues. A note on the site's ingredient page says that the chain is trying to eliminate GMOs, but that it's impossible to find reliable sources of corn and soybeans that don't include them.

Moreover, the chain is one of very few fessing up to its use of the controversial ingredient, even if only online. Among major companies, only Whole Foods, and Ben and Jerry's have announced similar plans to label GMO ingredients in advance of any legal requirement to do so.

 

[krych3k]

They're just playing into the anti-science flat-earth AGW crowd that believe GMO foods are harmful and buy into the related fear-mongering. The same crowd that doesn't understand that GMO has been with humanity for many thousands of years, since the earliest days of agriculture.

 

[martybegan]

Chipotle Starts Labeling GMO Ingredients On Website Menu

But it turns out that even at Chipotle, you can't escape genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which were developed in the '90s to increase farmers' productivity but have been dogged by criticism from some health advocates and environmentalists. The chain recently became the first fast-food chain to label the ingredients it uses that contain GMOs; the list is deep in its website, not in stores. And 12 of the 24 ingredients listed on the site are affixed with a red "G" -- indicating the presence of GMOs.

Chipotle's executives agree that the ubiquity of GMOs on the menu is disheartening. The company has historically campaigned for legislation that would mandate the labeling of GMOs in all venues. A note on the site's ingredient page says that the chain is trying to eliminate GMOs, but that it's impossible to find reliable sources of corn and soybeans that don't include them.

Moreover, the chain is one of very few fessing up to its use of the controversial ingredient, even if only online. Among major companies, only Whole Foods, and Ben and Jerry's have announced similar plans to label GMO ingredients in advance of any legal requirement to do so.

Amount of impact this will have on my food ordering habits: 0.00%

 

[konradv]

They're just playing into the anti-science flat-earth AGW crowd that believe GMO foods are harmful and buy into the related fear-mongering. The same crowd that doesn't understand that GMO has been with humanity for many thousands of years, since the earliest days of agriculture.

GMO is qualitatively not the same as cross-breeding and selective breeding practiced over the centuries. True GMO can only be done in a laboratory setting and that's only been possible over the last few decades.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They're just playing into the anti-science flat-earth AGW crowd that believe GMO foods are harmful and buy into the related fear-mongering. The same crowd that doesn't understand that GMO has been with humanity for many thousands of years, since the earliest days of agriculture.

What you just said has nothing to do with if GMO's are safe. Fire has been around for longer but you wouldn't eat it.

 

[eflatminor]

Chipotle Becomes the First to label GMO's

WITHOUT a government mandate requiring them to do so? How is that possible?!

Better pass a law, just to be sure...

 

[krych3k]

They're just playing into the anti-science flat-earth AGW crowd that believe GMO foods are harmful and buy into the related fear-mongering. The same crowd that doesn't understand that GMO has been with humanity for many thousands of years, since the earliest days of agriculture.

GMO is qualitatively not the same as cross-breeding and selective breeding practiced over the centuries. True GMO can only be done in a laboratory setting and that's only been possible over the last few decades,.

Selective breeding is the same thing, only less sophisticated. Those who understand basic biochemistry know there is no threat to human health via rearranged amino acids forming DNA of foods we eat.

 

[krych3k]

They're just playing into the anti-science flat-earth AGW crowd that believe GMO foods are harmful and buy into the related fear-mongering. The same crowd that doesn't understand that GMO has been with humanity for many thousands of years, since the earliest days of agriculture.

What you just said has nothing to do with if GMO's are safe. Fire has been around for longer but you wouldn't eat it.

In other words, you don't know what GMO practices actually entail, or the relevance to human nutrition.

 

[konradv]

They're just playing into the anti-science flat-earth AGW crowd that believe GMO foods are harmful and buy into the related fear-mongering. The same crowd that doesn't understand that GMO has been with humanity for many thousands of years, since the earliest days of agriculture.

GMO is qualitatively not the same as cross-breeding and selective breeding practiced over the centuries. True GMO can only be done in a laboratory setting and that's only been possible over the last few decades,.

Selective breeding is the same thing, only less sophisticated. Those who understand basic biochemistry know there is no threat to human health via rearranged amino acids forming DNA of foods we eat.

Those that really understand science know that's there's the Law of Unintended Consequences which says your assertion is something that can't be known for decades, if not centuries.

 

[Pogo]

They're just playing into the anti-science flat-earth AGW crowd that believe GMO foods are harmful and buy into the related fear-mongering. The same crowd that doesn't understand that GMO has been with humanity for many thousands of years, since the earliest days of agriculture.

GMO is qualitatively not the same as cross-breeding and selective breeding practiced over the centuries. True GMO can only be done in a laboratory setting and that's only been possible over the last few decades,.

Selective breeding is the same thing, only less sophisticated. Those who understand basic biochemistry know there is no threat to human health via rearranged amino acids forming DNA of foods we eat.

No, it is not. Selective breeding requires two species that are capable of mating with each other; that's just guiding them into a preferred hybrid. But a cotton plant will never mate with a salmon on its own.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They're just playing into the anti-science flat-earth AGW crowd that believe GMO foods are harmful and buy into the related fear-mongering. The same crowd that doesn't understand that GMO has been with humanity for many thousands of years, since the earliest days of agriculture.

What you just said has nothing to do with if GMO's are safe. Fire has been around for longer but you wouldn't eat it.

In other words, you don't know what GMO practices actually entail, or the relevance to human nutrition.

