8 beers you should stop drinking immediately

[shoreman]

if there are already labels to tell you the food is NON-GMO, why would you need more labels to tell you it IS GMO?

you have the problem with GMO, YOU PAY for the certification. why should I pay more for my food when I DON'T CARE if it is GMO?

you care, you pay.

The ingredients labeling is already in place - we passed that for consumers a while back. All they have to add right after the list is "made with GMO ingredients" you don't have to change anything or make them get certified.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[fearwig]

The ingredients labeling is already in place - we passed that for consumers a while back. All they have to add right after the list is "made with GMO ingredients" you don't have to change anything or make them get certified.

Yes, but how will they afford the ink? That's 22 letters! Next you'll be saying we need free highways.

 

[GrogNerd]

the problem is ALREADY solved by food ALREADY BEING LABELLED as NON-GMO. what is the point of labelling everything else?

"gee, it doesn't say NON-GMO, does that mean it's NON-GMO?"

 

[shoreman]

I said this previously in a post here but if people are into GMO food and want to take part in that experiment, I'm all for it. Maybe you love science, I don't really care but if I want the choice not to be part of that, I should have the choice. Buying 100% certified organic should not be the only choice b/c it's very expensive and a small portion of Americas food landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[lotusworker]

The USA is one of the few countries that does not have a ban or labeling of GMOs. I guess we just know better.

 

[fearwig]

the problem is ALREADY solved by food ALREADY BEING LABELLED as NON-GMO. what is the point of labelling everything else?

"gee, it doesn't say NON-GMO, does that mean it's NON-GMO?"

Because if labeling is voluntary there is an ambiguity between non-GMO foods and foods that don't specify (most don't).

 

[shoreman]

the problem is ALREADY solved by food ALREADY BEING LABELLED as NON-GMO. what is the point of labelling everything else?



"gee, it doesn't say NON-GMO, does that mean it's NON-GMO?"

Next time you go to the supermarket count how many of those labels you see. The ones that have it had to form their own organization and band resources to pull it off. It's a minute sampling of the goods in the market with that label.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[GrogNerd]

if it's labelled NON-GMO, presume it's NON-GMO. I would be OK with harsh penalties if companies label their products fraudulently

if it's not labelled anything, presume it's GMO

shop accordingly

 

[bob1852]

Everything I see on the interwebz (so it must be true) says that products labeled "non-GMO" can still be up to ~5% GMO.

Similar to how "Trans-fat free!" doesn't actually mean zero trans-fats, "gluten free" doesn't mean zero gluten, and "no added nitrate/nitrite" sausages just mean they get their nitrate/nitrates from natural souces such as celery juice (aka, it's still full of nitrate/nitrite, it's just a labelling loop hole).

 

[GrogNerd]

Next time you go to the supermarket count how many of those labels you see. The ones that have it had to form their own organization and band resources to pull it off. It's a minute sampling of the goods in the market with that label.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

good for them. bet that sh*t costs more

if you want to pay for it, by all means, it's your right to eat whatever you want

just don't ask me to pay for it if I don't want it. & extend to me the same courtesy of the right to eat what I want

 

[GrogNerd]

Everything I see on the interwebz (so it must be true) says that products labeled "non-GMO" can still be up to ~5% GMO.

Similar to how "Trans-fat free!" doesn't actually mean zero trans-fats, "gluten free" doesn't mean zero gluten, and "no added nitrate/nitrite" sausages just mean they get their nitrate/nitrates from natural souces such as celery juice (aka, it's still full of nitrate/nitrite, it's just a labelling loop hole).

analogy here would be to force companies to label all non-gluten-free, non-sugar-free and non-fat-free foods as containing such

ridiculous

 

[shoreman]

So now I have to rely solely on an unregulated, self appointed group of companies that have come up with this nongmo labeling you are talking about. That's not the obvious answer to this problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[fearwig]

analogy here would be to force companies to label all non-gluten-free, non-sugar-free and non-fat-free foods as containing such

ridiculous

That's called an ingredients list and a nutrition table, so yeah, we have that. Ridiculous or not.

If "corn" is in the ingredients, you don't know jack about that corn. This could be as simple as having an asterisk after ingredients that may contain GMOs. The opposition to it is not about compliance cost, it's about refusal to disclose.

 

[hunter_le five]

*yawn*

 

[bob1852]

That's called an ingredients list and a nutrition table, so yeah, we have that. Ridiculous or not.

Yet, legally a label can say "0g transfat" while the ingredient list says partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil.

See the problem?

 

[boydster]

Yet, legally a label can say "0g transfat" while the ingredient list says partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil.

See the problem?

It needs to specify "per serving" though, which should be an easy tip-off.

And I'm late, so I won't go back over all of the comments, but... Growing fish tails from our neck from eating a genetically modified organism (not you, AZ, I know)?? That is some alarmist BS. The products should absolutely be tested and proven safe before hitting the consumer market, but can we please leave senseless fearmongering out of the conversation?

