If GMOs Are So Great, Then Label Them.

[sabrina 1]

I don't care what other people decide to feed their families

I DO care what I feed MY family.

There appears to be an effort to force people to eat what they have decided they do not want to eat.

That effort is coming from pro-GMOers.

So all I want to say is: Feed your family what you want.

Don't tell other people what they should feed their families.

If your product is so great and you are worried that people are not buying it because you refuse to label it, then just go ahead and label it and your problem will be solved.

It seems simple to me.

Eat what you want, the rest of us will eat what we want.

Why are we being bombarded with promotions for GMOs that they still refuse to label?

[StopTheNeoCons]

1. 100% agree with OP, any rejection of OP is a gmo lackey..nt

[Major Nikon]

166. I want a label that says, "fertilized with cow shit"

Any rejection of that is an organic lackey.

[Agony]

172. cow shit

isn't cow shit after being incorporated for 120 days (or 90 days for that matter), the waiting period after application until harvest.

a gmo organism is still a gmo organism after 120 days so thats not a comparable reason for labeling.

I am full of shit, you might say…
Cheers!

[Major Nikon]

175. No, it's still cow shit after that

And it still manages to make people sick and kill them, unlike GMO.

[Agony]

214. ...

that's _contaminated with cowshit_ not _fertilized with cowshit_

but you knew that

[Major Nikon]

218. Sure, they just sprinkle it around for shits and giggles

[Jim Beard]

360. Organic cowshit

is supposed to be composted where the heat kills the bad stuff.

[Major Nikon]

363. And it does work most of the time

Sometimes it doesn't or the guidelines are not followed. Either way people can and do wind up getting sick and die from it.

[nikto]

225. Agreed, 100%; It's a slam-dunk

[Cha]

248. Excellent and mine.. which should say "None of your Damn Business"..

We're having hell to pay with Monsanto and their types on Kauai.. I fucking hate their big Poisons for Profit.

[father founding]

281. Mislabeled

The label should read FOOD, or something close to it.

[nikto]

365. Agreed

[rhett o rick]

2. I agree completely. nm

[greatlaurel]

3. Good post.

The issue about opposing labeling shows the corporations want to hide the GMO products. Makes you think they suspect there might be an issue. If people know what they are eating, if health problems crop up then it will be easy to track back to GMO products. If GMOs were no threat, you would think the corporations would be for labeling because the products are of no risk and are superior.

Although, the people who work at corporations are only concerned about each quarter's profit so they would oppose anything they fear might cause a short downturn in profitability.

[Trillo]

4. Just a guess. Prepping the public...

They're prepping the public to mitigate financial damage for the labeling law that will one day occur. If GMOs are as big a part of our food supply as some have alleged (something like 85-95% of U.S. soybeans are GMO?), then when labeling happens, further price disparities will likely occur for a short period of time until growers adapt to whatever the market tells them.

Poorer folks like me really have little choice, if I want to eat at all, I have to find the least expensive ways of doing so. Lots of folks need financial assistance in order to eat at all. Just imagine the resentments if they were to believe GMO products were harming their or their offsprings' health, and they can't afford the pricier non-GMO alternatives.

[sabrina 1]

9. Good post, it's always the poorest people who end up with few choices.

GMOs are now banned in several countries. In European countries they are labeled with demands that countries in the EU be able to ban them also if they decide they are threat to their citizens' health.

Only in Third World countries AND America, it appears, are the people denied the right to know what they are eating. It makes no sense.

It's as if the people don't matter.

It hasn't been a huge issue for me other than deciding to be careful about buying unlabeled food products and trying to keep up on information on the subject.

So why are we being bombarded on this forum with pushing GMOs?

Airc, most Dem forums did oppose the non-labeling of any food product Now suddenly we are getting this 'you don't need labels' rhetoric.

I think we do.

[NuclearDem]

13. Pushing back against ridiculous misinformation is not the same as pushing GMOs.

[sabrina 1]

19. Such as? No one is telling pro-GMOers what to eat, they are free to eat GMOs if they wish.

I'm responding the noticeable increase in the 'selling' of GMOs and the push to convince people they don't need labels on their food products.

On Dem forums as long as I can remember, it was generally agreed, don't let Republicans tell you you don't need to know what you are eating'. Label everything.

Was it Dan Quayle who started this non-labeling of GMOs?

But now we are being told what to eat and that we don't need to know what we are eating on Dem forums.

All I'm saying is, do as you please but don't tell the rest of us what to eat.

[Enthusiast]

29. Bright boy, Dan Quayle.

[sabrina 1]

93. I wonder if he ever learned how to spell 'tomato' the American way? After all, wasn't it he who

wanted no labels on Tomatoes? I'm not 100% sure of this, but seem to remember he began the campaign to not label food.

[Enthusiast]

157. Yeah. The Republicans were united in their desire to keep consumers completely in the dark

on ingredients, calories and nutritional information. We now take that information for granted.

Imagine a world where Republicans always got their way. It would be like the dark ages.

Why this doesn't register with the citizens I have no idea.

[sabrina 1]

163. And they're still working on it, it seems. And now with the help of

some on the Left. That too was by design. They couldn't do it with just one party, so it became necessary to take at least enough of our party to help them finally get what they want.

[Enthusiast]

164. Oh, yes. The miscreants had to gain control of both parties.

I can only tell them, "Be careful what you wish for."

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[NuclearDem]

89. "But now we are being told what to eat"

No, you're not. That's a ridiculous strawman. There are plenty of brands that are labelled GMO free. Absolutely no one is telling you to buy anything else.

"Was it Dan Quayle who started this non-labeling of GMOs?"

Irrelevant. I don't base my decision on the worthiness of labeling or GMOs on anyone's word or party affiliation.

[sabrina 1]

99. We ARE being told what to eat and we are being to just 'shut up' and eat it. Sorry, Dems don't take

orders to blindly follow where corporate entities and their paid for scientists lead them.

Democrats question things, especially when it's apparent someone wants to hide something.

And across the globe now, people are refusing to just 'shut up and eat', with more and more countries banning GMOs as more and more non-Corporate scientists are studying them.

Like I said, you go ahead and eat whatever you want, I won't buy unlabeled food, especially since it has always been Republicans who pushed this 'you don't need to know' garbage on the people. If we are ASKING, then we do need an answer. Don't know where this nonsense came from, that people 'don't need to know'.

Actually I do.

[NuclearDem]

108. So wrong.

with more and more countries banning GMOs as more and more non-Corporate scientists are studying them.

Actually, the EU ban on GMOs was driven by unrelated food safety concerns (particularly the outbreak of mad cow disease) and a subsequent erosion of public trust, and as a result, the EU vastly overcorrected and became excessively stringent. They used to actually be more lax on the issue than even the US.

There have been hundreds upon hundreds of independent studies into GM foods, and the trend in their findings isn't anti-GM food.

[sabrina 1]

116. Mad Cow disease demonstrated how untrustworthy corporations are and how much regulation is needed.

It's not like the old farmer days when people COULD trust the local farmer not to poison them by using unknown and unnatural products to try to mass produce for profit.

Same thing with GMOs. Like I said, you eat what you want. As I will.

[NuclearDem]

140. You clearly have no idea of the history of BSE.

If you did, you'd know that it came very suddenly out of nowhere and it wasn't discovered until later that cooking didn't eradicate BSE from the beef. In fact, the British government still has no idea what caused the outbreak or where the BSE originated from in the first place.

[sabrina 1]

142. Yes we do have an idea of what some of the cause of BSE are. Animal feed has been identified as one

cause. Feed that contains bone/meat particles from other animals, or from cows themselves, are thought to be on way the disease can infect cows.

The US has taken precautions against feed containing such filler being fed to cows in this country.

More regulations have helped to diminish the likelihood of the spread of BSE among cows in this country.

[Major Nikon]

206. The cause is unknown, the transmission has been identified

Two different things.

[bvar22]

188. Wrong?

&feature=player_embedded

Whatever happened to that guy?
He would have made a good president.

[NuclearDem]

196. Well this is odd.

I watched that video, and yet I didn't see anything in there relevant to the EU labeling, which was the content of the post that video was posted in response to.

It's almost like you posted something completely irrelevant because you have nothing else. Who knows?

[Rex]

228. LOL! At the 46 second mark! WOW. So you just don't like hearing him say that or

you cannot admit that he did say it? I suggest everyone go to the youtube video and watch it. If people are pressed for time go to the 46 second mark!

Wow it's like you posted something completely irrelevant because you have nothing else.