First you talk about how GMO's are nothing to fear and now you're talking about how GMO's are developed? As I said, what you just said has nothing to do with *Listen carefully* Whether or not GMO's are SAFE. Your deflection will be considered a consession

 

[Pogo]

I got this return e-mail from a mill I (used to) buy from, in answer to my question about the GMO content of their current stock:

>> We do not have GMO free certified corn. I can't even find it. The corn we use has a 50% chance of being GMO corn and to get it certified GMO free (even if I could find it to purchase) would make the corn cost 150% more than we pay now...and corn has gone up 800% in the past 4 years. It's tough to be in the corn business right now...
Sorry I couldn't help with this <<

This is what we always feared -- stocks of some staples (corn, soy, cotton) are already polluted, possibly beyond redemption.

Thanks, Monsanto, for the agricide. Fuckers.

 

[krych3k]

GMO is qualitatively not the same as cross-breeding and selective breeding practiced over the centuries. True GMO can only be done in a laboratory setting and that's only been possible over the last few decades,.

Selective breeding is the same thing, only less sophisticated. Those who understand basic biochemistry know there is no threat to human health via rearranged amino acids forming DNA of foods we eat.

Those that really understand science know that's there's the Law of Unintended Consequences which says your assertion is something that can't be known for decades, if not centuries.

There is no such scientific law. Get back to me when you can pass a high school chemistry exam.

 

[krych3k]

GMO is qualitatively not the same as cross-breeding and selective breeding practiced over the centuries. True GMO can only be done in a laboratory setting and that's only been possible over the last few decades,.

Selective breeding is the same thing, only less sophisticated. Those who understand basic biochemistry know there is no threat to human health via rearranged amino acids forming DNA of foods we eat.

No, it is not. Selective breeding requires two species that are capable of mating with each other; that's just guiding them into a preferred hybrid. But a cotton plant will never mate with a salmon on its own.

They are the same in the sense that we are manipulating the evolution of the species, and therefore affecting the DNA of the offspring. We're interfering with natural selection. The same is true for manipulating the DNA more directly and precisely with modern technology in creating GMO foods. If we add characteristics to an apple tree to produce sweeter fruit, there is nothing to fear with respect to human nutrition. The only somewhat legitimate concern in a very narrow sense is that we may upset a sort of ecological equilibrium (which never really exists, anyways). But we disrupt these quasi-equilibriums merely by existing and growing on this planet.

Again, you're part of the flat-earth anti-science AGW crowd. I get it.

 

[krych3k]

What you just said has nothing to do with if GMO's are safe. Fire has been around for longer but you wouldn't eat it.

In other words, you don't know what GMO practices actually entail, or the relevance to human nutrition.

First you talk about how GMO's are nothing to fear and now you're talking about how GMO's are developed? As I said, what you just said has nothing to do with *Listen carefully* Whether or not GMO's are SAFE. Your deflection will be considered a consession

I didn't deflect anything. I'm simply calling you all out on your scientific ignorance. This ignorance leaves you vulnerable to the fear-mongering of the anti-science left. They say "jump!", you ask "how high?".

 

[krych3k]

I got this return e-mail from a mill I (used to) buy from, in answer to my question about the GMO content of their current stock:

>> We do not have GMO free certified corn. I can't even find it. The corn we use has a 50% chance of being GMO corn and to get it certified GMO free (even if I could find it to purchase) would make the corn cost 150% more than we pay now...and corn has gone up 800% in the past 4 years. It's tough to be in the corn business right now...
Sorry I couldn't help with this <<

This is what we always feared -- stocks of some staples (corn, soy, cotton) are already polluted, possibly beyond redemption.

Thanks, Monsanto, for the agricide. Fuckers.

GMO is "pollution"?

"Agricide" is now a word you've made up?

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to to anti-science flat-earth left.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In other words, you don't know what GMO practices actually entail, or the relevance to human nutrition.

First you talk about how GMO's are nothing to fear and now you're talking about how GMO's are developed? As I said, what you just said has nothing to do with *Listen carefully* Whether or not GMO's are SAFE. Your deflection will be considered a consession

I didn't deflect anything. I'm simply calling you all out on your scientific ignorance. This ignorance leaves you vulnerable to the fear-mongering of the anti-science left. They say "jump!", you ask "how high?".

As I said, what you just said has nothing to do with *Listen carefully* Whether or not GMO's are SAFE.

And you're still talking about everything BUT what you started with

 

[krych3k]

Try reading my posts. I've explicitly stated that GMOs are absolutely safe, and that the only safety consideration isn't directly related to human nutrition, but to a much broader and more difficult measurement of "ecological equilibrium", for lack of a better term. Our digestive systems don't care about how the guanine, adenine, thymine, and cystosine are arranged in the DNA of the foods we eat. Enjoy your flat-earth anti-science fear-mongering.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Try reading my posts. I've explicitly stated that GMOs are absolutely safe, and that the only safety consideration isn't directly related to human nutrition, but to a much broader and more difficult measurement of "ecological equilibrium", for lack of a better term. Our digestive systems don't care about how the guanine, adenine, thymine, and cystosine are arranged in the DNA of the foods we eat. Enjoy your flat-earth anti-science fear-mongering.

yeah that's the only thing you've done is "STATED" they're safe. I STATED they aren't. Now you want to start with proof or are we just going on who can say it the loudest and most often?

 

[krych3k]

I've already explained it. If you chose not to read or are incapable of understanding what I've written, I can't help you. Some of us received education connected to the relevant science beyond watching Star Trek reruns.