 

[shoreman]

That wasn't fearmongering and after the statement I said, who knows? I was proving a point about the cause and effect of taking genes from fish and placing them in vegetables-that wasn't to be taken literally, just want to clear that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[fearwig]

Yet, legally a label can say "0g transfat" while the ingredient list says partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil.

See the problem?

I was referring to being able to identify gluten, sugar, and fat, not this. Yes, of course the existing standards have exploitable loopholes (more or less intentionally). This has to do with rounding

 

[krackin]

If GMO doesn't happen in nature how would one explain the evolution of life on Earth? Creationism? Alien planting? A whole lot of mini big bangs?

 

[bob1852]

It needs to specify "per serving" though, which should be an easy tip-off.

But, it can legally up to 0.5g of transfat per serving and be labeled at 0g transfat per serving...

 

[fearwig]

If GMO doesn't happen in nature how would one explain the evolution of life on Earth? Creationism? Alien planting? A whole lot of mini big bangs?

Evolution? Mutation and selection? Not gene splicing. If you think GMO does happen without people, that's when aliens get involved, I guess.

If anyone else wants to say "but humans have been doing GMO for millennia!" or the above, even stranger statement, please at least read the first couple of sentences of the wikipedia article, or make a similar effort to know what genetic modification means with respect to GMO foods.

No one has to agree with any conclusions, but it would be a plus if people actually know what it is.

 

[boydster]

That wasn't fearmongering and after the statement I said, who knows? I was proving a point about the cause and effect of taking genes from fish and placing them in vegetables-that wasn't to be taken literally, just want to clear that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

That was textbook fearmongering - it was an alarming, attention-grabbing, completely false statement. There is a reasonable argument to be made about understanding the potential environmental impacts, both positive and negative, of using GMOs before they are widespread. Also important is making sure plants don't manufacture chemicals that were unexpected due to the new genes. But no one will grow antlers from eating a tomato with a deer antler gene inserted into it, or whatever other similar fantasy someone may have - that part is not a "who knows?" kind of thing.

 

[krackin]

Evolution? Mutation and selection? Not gene splicing. If you think GMO does happen without people, that's when aliens get involved, I guess.

If anyone else wants to say "but humans have been doing GMO for millennia!" or the above, even stranger statement, please at least read the first couple of sentences of the wikipedia article, or make a similar effort to know what genetic modification means with respect to GMO foods.

No one has to agree with any conclusions, but it would be a plus if people actually know what it is.

OK now this.

How did the Peron Sprayless tomato, a South American native variety, inherit BT insecticidal proteins naturally? Mutation and selection?

This is part of what part of GMO is about.

 

[boydster]

But, it can legally up to 0.5g of transfat per serving and be labeled at 0g transfat per serving...

I agree that it's kind of a stupid work-around for companies to be able to advertise 0g trans fat per serving, and I don't particularly like how certain "white lies" like this are given a seal of approval due to a technicality. But let's be honest - for anyone who actually cares, seeing something like this is an easy way to know that there is probably some trans fat in there and they will steer clear:

That kind of thing is designed to fool an idiot that saw a blurb on the nightly news about trans fat and will likely only remember about it for a week... at best... For an informed consumer, it's no different than the warning on a McDonald's coffee cup about the contents being hot.

 

[Greatbreweh]

Not in support of one side or the other but the same people could find some bad stuff in our hops and grains of home brewers I am CERTAIN, pesticides and all kinds of farming chemicals....................

WERE ALL GONA DIE.....................................someday.....

 

[Billy-Klubb]

I like a lot of GMO's in my beer got some in a salt shaker just for my beer. man, I'm all like "Hey beertender! get me what ever beer you gots with all the GMO's you can muster. and I wants lots!" I wake up in the morning & rub GMO's in my eyes. I wipe my butt with the GMO's.

 

[orangehero]

Evolution? Mutation and selection? Not gene splicing. If you think GMO does happen without people, that's when aliens get involved, I guess.

If anyone else wants to say "but humans have been doing GMO for millennia!" or the above, even stranger statement, please at least read the first couple of sentences of the wikipedia article, or make a similar effort to know what genetic modification means with respect to GMO foods.

No one has to agree with any conclusions, but it would be a plus if people actually know what it is.

I think you need to take some of your own advice.

Horizontal gene transfer is an important evolutionary mechanism, where genes from one completely different organism can move to another. One example is the mitochondria in your cells, without which you wouldn't be able to produce the energy to live and the development of which is one of the most critical events in the evolution of complex organisms. Originally they were a separate organism, but became integrated, sharing their genes with their host. If you think about it, in a sense humans are GMO's.

One of the common GM techniques for introducing genetic material into plants utilizes a naturally occuring bacteria, Agrobacterium tumefasciens, that inserts its own bacterial genes into plants. The mechanism already exists, it's just tweaked to insert the genes you want instead. Basically GM happens all the time in nature.

 

[jcoxen]

Really, you don't know how common corn is in brewing?