[NuclearDem]

231. Notice how I didn't mention anything of the sort in the post he replied to.

My post was about the reasons for the EU banning GM foods, not about Obama's position on GM foods.

His post was completely irrelevant to the point I was addressing. And yes, I did make it to the 46 second mark, before you ask.

[sabrina 1]

233. Try watching it again. And Europe isn't the only place where GMOs have been banned. In fact

Europe is still working on it, as countries apparently needed permission, why only the gods know, from the EU to ban GMOs. Many other countries in other parts of the world have been banning the at a faster rate over the past few years.

Studies done by Monsanto paid scientists, are irrelevant. And those comprise 50% of all studies done.

Studies from neutral scientists have contradicted all those 'GMOs are great' studies, which is WHY the banning of GMOs has been speeding up.

I believe Obama has been undermined now by Corporate Interests on this and on other issues, such as the ban on Offshore Drilling, which he also promised to keep in place and then did an about turn.

It's at a point where people are beginning to wonder if the Presidency has been completely coopted because no one could have been so clear on issues like this and on the environment, and on 'forever war' amongst other things, or on Commissions, which he opposed during the campaign, and then do a complete reversal of his clearly stated positions, unless there is something we don't know. Either that, he was the best actor ever to run for the WH. I supported him BECAUSE of issues like this.

[NuclearDem]

236. Ho boy.

Studies done by Monsanto paid scientists, are irrelevant. And those comprise 50% of all studies done.

Cite that please.

Studies from neutral scientists have contradicted all those 'GMOs are great' studies, which is WHY the banning of GMOs has been speeding up.

Again, cite that please. Your claim is backwards: the vast majority of studies have affirmed the safety of GM foods, and only a small number (many of which, like Seralini's, have turned out to be fraudulent or deeply flawed) have shown any negative impacts.

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

Still the claim that GMOs are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the beginning of this article—has become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.

The research review, published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology.

...

The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South America, although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.

[sabrina 1]

239. Then label THEM. If they are so wonderful, what are they afraid of?

[NuclearDem]

240. Because first of all, the organic foods industry has very successfully

turned the word "GMO" into a seriously charged term, and now pushes labeling because they know it will drive people to buy their foods instead.

So, if you want labels, you can blame the organic industry and its dupes for shooting your movement in the foot.

Second, since there's been no real differences demonstrated healthwise between GM foods and non-GM foods, all that labeling would serve as is a scare tactic.

So, that sums it up. You guys have slogans, we have science. Unfortunately, because people are unbelievably fucking stupid, slogans are currently winning the public policy debate.

EDIT: Oh, and still waiting for those citations I asked for in my previous post. Unless, of course, you just made that information up.

[sabrina 1]

243. BS. Most people who oppose GMOs are opposed to them for good reasons, and it has nothing to do

with the organic industry. That is a NEW attempt to try to diminish the legitimate concerns of people who do not want their food genetically altered.

I don't buy organic food, nor does anyone I know who wants GMOs labeled. So that is just a ploy to try to make it appear that all this is just about 'financial competition'.

And the more excuses they make, the stronger the calls for transparency are going to be.

Either they are confident in their products, in which case labeling isn't a problem, or they are not, in which case they will make every excuse they can in order to avoid labeling.

Label everything, organics, GMO's, everything that is being sold as food.

But do not tell the people they have no right to know what they are eating.

[NuclearDem]

246. Still waiting on those citations.

As a bonus, the plural of anecdote is not data.

BS. Most people who oppose GMOs are opposed to them for good reasons

I've seen the arguments, and I wouldn't consider them "good." I see a lot of appeal to nature, conflation of Monsanto with the entire biotech industry, "hasn't been studied enough" (even though it very clearly has), and kneejerk anti-corporate nonsense.

So, still waiting on those citations. Should I be holding my breath for them?

[Generic Other]

294. Still waiting on the labels

Sabrina does not need to cite anything to be given the right to reject GMOs.

[NuclearDem]

303. Not what I was talking about.

When sabrina makes claims, like she did a few posts up, she absolutely has to cite evidence for that.

[Rex]

229. "Well let folks know whether their foods been genetically modified because Americans should know

what they are buying." - Obama

BUT HEY, I guess he never said any such thing according to some posters here! I guess they think people are too lazy to make it to the 46 second mark!

[sabrina 1]

234. Thanks for that. So sad, so many promises, offshore drilling, mandated insurance, GMOs

I believed him. What happened? Is there something we don't know?

It's really is an outrage that Corporations have apparently more power than the people we elect. That Monsanto can determine what we eat and deny US the people, from the right to know what is in the food we eat.

[eridani]

230. Few of which can be published without the permission of Monsanto et al

How would you like it of tobacco companies dictated which research on smoking was allowed to be published?

[NuclearDem]

232. I'm going to need a citation for that claim.

The one about Monsanto controlling what does and doesn't get published.

[eridani]

261. Well, if Scientific American is "scientidic" enough for you--

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward technology.”

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy.”

[blackspade]

295. That was a slam dunk.

[HuckleB]

300. No, it wasn't.

See post 299.

[blackspade]

302. I read it.

What do you think that those two opinion pieces actually say?

[HuckleB]

311. So you haven't read the articles.

I'm not your digest maker.

If you don't understand the topic at hand, why are you commenting about it?

[blackspade]

326. Nice dodge.

I just told you I read them, but you seem to have challenges with reading comprehension.

If you aren't willing to articulate your position based on articles that you posted why are you posting to this thread?

[HuckleB]

330. So, not only did you not read them, you are offering up an ad hominem attack.

Why is it that it seems impossible to find an honest anti-GMOer? Hmm.

[blackspade]

331. What are you blathering about?

ad hominem attack?
That is some profound projection on your part.

[HuckleB]

332. That's so cute.

Nothing but a complete lack of actual content to offer up.

You clearly don't know what projection means.

[blackspade]

333. Keep digging

[HuckleB]

334. It's a good thing there's no GMO popcorn, or you'd be breaking out in hives!

Oh, wait! Is that butter from cows who ate GMO feed?

Run!

[HuckleB]

299. Six year old stories tend to need updating.

http://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/

and...

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/do-seed-companies-restrict-research/

[suffragette]

306. "they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side

Effects"

As the article points out, that's also an important aspect of the controls placed on any independent study.

Thanks for posting this eridani. Very important info.

[HuckleB]

313. And very out of date information (see post 299) that also ignores that entities like the EU have ...

Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

been doing research all along, and that research also shows GMOs to be safe.

Now, where is the equivalent research for mutation bred plants?

PS:

AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

[eridani]

320. Not a word in that article about superweeds or the possible extinction of Monarch butterflies

Food safety isn't the only issue here. Not to mention establishment of corporate dictatorship over the food supply.

[HuckleB]

322. You can't stay on topic. You put up one BS argument, and it gets slapped down, and then...

Well, let's slap down another...

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

and one more...

http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/WSSA-Fact-Sheet-on-Superweeds_16-Sep-2014.pdf

Please stop the disingenuousness. It's disrespectful, at best.

[eridani]

335. So GMO encouragement of far more glyphosphate use doesn't count?

Herbicide resistance is encouraged by increasing reliance on glyphosphate. The same extra use is probably killing butterflies by elimination of milkweed.

[HuckleB]

340. So you didn't bother to read the links?

You're just going to keep parroting bad propaganda?

FFS.

[eridani]

345. The links said that herbicide resistance was linked to more glyphosphate, but not

--to direct gene transfer. What's the point of cheerleading the corporate dominance of the food supply that essentially forces overdependence on a single herbicide?

[HuckleB]

362. So you really didn't read the links.

Or you really don't care about honesty.

AT ALL!

In other words, you're so tied to your misplaced beliefs, that you will not acknowledge the reality of the situation. Earth be damned, for all you care.

Pitiful.

[eridani]

364. The links said that gene transfer from GMOS was NOT an issue--

--but that expanded use of a single herbicide was instead the most likely culprit for increased resistance and for eliminating much of the milkweed that monarch butterflies depend on.

Wondering why your beliefs are so tied to promoting corporate dictatorship over the food supply.

[KamaAina]

312. "Only in Third World countries AND America, it appears,"

We're not a Third World country yet?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Labeling costs a lot of money.

You can't just stick a label on it and call it good. The food has to be tested, analyzed, a certain percentage of it certified for genetic content as well as material content (was it exposed to XYZ pesticides as it was grown, what did it uptake from the soil, etc), verifications year to year, etc.

All of that costs money.

Non-GMO varieties that aren't designed to be as resistant to drought and other climate-induced crop failure are going to be more expensive too, increasingly so as time goes on. Crop failure increases food prices to scavenge sunk costs, and in reaction to scarcity.

[roody]

82. Take everything off the label then.

It is too expensive to label the vitamin and mineral and fat content. I want cheap!

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Careful, someone will call you a Libertarian with that line of logic.

Not all tests cost the same, and I see little to no reason to worry about testing this at all.

Many of the EU nation bans on GMO's are based on no science at all, and in some cases, the bans are actually illegal. (The EU did recently give broad legal latitude to countries to ban, but even that boundary has been exceeded, again, based on nothing but fear.)

[sabrina 1]

216. The bans on GMOs in Europe are based on something very important, they are based on what

the public wanted. THAT is called democracy.

And if you are insinuating that millions of Europeans are just too dumb to know what's good for them, you could not be more wrong.

If by Science you are talking about the scientists who are paid by Corporations, you can keep that science. 50% of the Science stating that there is nothing wrong with GMOs comes from GMO Corporate paid Scientists..

How about we decide which Scientific findings we find more credible? As the Europeans have done.

You are free to do as you please, to believe what you want. And SO ARE WE.

[AtheistCrusader]

217. You'd be singing a different tune if the GOP managed to ban abortion in a state in the US.

All the sudden 'what the public wanted' would take a back seat to what the law says. And you know it.

[sabrina 1]

219. I thought we were talking food. Second time someone introduced an entirely different

topic, abortion now, before it was Vaccines, into this thread. I'm more than willing to talk about Abortion. So why don't you start a thread about 'what if the majority of the people did not want abortion' and I will give you my opinion on to do should that happen.

I was admonished, ironically, for responding to the off topic comment on Vaccines and BLAMED for going off topic! Lol!

I'll just say this, if a majority of the people made that decision, then we have the opportunity to start all over again until WE are the majority. That's how Democracy works. The people decide and sometimes if they get it wrong, the people get to work to correct any errors made.

But I am not worried about that happening, re Abortion. A majority of the people do not want to overturn Roe V Wade, which is why it is still the law.

A majority of the people now want MJ to be legal. And now we are seeing a movement in that direction.

I like our democratic system IF it is allowed to work.

Wrt our food supply, we are being BULLIED by Corporations and people are working now to change that, as they did in Europe.

My preference would be to ban GMOs altogether, as 30 other countries have now done, but for now I'll settle for labeling.

[AtheistCrusader]

220. Actually, you did. You brought up the subject 'democracy'.

I pointed out an inherent flaw in your point. Democracy can be abused. It can gore your own ox, if you're not careful. And I know you wouldn't shrug your shoulders and say 'welp, that's democracy for you' and walk away if something like that happened.

And moreover, your point about 'democracy' didn't address my point at all; "based on no science at all"

If you're going to bring up democracy in response to that, i'm going to point out how democracy can go horribly wrong for you and I at any time, right here in the US on ANY subject. The subject doesn't matter, the principle matters. Or, lack of principle, in this case.

"we are being BULLIED by Corporations"

I disagree. GMO's are a direct response to consumer demand, in this case, better, cheaper, less seasonal food.

[sabrina 1]

226. Actually it is NOT a flaw in Democracy if the majority disagrees with me. That IS Democracy.

We can't always have what WE want. But we still have the opportunity to change people's minds and eventually get what WE want. And then the minority will be unhappy. We can't please everyone all the time.

You're right, I did bring up democracy, in response to what YOU said, which seemed to be questioning the Intelligence of millions of pretty smart people who, you said, didn't understand Science.

As far as GMOs being a direct response to consumer demand, I disagree totally with that. For consumers to DEMAND something, they need to know what it is. GMOs have been FOISTED on the public mostly without them knowing.

The refusal to INFORM them is a blatant ploy to make sure they are NOT able to make an informed 'demand'. Those who ARE informed, are the ones who want them either banned or at least labeled.

Eg, I did not know that Hershy's Milk Chocolate contained GMOs. I learned that today and won't be buying it again until they remove them, which they plan to do.

And that is in response to informed consumers.

We are being treated wrt GMOs, the way a parent treats a two year old. They make decisions for them until they are old enough to make their own. Good parents educate their children so they can make informed decisions.

We are not children, Corporations have no right to make decisions as important as this, FOR us. They want us to buy their products, then tell us what is in them. Why is that so hard to do?

[bvar22]

317. Then LABEL it, and let the consumer make the choice.

THAT is democracy.

What are you so afraid of?
You're working harder than a cat burying shit on a linoleum floor to keep labels off of our food,
and the public uneducated.

[roody]

126. Get that damn calorie count off my ice cream too.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. There is a significant cost delta in determining the caloric value of a food, versus

it's genome.

Poster above raised cost as an issue. It is an issue.
Without a clear benefit, it's a cost a lot of people are going to find uncomfortable to bear.

[sabrina 1]

251. Cut the Corporate salaries, the bonuses, and RAISE THEIR TAXES. We are talking about

the food supply for millions of people. Europeans seem to have covered the cost of labeling and those countries are nowhere near as wealthy as this one.

So many excuses, makes you keep wondering, 'what are they REALLY afraid of'.

[AtheistCrusader]

277. Do you understand how corporate finance works?

Most or all of the cost of the actions you just described, they will pass on to the consumer.

At best, it will allow smaller farmers to be more competitive against large entities like industrialized farms running Monsanto products. But that doesn't translate to cheaper food at the store, for us to buy at all. At best, it causes the cheap industrial food to cost as much as the smaller boutique farm food.

It's better for you, perhaps, but it's not cheaper.

[TBF]

266. lolol you know what is too "uncomfortable to bear" -

the bs we are getting from paid reps of the companies who may have to actually TELL us what the hell they are putting in their products.

Label them. Let the consumer decide. If the product is so great what is the problem?

And don't even get me started on CEO salaries not to mention the rest of the corporate board ...

[cascadiance]

150. Yes it does, and big companies pushing GMOS FORCED more costs on to us needing "organic" labeling...

The entities introducing unnatural and potential problematic food on the market should be the ones that have to pay for labeling that when food contains these elements. We shouldn't have to rely on added costs to our TRADITIONAL and HEALTHY food to be labeled and verified as 'organic' not containing GMO content in them.

If the PROPER parties that didn't have as much monopolistic power like Monsanto does were the ones that PROPERLY paid for the labeling of where their newer products were put in food instead of traditional food (and us consumers of traditional food) being forced to pay extra to ensure that we continue to eat the way we traditionally had, then we'd have more of a test of what kind of food is really cheaper to produce and is healthy food that we all want to eat.

Yes, maybe some GMO food that is supposedly engineered to have pesticide in it that doesn't need sprayed pesticide doesn't need testing for that, but who's going to pay for the costs of the bees we lose and other untold side effects of these plants being unleashed in to the environment by these crops. Consumers should be informed and have a choice on the products they consume based on a total picture of what they do to our environment and our bodies.

[Major Nikon]

208. More than that, labeling serves a particular purpose

It provides consumers with useful information in regards to health and nutrition. Requiring a GMO label would serve no purpose other than to stoke irrational fear about the safety of the food supply, which is counterproductive to the idea of labeling food in the first place.

[Cha]

259. Monsanto Announces $1.48 Billion Profit Amid 'Monsanto Protection Act' Controversy

2 years ago.. Poor little ol Monsanto..

snip//

WASHINGTON — Monsanto says its net income increased 22 percent in the second quarter on strong sales of its biotech seeds.

The agricultural products company boosted its full-year earnings guidance, citing its strong performance in the first two quarters.

The news of the profit boost comes as critics slam lawmakers for including in legislation a provision, dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act," that would shield the company from lawsuits over health risks related to genetically modified seeds, according to CBS News.

Critics claim the provision would put the company and other similar firms above the law by eliminating officials' ability to block the sale of the seeds even if they prove dangerous to consumers, according to CBS.

MOre..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/monsanto-profit_n_3006157.html

[AtheistCrusader]

275. And every little pressure on their profitability raises their prices.

They won't absorb those labeling costs by taking a pay cut. Especially since those costs will hit the entire market. Oh no, they'll pass that cost on to you and me.

Less of a problem for me, more of a problem for the poster upthread.

Fresh fruits and veggies are probably the single most expensive component of a grocery bill, if you're trying to eat healthy. I'm willing and able to pay the cost. Not everyone can, and I think we should spare a thought for that issue. Does this labeling lead to better/healthier food or not? My position is no, it does not. If that's the case, then it's just wasted money, coming out of the pockets of people who can least afford it.