Corn is used in macro, micro AND homebrewing. Anyone ever brewed a cream ale? Or bottled with priming (CORN) sugar?

Take the tour at Yeungling. Corn is a big part of the grain bill.

 

[StodBrewing]

Stop genetically modifying foods and see what happens. There will not be enough corn to go around. Worldwide shortages of corn would start mass hysteria. Then who do you think would have the purchasing power to purchase large bulks of this corn while in shortage? Bread companies? Bakeries? Nope, macro breweries would be able to snag up as much of the corn as they need. This would great increase the price but their pockets would be deep enough to get first pick on fresh corn harvests. It really all boils down to someone not liking something and control it to where everyone else can't enjoy it. If you don't like beer, simply don't drink it.

What they forget to mention was how beer actually saved us all during the plague. Check it out, it's an interesting read.

 

[HomebrewCraig]

There' would be enough corn to go around without the need for GM genes. It's bad business to produce more than you can sell, because then to sell what you have you must lower the price. Because of the amount of corn on the market, it gets used in everything.

The majority of corn grown in the US is used to feed animals, and ethanol production doesn't help grain prices.

 

[Roondy888]

Ethanol .........there was a bright idea, worked well so far ! Love me some e85

 

[boydster]

The population is growing exponentially. If that trend is to continue and we don't turn to GMO to help increase crop yields, we will run into limitations with land availability - do we use land for building shelter, agriculture, wildlife preserves? What happens if a changing climate means formerly farmable land becomes unusable? It is irresponsible NOT to plan ahead for issues of our survival well in advance of experiencing those issues. We have the ability now to fine tune a technology that has the potential to help support a rapidly growing population. Personally, I like that option better than "population control". But companies pushing a poorly tested product to market, then suing farmers for stray seeds or whatever else, isn't the right way to move ahead, either. As usual, the moderate middle ground is the best solution but seems to be absent from the broader public discussion (not here, necessarily, I mean in general).

 

[Zuljin]

0.5 > 0. Until that's proven otherwise, labeling a product as having 0 of something when it contains more than 0 of that something is inaccurate. Word games are no exception. 0.5 > 0.

I've three candies in my hand. One is marked "not deadly poison". The other two have no markings. One of those two is deadly poison. There are three people wanting candy. Which position in line would you like?

 

[Billy-Klubb]

0.5 > 0. Until that's proven otherwise, labeling a product as having 0 of something when it contains more than 0 of that something is inaccurate. Word games are no exception. 0.5 > 0.

I've three candies in my hand. One is marked "not deadly poison". The other two have no markings. One of those two is deadly poison. There are three people wanting candy. Which position in line would you like?

i would make my own candy. with extra GMO's!

 

[Zuljin]

i would make my own candy. with extra GMO's!

Berry flavored, no doubt.

 

[unionrdr]

I tend to basically agree with boydster. It's something we need to pursue in light of the sheer masses on this planet. We need to perfect it of course. But it is necessary now & especially in the future. We need to think of our children & grandchildren.

 

[Peruvian802]

'genetic modification' is not the same as selective breeding.

 

[Homercidal]

Blah. Same old Foodbabe crap popping up once again. She needs to find a better job and stop harassing people with his misinformed, and misleading articles.

 

[roger_tucker]

Show me solid peer reviewed science that GMO's harmful in any way and I'm all in, emphasis on solid peer reviewed science. I'm sure I can go to one of 100+ natural living websites presenting evidence that they are harmful, killing honey bees or one of 1000 other atrocities that Monsanto heaps on the world, but when it comes down to the hard core science almost every study done that shows harmful effects of GMO's have been dismantled as bunk.

The most common arguments I hear:
1. The studies were paid for by Monsanto
-True, many were, but the facts are the facts and when those studies, observations, methods and data stand the scrutiny of independent reviews the source of money is immaterial. Good science is good science regardless of the money source.
-Furthermore at least 500 independent studies have been done showing no harm from consuming GMO's
-From a more general standpoint the notion that special interest buy science in a widespread manner is hard to support. Yes it happens, but when studies are reviewed, repeated, and verified the bad & bought usually fall out while the truth is supported by good valid studies. You'd think that with all the money that oil companies have they'd have bought the climate scientists, yet more than 90% of climate scientist concur on climate change and cause.

2. Well we used to think tobacco was harmless
-True, it turns out tobacco, which we once thought harmless, is in fact deadly. We also think apples are harmless. It may turn out that they cause brain tumors, but until someone presents well founded evidence to suggest otherwise there is no reason to believe apples are cancerous or that GMO's are poison.

3. Why does most of Europe ban them?
-I have no idea, but it has nothing to do with scientific data. My suspicion is that is has more to do with public sentiment

4. Why is there such push back to list GMO's on food labels if there is nothing wrong with them
- I would turn the question around. If well founded evidence shows they are harmless and no different than any other grain why should I spend money to redo my labels and packaging and expose my product to unfounded hysteria

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. That is the state of the anti-GMO movement.

 

[GrogNerd]

it's not just pseudoscience, it's yellow journalism