It's sure as FUCK not coming out of the pocket of the CEO/SLT of Monsanto.
You'd sooner pry a chicken out of a croc's jaws.

[Jim Beard]

342. Please tell me how it is going to cost much more money?

The only difference it that the seller of the raw product will be responsible for certifying if this raw product is GMO free. The manufacture is only responsible for insuring their source is honest in his certification.

In organics, the grower has to have his raw products certified organic by the proper certifying agency which is usually the state department of agriculture. One $150 GMO test can cover 500,000 pounds of corn valued at $ 5,000,000. Avery small fee if both sides do the test on the same test, the cost is very minimal.

[AtheistCrusader]

343. That's a hell of a lot less than I was told.

Can you source that? That would be very useful, and I would withdraw my opposition. That's negligible cost.

[Jim Beard]

353. Doesn't it make sense?

The sellers pay the cost of the "Lot" sample. That 500,000 pounds of corn or wheat will make a hell of a lot of product.

I am thinking people will look at the ingredient label and think the final processer will have to do test on each item but that isn't necessary since the seller has to prove certification.

This site is where I got my information but the prices are not on the sites now except for simple germination. I will keep looking for one that quotes an exact price for gmos.

It is a simple test for roundup ready corn. Just get some seed samples and try to germinate them in Round solution. If the seeds germinate, it has GMO's. If they don't, it is GMO free. that test is for one trait. The
other most common for corn is Bt, worm killer.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0149.html

[Thinkingabout]

5. I care about what I feed my family, ergo, I grow my own produce and meats.

I know what goes into both.

[sabrina 1]

7. Yes, that is what we do. We live in a farming community so can exchange products we grow

with neighboring farmers, who grow a lot more than we do.

Lately though, I am seeing a huge push for people to buy GMOs.

Why do they care so much, unless they stand to profit from it, what people choose to eat?

[Thinkingabout]

8. I don't have to label.

[sabrina 1]

12. If you're not selling your products to other people, you don't have to label them. We do not sell

to others so we do not need to label them.

If you are growing vegetables and using insecticides then people have a right to know that

We do not use insecticides and if we were selling the products we would put that on a label.

If we were using them, we would inform the buyers of that also.

It's not a difficult thing. People do have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies.

[Thinkingabout]

15. No, I do not sell, I am morethan happy to give to the older generation who isn't

able to grow their own.

[JDPriestly]

69. I grow a bit of my own food, but I live in a city in which land is extremely expensive.

Very few people here can afford enough land to keep produce and meat.

It's fine that people who have land can take care of their own needs. But most city people are forced to eat food imported from other countries in which the hygiene standards are lower, the water even more polluted than ours and GMOs are pushed and not identified.

So the failure to label country of origin (or region of origin) and GMO foods is a big problem for many, many Americans.

[Logical]

115. You realize most people can't do that, correct? nt

[Thinkingabout]

117. Can't or just chose not to, it isn't easy work. I make the sacrifice for my family.

[ScreamingMeemie]

122. So the person living paycheck to paycheck, a week behind on the rent, is choosing not to buy

land, purchase seed and animals...?

[Thinkingabout]

141. Sacrifices can be made, there are community gardens, I am not rich by any means.

[JonLP24]

201. I live in an apartment

I suppose I could grow food in my balcony but I doubt it would yield much besides even if I could, I wouldn't. I just buy whatever is in the grocery store, don't care what the label says because I worry about so much more but I agree with the OP.

[Thinkingabout]

204. If I lived in an apartment i would also be buying from the grocery store unless i

Could locate a farmer's market.

[KT2000]

6. Excellent point!

Packaging could even have comments like "Loaded with GMOs!!!" if they are so great.

[X_Digger]

10. Let's label all foods..

"This strain of corn was produced by exposing the seed to radiation. The resulting random mutation tastes sweeter."

or..

"The strain of wheat used in this 'organic' flour doesn't exist in nature. We took some germ material from a drought tolerant strain and ground it into a paste and put some into young shoots of another strain that has a high yield. 90% of them had something wrong with them, but this one seems to be okay."

or..

"This apple was produced by taking a bud from one kind and stuffing it into a cut on the branch of another kind of apple. The resulting apple has about 50% of the genes of each kind of apple."

Free clue- we're screwing with the genes of the foods we produce in all kinds of ways. If you're uncomfortable with one method, then by all means, lets label them all.

[sabrina 1]

14. That's fine with me. We grow our own. We do not use insecticides, it's not necessary. Companion

gardening works fine for most vegetables and fruit.

Anyone selling food, should label it.

[X_Digger]

17. You think the food you grow isn't produced by mutagenesis?

You be sure to share that little tidbit next time you sit down to a meal-

"The original seeds for these tomatoes were produced by exposing regular tomatoes to radiation and / or cancer-causing chemicals.

Taste good, don't they?

Riiiight.

[sabrina 1]

20. Don't worry. We use our own seeds from last year. Don't tell Monsanto, they don't believe in

people having a right to use their own generations long farming methods. And we do not use Monsanto, or any other, insecticides. Everything tastes so much better. I can't eat store bought tomatoes, they don't taste like tomatoes.

[X_Digger]

44. Lol, and the ultimate source of those seeds? (Likely mutagenesis or forced hybridization.)

Just because you buy it from the burpee 100% organix whole foods heritage seed catalog doesn't mean that it wasn't tinkered with.

Is it just a case of out of sight, out of mind?

[sabrina 1]

53. Read Post #23 from Erich Bloodaxe BSN. You will find the answer in both of his/her posts.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Ridiculous.

I grow heirloom and 'produced' varieties of tomatoes here at home. I wouldn't take the pepsi challenge between the two for love nor money. You can't fucking tell.

Sometimes 'hothouse' produced tomatoes can be different, because depending on how quickly they were grown, how ripe they are versus how ripe they appear to be, or how they were stored can alter the sugar content of the tomato, changing the flavor. But it's not 'better' or 'worse' for you.

[sabrina 1]

74. I'm not following you. I know that nearly everything HAS been contaminated

since corporations began interfering with nature for the purpose of mass production. But I also know that what WE grow here is free of insecticides and as close to natural as Corporatate entities have allowed us to get. That's the best we can do in this contaminated world, and it's a whole lot better than eating their commercial GMOs from Walmart..

[AtheistCrusader]

77. What was in your soil when you started?

My housing area turns out, is on glacial till that was covered over with topsoil and fill from who knows where. Could have been from some boeing assembly yard in the 40's. Who knows. Could be chock full of lead and arsenic.

What's in your groundwater? Done a chemical analysis? What are you down wind from that falls out of the sky every time it rains?

How far are you willing to take this?


There are actions that can change the taste of a tomato, like keeping it cold to extend shelf life, that can alter the taste of the tomato.

Produced via your method at home, and a production facility, stored the same, I'd like to see you pass a blind taste test and pick out the 'produced' variety with any semblance of accuracy.

Farm to table storage has a far greater impact on flavor than anything else in the process.

[sabrina 1]

79. I have passed blind taste tests. It's easy when you are accustomed to eating natural food.

We bought a farm, in a very rural, non commercial area and yes, we did have a groundwater test, the water is free of chemicals, and no, this old farm was never near any commercial or chemical plants and the entire area is still made up of hundreds of years old farms, most of them anywhere from 150 acres, farmed for centuries to 300, 1,000 acres.

Ours is a smaller farm. It is considered to be one of the most fertile areas in the country.

Our well is where the water comes from and we still have an old well, no town or city water.

We did take all that into consideration.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Who administered these tests?

Do you know what a double blind test is, out of curiosity?

[sabrina 1]

92. I'm not worried about the water. We have lived in areas where the well water was contaminated

by lawn chemicals from neighboring properties, even though we have never used them. But here no one uses lawn chemicals, the grass is for the animals mostly, either grazing animals, or turned into hay for horses etc. Lots of natural fertilizer from the animals also and has been for hundreds of years.

I have no doubt that even here, some of the Corporate chemicals will be carried from far away areas, by rain, rivers and streams, and that is something we cannot control. But we are far far more protected here than most other parts of the country.

And I do not know who tested the water, it was required and we wanted it, when we bought the property.

And no, I do not know what a double blind test is.

[laundry_queen]

346. your ridiculous questions

remind me of how republicans demand environmentalists cannot be true environmentalists unless they live in mud huts, wear leather loin cloths and eat bugs.

Your arguments sail far past the point. Some of us grow food the best we can, put organic compost in our gardens, buy heirloom...none of us can go back 10,000 years before seeds were purposefully planted changing the landscape of food forever. So we do the best we can. Doesn't mean we aren't committed to eating as close to our ancestors as possible. I'm an environmentalist who lives in a house (albeit a very energy efficient house) and I'm committed to feeding my family food that is as unmodified and uncontaminated as is possible. And I buy heirloom seeds and use organic compost in my raised beds, but I don't do a chemical analysis of my ground water. For shame!

[AtheistCrusader]

350. They're not ridiculous questions and it matters precisely because I am trying to highlight the ridic

ulous extreme to which people fear and suspect these products. Three THOUSAND studies. More than that. Meta studies of those studies so you don't have to review every last damn one of them. The body of evidence is clear, the products are safe. Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't put his credibility on the line if he hasn't looked into the studies.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-gmo

Bill Nye didn't get reprogrammed by Monsanto.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/bill-nye-gmos-change-mind_n_6808868.html

People are going to ridiculous 'god of the gaps' like fear based rhetoric over GMO foods, and it's tiring. You want purity? Fine, let's see how far down this rabbit hole folks want to go.


I'm open to reversing course on this. But I need evidence. None has been offered in this thread. I reversed course on nuclear power. I saw how the Japanese government lied, covered up, and failed to address basic safety concerns when it could have made a difference, just to save a buck. I get it. Tune changed. Kristopher did that, by providing evidence after evidence until a body of proof began to materialize.

No such body is apparent on GMO's. I'm not actually concerned about the groundwater or the soil content. Not really. Again, just contrasting the fear and hyperbole. I use some heirloom seeds myself. No particular reason though. I buy what seems to do well in this area with this soil, that's all.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. People who like to grow their own

often also grow 'heritage' versions, from seeds that have been under cultivation long before 'radiation or cancer-causing chemicals' were being played with in labs. My next apple tree is going to be a Roter Stettiner, a variety from 16th century Germany. Why? Because they do taste good, unlike the bland crap that's been bred for 'shelf life' in grocery stores.

[sabrina 1]

27. Thank you. And yes, the taste is totally different. But Monsanto wants to take away your

right to own those seeds. Our fruit trees, apples, pears, cherries, plums, and we have wild plums growing everywhere, do not taste anything like the store bought versions.

Store bought tomatoes have no taste to me. Home grown tomatoes are entirely different. There is simply no comparison.

[Oilwellian]

86. Animals would agree

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Yeah, I believe that.

I mean, it was written with a sharpie, after all.

[sabrina 1]

96. Lol, I can definitely relate to the animals. They 'know things' a lot of people don't know.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. If I did that test in my yard, both would be stripped clean in an hour.

[sabrina 1]

131. I've done it with people. Only one was stripped clean once they had a choice.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. If you don't know what a double-blind test is, this is a meaningless anecdote.

Just like the original yard picture with the two ears of corn.

[sabrina 1]

145. I don't need to know to see that when given a choice between naturally grown corn, which is

juicier, fatter and much sweeter, and the dried up GMO corn, people simply prefer the better tasting corn. I'm not trying to make money or anything, just provide the best food I can for my family.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. Why would the GMO corn be "dried up" again?

I'm pretty sure that's not a trait they are selecting for.

If it's dried up because it sat longer on the self, versus an ear of corn you picked from your yard, that's a totally different issue.

[sabrina 1]

237. Have you ever tasted corn grown naturally? I have, and by comparison, commercially grown corn is

hard, dry and nowhere near as sweet and juicy.

[nationalize the fed]

242. Special tires are required for vehicles that work on GMO Corn

Genetically Modified Tires
By Bob Tita Wall St Journal
July 31, 2012

High yielding, genetically modified crops have transformed the economics of U.S. farming. But they also pack an unexpected punch: Their tougher stalks are puncturing tires and stranding farm equipment in the field.

Iowa corn and soybean farmer Mark Dimit said tire damage from the prior season's corn and soybean stalks, much tougher in GM crops, repeatedly brought spring planting to a standstill on his 4,000-acre farm...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444097904577539012713121388

[AtheistCrusader]

272. I cannot prove but I suspect

this is more a function of how long it took to get to your plate, after picking. In that sense, GMO might be involved, in that it enabled farmers farther away, or longer 'acceptable' shelf life, etc, but the fact it is GMO itself doesn't necessarily alter the taste/texture in that way.

It COULD, perhaps, but there are a lot of varieties of GMO targeted to do different things, so it would be over-simplifying to say they all taste off if perhaps one strain meant to solve one problem (perhaps low water use) did have a taste or texture issue.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

263. I don't think you need to use double blind tests on squirrels.

They can't read, and they certainly can't read your body language, so there really isn't any chance that you'll influence the outcome of them choosing one ear of corn or the other, simply because you labeled them or knew which ear was which yourself when you put them out. Nor is the fact that you know which ear of corn is which while performing the experiment going to affect how you read the 'data' of 'how much of each ear was eaten'.

(Edit: Actually I suppose if you stood there holding the ears of corn, maybe your body language might influence things, and cause you to subconsciously lure the squirrels to one spiked ear of corn or the other, but most squirrels won't even come near if a human is standing around. And a spike on a platform certainly has no body language.)

[AtheistCrusader]

276. Placement? Size? Freshness?

Was one washed with something tastier or less tasty. Etc.

There are a ridiculous number of variables not controlled for in that picture. It may even originally be a joke that someone tried to use as a serious point.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Heritage doesn't mean it's not hybrid.

Various means of hybridization goes back a looooong time. The origins of De Signeur d'Hiver are entirely unknown. (And they are likely much older than 16th century Germany)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. Well sure.

But if it was hybridized that far back in time, chances are pretty darned strong that it wasn't exposed to any more than natural radiation, or treated with mutagenic chemicals.

[BeanMusical]

94. This have nothing to do with

forcefully breaching the naturally-occurring barriers between species in a very short amount of time, which was impossible to do until a few decades ago.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Not true.

What we have developed in recent decades, is the ability to reach further into the library of genetic traits from other species, as well as the ability to do it in a targeted manner, rather than blind groping's in the dark, via brute force.

[sabrina 1]

104. I prefer the old blind groping in the dark method right now. It tastes better.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. I do not.

I like irradiated food. Lasts longer, get more for my money. No identifiable risks.
I like GMO foods, provided they don't introduce any strange allergens, etc. No problems there, I've not read every single one of 3000+ studies on the safety and efficacy of these foods, but I've ready plenty of meta-analysis of those studies, and all are encouraging.

We've fucked our environment, folks. This technology might enable us to survive long enough to actually do something to address that problem.

If technology works well enough while introducing minimal harm, I use it.

[sabrina 1]

110. Except we don't know how much harm they are doing. And the natural way tastes a whole lot better.

I'm not sure why you think GMOs give you more for your money. I get more by growing my own.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. You keep saying it tastes better, with zero proof to back that claim up.

What is your time worth to you? What do you do when you experience crop failure? You're not thinking you're immune to climate change, wherever you are, are you?

I grow my own as well. Not enough to live off of, but supplements meals nicely. I like gardening. It's relaxing. I would never go so far as to say it certainly tastes better than anything from the store. It might give me a personal sense of satisfaction, but that's it.

Here in the PacNW, we've had the mildest winter I can remember. The rule is, when the snow is gone from Mt. Si, plant your tomatoes. Problem is, there hasn't been a dusting of snow on the mountain all winter. It's still winter. It feels like May. What do we do? Plant? Are we going to then get a cold snap?

I've got stuff going in the greenhouse, but that's a hedge, not a sure thing. It could all easily die with a freak turn in the weather. The weather is already freakish.

I get more by growing my own.

I could say this about my sewing machine. Same for my Tig welder. For my table saw. Making things, including food, is immensely rewarding. Doesn't mean I can sew any better than a machine that displaced a seamster or seamstress in Bangladesh.

[sabrina 1]

123. What we grow most definitely tastes better than store bought vegetables. We are not growing food for

commercial purposes. Tomatoes take little to now work at all and most certainly DO taste completely different from commercially grown tomatoes. So does Asparagus, which almost grows wild here now, no planting every year because it's perennial. Even our tomatoes regrow each year now.

My time is valuable and I can't think of anything more valuable than the health and well being of those I love. I know some people count everything in dollars 'I could be spending this hour, making $100.00'. I think one hour spent watering plants for my family is worth more than any money I might earn doing something else.

We've had an extremely cold winter, worse than usual. But we expect to plant everything on time, some will just grow by itself, like the asparagus I mentioned.

[BeanMusical]

109. Yeah, I'm sure that in the 16th century they were able to

force fish genes to merge with tomato ones. That's what we currently doing that is brute-forcing.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. Actually, I acknowledged that

"ability to reach further into the library of genetic traits from other species"

Try not to echo back to me what I just said, as if you are making a point.

[BeanMusical]

129. Lol!

Whatever, Mr. Dupont.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. I hate it when I'm wrong too. No worries.

[BeanMusical]

151. Then I'm sad to learn that you're in hating mode 24/7/365.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Still waiting for you to add anything interesting to this discussion.

Repeating back what someone just said, isn't contributing.

[sabrina 1]

221. I found his/her comments as interesting as yours. I guess you should add 'interesting to ME' since

you are only speaking or you!

[AtheistCrusader]

222. Well, it's good you found both comments interesting, because his or hers was just an echo of mine.

If you found one interesting, they should both be interesting because they are the same.

[sabrina 1]

223. I generally find most comments interesting, in one way or another. I learn from what people

have to say. So long as people are relatively civil, conversation about what interests people is entertaining and educational. I don't agree with a lot of your views, however I am interested in them. And you have been civil, unlike some of what we see here which are mostly childish personal attacks. Not that they bother me, they are just boring. I can't learn anything from 'you are full of BS' that I didn't already know eg.

Everyone is just trying to figure things out, it's a complex world and while we haven't agreed mostly, you have been able to present your views on the TOPIC rather than resort to focusing on the PERSON mostly. I appreciate that.

[sabrina 1]

119. I don't understand why people cannot simply acknowledge that nature knows best and that

GMOs are more for the purpose of profit than anything else. Mass production = more money.

Crossing species is interfering with nature, and we don't know what harm it can cause but are asked to rely on the Industries's paid scientists to tell us 'they are completely safe'.

I prefer to stick with what we know. Don't want to be a guinea pig for any Corporation.

[BeanMusical]

125. "Mass production = more money."

Exactly. It's the only reason why they are doing it, nothing to do with that fable about feeding the whole world and yada, yada,yada.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. Nature naturally creates things that are fully lethal to humans, all the time.

Nature doesn't 'know' anything. That's anthropomorphizing forces that aren't human in nature.

[sabrina 1]

136. Yes, and smart humans educate themselves so they know the purpose of those natural

products. They all DO have a purpose.

You take things very literally. Not everything is intended to be taken literally.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. Purpose implies design.

There is 'design' in a sense, but not in the sense you meant it.

[sabrina 1]

162. You don't know 'in what sense I meant it'

It is what it is. Wherever it originated, it works beautifully if we don't interfere. And it will be there most likely, still functioning as 'designed' long after we are no longer here.

I like it. I don't like for profit mass production of what we have naturally.

You're free to prefer the bad imitation.

[AtheistCrusader]

170. It doesn't work beautifully if we don't interfere.

What was the average human lifespan in the 1800's? 1500's? 500BC?
How many species went extinct before humans ever appeared on the scene?

Design only exists in the sense that if you have variation, selection, and heredity, you get design. It is perfectly chaotic and without the aid of any sort of 'design' in the sense of direction. Any other sense you meant it in, is wrong in this context.

There is nothing wrong with humans tinkering with it. No moral implications whatever, after all, we are a product of that design as well.

[sabrina 1]

241. How many species are disappearing SINCE we began 'tinkering' with nature? Honey Bees eg. And we know

now that insecticides are most likely the cause. Honey Bees are a hugely important part of the eco system.

And that's just one of the many species that are disappearing at an alarming rate.

We can and have improved things. That's different from destroying things, from INTERFERING with things.

[AtheistCrusader]

274. Insecticides are one cause.

But only one cause. There are a host of habitat pressures that lead to CCD, and should be self evident, as countries that ban GMO use, and ban primary suspect neonicotinoid pesticides are also experiencing CCD. Fungus, temperature/climate variation, all factors.

Even farming techniques, with fields and fields of just one species of crop can cause it, because the bees end up with malnutrition.

There are lots of reasons for that sort of thing, and it is absolutely incumbent upon us to find out all the various causes and address them because we do need the bees.

[sabrina 1]

287. And every time a cause is found, such as the insecticides causing the disappearance of honey bees

it should be completely banned everywhere.

An ethical corporation would do so voluntarily.

Monsanto is not an ethical corporation which is why they should not be trusted with our food supply.

[AtheistCrusader]

291. On that, we agree.

[Jim Beard]

359. Of course there is natural hybridization BUT

they are not identical. Free flowing pollen that lands on another plant of the same SPECIES is a natural hybrid. GMO's are forced and can combine traits that from other species of plants, EVEN BACTERIA as with the Bt gene that kills worms when they eat the plant.

[immoderate]

35. I love the taste of radiated, cancer causing tomatoes. More profits. Lower quality...

What's not to like?



--imm

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. Are you talking about grafting apples?

Grafting does not give the fruit 50% of the genes of X and Y. It's still 100% of the one you graft. If I grow a 'dwarf' tree by splicing a red delicious branch onto a dwarf variety's rootstock, every apple growing above the rootstock is still red delicious, not some hybrid mix of red delicious and whatever the rootstock was. You have to grow apple trees of a specific variety from branches taken off of another tree, because the DNA in the seeds is a mix of who knows what, given that pollination takes place thanks to flying pollinators.

You ought to look up the Tree of 40 Fruit project. Each of the 40 fruits growing on that single tree has 100% it's own DNA, they don't somehow all mix just because they were all grafted onto the same rootstock.

[X_Digger]

41. Depends on what you graft. Just shoots? Same dna (think roses at HD w/ wild rose roots).

If you graft germ material, you often get hybrids. Grind up the stamen (or is it pistil? I can never keep them straight) and insert that mush into the forming bud of another type, and sometimes you get hybrids.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. You have no idea how GMO's work.

"This apple was produced by taking a bud from one kind and stuffing it into a cut on the branch of another kind of apple. The resulting apple has about 50% of the genes of each kind of apple."

ALL of the bananas you see in the store? Every last one of them? Reproduce in this manner because they can no longer reproduce on their own. Even heirloom varieties of Apples are reproduced via cutting and grafting. Have been for hundreds of years. Grapes? Yep.

If you want to 'label' cutting and grafting as 'GMO' then there's no point because EVERYTHING in the produce section of your store is 'GMO'. Everything.

Hell, the 'modern' banana was produced via thousands of years of manipulation like this. You probably wouldn't want to eat a 'natural' banana.

Edit: Oh shit, I re-read your post. I may have just attacked your post for agreeing with what you meant to say at the end there.

[X_Digger]

97. Hehe, no worries. n/t

[JDPriestly]

72. Yes. As I understand it, apples need to be grafted or otherwise tampered with.

So why not talk about just what happens when our food is grown. Why should't people learn to understand this?

The ignorance about where food comes from and how it is grown is amazing.

For example, I have a friend who insists that she does not have to wash organic vegetables. I grew up in a rural area. My parents always had a garden. And I do a little gardening.

I also compost. It is absolutely important to wash organic produce.. But there are people who do not understand this. They think that since organic food is supposed to be healthier than non-organic food, they don't need to wash it. The ignorance is amazing.

People need much more information about the food they eat.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

158. Well, heck, you don't NEED to wash anything you grow...

if you don't mind eating that 'peck of dirt' in your lifetime, along with all the bird poop, slug trails, fly footprints and whatever else is on it

Although I will admit to simply popping the occasional strawberry, raspberry, or mulberry directly into my mouth while picking.

[JDPriestly]

227. Can you believe it? But my story is true.

[roody]

130. good idea

[appalachiablue]

11. Absolutely. If makers of GMO, God Move Over food are proud, then label the products! Easy.

Wait a minute, it couldn't be that they don't want a (clean) Control Group population that would be useful for research, nah-

[Nye Bevan]

16. Just stick "may contain GMOs" on every product.

There, you've got your labeling, and 99% of people won't care.

Just like when those signs saying "these premises contain products known by the state of California to cause cancer" started cropping up all over Disneyland, I immediately started to completely ignore them wherever I saw them.

[sabrina 1]

22. Where I come from, people do care, enough to grow their own products. In the EU an

overwhelming number of people care which is why the EU has to keep trying to accommodate the people.

Americans care, which is why the GMO Corps are getting nervous, probably seeing a drop in their profit margins as people try to avoid their unlabeled products.

If it's as simple as you claim, then what's the problem? Why fight so hard NOT to tell people what they are eating?

[pnwmom]

33. That wouldn't satisfy the many people who HAVE voted yes on labeling laws.

You are wrong that 99% don't care. The people in states that voted for labeling will tell you that's not true.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Oh, Shush! We can trust Monanto to do the right thing.

[sabrina 1]

24. I just look at the word 'monsanto' and it translates to 'BEWARE' to me.

Raid, Round-Up, none of that stuff will ever be found in this house.

[BeanMusical]

121. They gave us wonderful poisons like DDT.

Then said oops, sorry. But hey, this new generation of pesticides is safe. Trust us.

[sabrina 1]

127. As a recent, not so brilliant 'philosopher' once said 'fool me once, don't fool me again' or words

to that effect! I see those products and the word 'poison' comes to mind. I think they use populations as guinea pigs.

[BeanMusical]

133. I totally agree.

[Lancero]

199. Actually, they didn't.

DDT was first created in 1874 by Othmar Zeidler, and it's effects as a insecticide by Paul Muller in 1939.

Monesto was first started in 1901, and it didn't start producing DDT until 1944. A number of other companies were producing DDT at the time as well.

[BeanMusical]

235. Thet didn't what?

I said that "They gave us wonderful poisons like DDT." not that they invented it. They have massively produced some of the most toxic substances ever in addition to DDT, like PCBs, Dioxin and Agent Orange (which they didn't invent either but their formula was far more toxic than the Dow version because of the high levels of Dioxin in it). They have a long history of covering their butt, hiding studies that are bad for business, and we should trust them with our food?

[Enthusiast]

25. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[CrispyQ]

26. Yes, let the market decide. -nt

[sabrina 1]

28. Lol, what happened to the invisible hand?

[CrispyQ]

32. It's being manipulated.

CORPORATE BAILOUTS
Privatized Profit
Socialized Risk

[sabrina 1]

250. Yes, so the claim that the 'invisible hand' would take care of the market, was just as delusional

as all their other claims. The so-called 'free market' isn't free, to the taxpayers, who have to bail out the gamblers when the invisible hand completely disappears, and they, the anti Welfare, Socialist state, come begging for a Socialist bailout and escape taking any responsibility for their actions.

[CrispyQ]

270. It's all such a disgusting scam.

There is no free market, other than the market where 1% are free to do whatever the hell they want. Wall Street Clinton isn't going to change that. I think the dems are making a big mistake putting all their eggs in her basket. I don't think she's the shoe-in winner they think she is or that the polls say she is. Like one pundit pointed out, she's sucked all the oxygen out of the room - & all the enthusiasm, too. I've read people on this site claim that HRC doesn't need the left to win, but when she loses, you know who they will blame.

Oops. Kind of got off on a tangent there.

[sabrina 1]

316. A good tangent, I agree with every word you said.

I don't think they care who wins, there will be two chosen gate keepers for the Corporate state, the battle is not for a representative of the people, it is a small, private affair, hyped in the media to keep the illusion of 'democracy' between two contestants for the job of CEO of the Corporate State.

The rest of us are supposed to send them money, go knocking on doors etc, when in reality they will take either 'applicant' and probably laugh at the rest of us.

I never thought I would become so cynical, but after watching this for more than a decade now, as you said, 'they sucked all the energy, and enthusiasm out of the room'. Hard to be enthusiastic about something you no longer believe is going to work for the people.

[pnwmom]

34. The market depends on information to make correct decisions. n/t

[Orrex]

30. Before giving vaccines, doctors should be forced to say that some people believe they cause autism.

[pnwmom]

36. Not the same. Unlabelled vaccines aren't given to people.

That would be the comparable situation, not withholding information about health conditions that don't exist.

We just want their existence as an ingredient to be labeled.

[Orrex]

39. They are already labelled

Since GMO foods are, from a health standpoint, no different from non-GMO foods, then GMO foods are already disclosed by referring to them in the ingredients as "tomatoes" or "corn" or the like.

If you are aware of a substantive difference, justifying separate label standards for foods that are not compellingly different, then I invite you to demonstrate that difference.

[pnwmom]

43. They aren't labeled with GMO content.Just because their genetic differences aren't visible to the eye

doesn't mean they don't exist.

And they should be labeled. People with food allergies and others who are concerned that the food they are eating is what it appears to be -- and nothing else -- can then decide what to do with the information, as people already do all over the world.

[Orrex]

47. Who's talking about "differences visible to the eye?" Not me.

Since there is no demonstrable health difference between GMO foods and non-GMO foods, I am interested to know exactly why the anti-GMO crowd demands that they should be disclosed beyond what is already required.

Throughout many threads on this very topic, I have seen no compelling reason put forth to justify that demand.

[pnwmom]

57. We told you. We want GMO ingredients, as defined by science

and/or the Cartagena Protocol, to be labeled.

We don't care whether Monsanto people think there is "no demonstrable health difference."

It took science several decades before long term research showed that tobacco causes lung cancer. But at least every smoker knew s/he was consuming tobacco products.

Without labeling of GMO's, long term epidemiological studies -- the kind done with tobacco products -- aren't even possible.

[Orrex]

62. They are already labelled, as defined by science.

They are food, and they represent no discernable difference in terms of safety or nutritional value. Therefore there is no compelling reason to disclose them separately from foods already disclosed in the ingredients.

If you can demonstrate a compelling reason why "GMO corn" should be distinguished from "corn" in the ingredients, then please do so, recalling, of course, that your preference is not a compelling reason.

[pnwmom]

148. I want GMO's, as defined by science, to be included in ingredient lists.

If you can demonstrate how long-term epidemiological studies can be conducted on GMO's without labeling each GMO product, then please do so.

Long-term studies were needed to prove the damage that tobacco can do, and long-term studies are what the GMO producers have actively been preventing.

Skeptical minds wonder why.

[Orrex]

176. Studies have been carried out for decades

Others have posted a great many links in at least three previous threads, so I know you've either seen or ignored them.

As always, the basic issue remains: demonstrate that a compelling need exists, and then the demand for labeling has merit. Otherwise it's based only on your wishes, which still aren't compelling.

Also, the attempt to link GMOs and tobacco is baseless, and it's another in a long string of circular anti-GMO arguments. Show me the longterm epidemiological studies proving that iPhones and Pokemon are safe. Absent those studies, how can you resist campaigning for labels disclaiming that those products may cause gout or lycanthropy?

The answer, of course, is that you are demanding GMOs to prove a negative, to prove that they don't cause some nebulous result in a vastly broad range of possibilities. That's effectively impossible, so you're deliberately setting an impossible standard.

Instead, demonstrate that a real risk exists. That requires a much smaller proof in a much smaller search field. And after you do, then your demand for labels will seem less like luddite anti-vax nonsense and more like reasonable concern backed by science.

Since we can't practically prove that a mathematical risk is zero, we instead document that no risk has been shown despite copious longterm study.

If you can't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, then I demand that you post a sign on every tree in the Pacific northwest warning of possible Bigfoot enounters.

[pnwmom]

203. How can scientists prove a real risk exists when the GMO producers

are allowed to control the use of their seeds in research, the publication of results, and to prevent labeling of their products so that epidemiologists would be able to follow their long-term effects in the population?

Please show me the long-term studies you are referring to -- ones by independent researchers who didn't need approval by the GMO producers to use their seed in research, and that followed users of GMO products for a couple of decades or longer -- comparable to the tobacco studies that showed an increased risk of cancer.

Long term studies on cell phone use ARE being carried out, by the way. Those manufacturers can't stop the research, so when the results are in, they will be more reliable than anything produced by the GMO manufacturers or any of the GMO researchers who sign agreements on how they'll conduct studies or report results.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward technology.”

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy.”

[JonLP24]

210. Every tree?

Do you know how long that would take

I was at Ft. Lewis, there was supposedly a Big Foot sighting there in the 50's. One person told me he believed Big Foot was Cane or someone who got a curse put on them in the bible, something to do with 'mark of the beast' -- I never really read the bible so I don't know what he was talking about.

[Orrex]

213. Dude! That's totally science! SCIENCE!

[sabrina 1]

252. What is the problem here? We have a RIGHT to know what our food supply consists of.

Why are you fighting so hard to deny people that right? Airc, this used to be the job of Republicans. Here people were educated about this issue. How come suddenly this forum is becoming an advertising site for GMOs.

Is Monsanto getting nervous, having been kicked out of 30 countries and counting, over the past number of years?

The attempts to excuse the refusal to label food seem desperate to me.

[Orrex]

265. Let me tell you what desperation actually is:

Desperation is accusing someone of being a Republican simply because they don't swallow your bullshit.

You've gotten your nose out of joint because the world doesn't bow to the whims of your ignorant anti-GMO nonsense, so instead of actually forming an argument or actually citing research or actually demonstrating that your demands have merit, you cook up some bullshit irrelevant claim about your rights being violated.

That silliness might play well among homeopaths and water-diviners and chakra-balancers, but when you're petulantly demanding that companies have to do what you want simply because you want it, you need to be less of a crank about it.

Simply put, in the absence of a demonstrated health concern, your purported "right to know" is not compelling, no matter how many times you stamp your feet about it. You want to pretend that I'm denying or violating your rights, but you're obviously trying a bullshit tactic to distract from the plain truth that you don't have a real argument to make.

Is Monsanto getting nervous, having been kicked out of 30 countries and counting, over the past number of years?

You are arguing that consensus trumps scientific fact, which is absurd for a number of reasons. If 30 countries can't be wrong, then obviously 160+ countries that haven't banned Monsanto must be five times more correct. Alternatively, if you're willing to make scientific fact subordinate to popular opinion, you must therefore conclude that homosexuality is wrong, since more than 70 nations ban it.

You should abandon your nonsensical "30 countries can't be wrong" mantra, because it's nonsense.

You should abandon your nonsensical complaint that Monsanto or I am denying you your rights, because it makes you look like a tinfoil crank.

Eat whatever you want, because frankly I couldn't care less what you stuff in your gullet. Your rights, such as they are, are not a "get out of logic free" card. If you assert the right to force a company to reveal information against its will, you need to demonstrate that your right is compelling. You have failed to do so, like all the rest of anti-GMO crowd.

[sabrina 1]

279. A long post filled with personal attacks. I wouldn't call that science, only

confirms that proGMOers do feel desperate. It's hard to understand why, just because people do not want their genetiically altered food. Go ahead and eat it. The ANGER at people who choose not to is amazing.

Not much of substance to respond to really.

[NuclearDem]

305. You don't have a leg to stand on with any of that.

Considering most of your early posts in this thread insinuated that people opposed to labeling are secretly Republicans, among many other baseless accusations, you don't have a lot of room to complain about personal attacks.

Not much of substance to respond to really.

I've asked you several times to cite evidence for claims you made in this thread, and you haven't done so. You don't get to complain about lack of substance when that seems to be your modus operandi throughout the thread.

[sabrina 1]

308. I stated my experience with Progmos going back years. I never met Republican who didn't argue FOR

GMOs and spent at least two years on a site flooded with Right Wingers, all of whom were pushing GMOs, with the same arguments I am NOW seeing on DU. Back then, Dem sites were the place to get actual facts about Monsanto and its poisonous products, its brutal presence in Third World countries, and its thuggish treatment of farmers and ANYONE who exposed their dangerous practices.

Now it seems the corporations have infested OUR Party also, not that we didn't know this already so we are now exposed to the same Corporate/Monsanto defenses so familiar to those of us who encountered their Republican supporters in the past.

Have to admit, finding ways to get BOTH parties to support their dangerous practices was clever.

How long have you been here?

I have zero intention of going around in circles with the same old tactics I became so familiar with ten years ago, on THIS forum.

Why? Because I know all the tactics, all the personal attacks, all the snide, baseless talking points and I also know that when someone who is committed to Monsanto et al, they are not LOOKING for discussion, they are looking for an opportunity to TRY, though they never really managed to do it, to make the PERSON not the ARGUMENT, look like, what did they call us back then when they were using Right Wingers to do their 'work', 'Lieberal Moonbats' etc etc.

YOU EAT WHAT YOU WANT, I will continue to boycott GMO products AND make sure everyone I know who really ARE interested in knowing what they are putting into their bodies, knows the facts that Monsanto is trying so hard to keep hidden.

[NuclearDem]

309. Still waiting on those citations.

Are you ever going to back up your claims, or are your posts going to be rhetoric over research?

[sabrina 1]

314. I love it when I don't have to go searching for examples of what I just described.

Thanks for providing a perfect example of what I described in my post above.

Taunting, attacking, demanding 'cites' when there is clearly no interest other than to 'attack' as we've seen in this thread.

Your 'tactics' are classic. Makes me wonder if there are classes somewhere. If so, they need new instructions.

So, let's play the game just for fun.

Let's see if you are better at it than your predecessors.

So far I'm not impressed, but you never know.

What 'cites' do you consider to be credible? This way we can eliminate some of the wasted time and go right to the core of the issue.

Name your 'credible' sources and we'll go from there.

[Orrex]

307. Spare me.

Anti-GMO types begin, sustain, and end their arguments with bullshit and personal attacks. If I had a nickel for every time anti-GMO type has attacked me and/or accused me of being a paid Monsanto shill, I could quit my job as a paid Monsanto shill.

That's a joke, in case any anti-GMO types here among us are as ignorant of sarcasm as they are of science.


To that end, pointing out your demonstrable ignorance or the outright foolishness of your "arguments" is not a personal attack. Likewise, revealing the bullshit fallacies that make up your "arguments" is not a personal attack. If you don't like having your bullshit fallacies pointed out, then I suggest that you stop relying on them.


What you perceive as personal attacks by me are in fact the exasperated response of someone who's frankly tired of dealing with anti-GMO true believers. Rather than waste time trying to persuade you with logic and evidence--a strategy that has proven powerless before the stubborn and willful ignorance of anti-GMO types--I content myself by identifying your bullshit fallacies and demonstrating how your entire position depends on falsehoods and misrepresentations of your opponents' arguments.

Tell me this, in all honesty: by what rational, realistic standard could you be convinced that GMOs are safe? Understanding that it is impossible to prove that there is mathematically zero risk (in GMOs or non-GMOs for that matter), what threshold of safety would satisfy you?

If no such threshold exists, can you at least admit that you reject GMOs based on faith rather than science?

[sabrina 1]

310. I, did NOT accuse you of anything. If you have a problem with someone who did, do not

imply that everyone here is 'the same'. Direct your anger to THAT person.

I AM ALSO tired of the same old tactics PROGMOS have been using for as long as I have been aware of them.

It is no excuse for your attitude towards other DUers, that 'you are tired' of people who simply DON'T agree with you.

LABEL THE FOOD, period. There is simply NO logical argument against that demand from the public, NONE.

Leaving EVERYTHING ELSE ASIDE, we have a RIGHT to know what we are buying and feeding our families.

And ANYONE who tries to deny grown adults that right IS SUSPECT.

Doesn't matter if they 'don't know what they are talking about'.

Doesn't matter if the DO 'know what they are talking about'.

What matters is they have a RIGHT to this information, PERIOD.

[Orrex]

315. This is why it's madness to try to discuss the issue with anti-GMO types

It is first necessary to dismantle the fallacies that riddle their arguments (and yours), so the issue itself--the demonstrated safety of GMO foods--is never actually discussed. Instead, we get a bunch of slogans, platitudes and personal attacks from the anti-GMO crowd, all while complaining that their rights are being trampled.

I AM ALSO tired of the same old tactics PROGMOS have been using for as long as I have been aware of them.

I imagine that it's quite fatiguing and demoralizing to have your fallacies pointed out to you, especially after they've probably garnered rave reviews among the holistic, chakra-balancing crowd. Perhaps you should stop reading this, unless you want to see more of your fallacies dismantled below.

LABEL THE FOOD, period. There is simply NO logical argument against that demand from the public, NONE.

That's either a straight-up lie or a gross failure of reasoning. Here are two reasons that should be obvious at this point:

1. A passionate but misdirected campaign against GMO foods has created the perception that GMO foods are dangerous when in fact no risk has been shown to exist. To require companies to disclose GMO content--embracing those ill-founded fears--will serve no purpose but to damage the sale of food that is perfectly safe.

2. There is no compelling reason to require that labeling, since there is no demonstrated difference, in terms of health or nutrition, between GMO and non-GMO foods. If you are aware of such a difference, please document it.

Either of those is sufficient to resist luddite demands for irrelevant labeling. I have seen absolutely no argument put forth that contradicts the reality of either.

Leaving EVERYTHING ELSE ASIDE, we have a RIGHT to know what we are buying and feeding our families.

That's a red herring, and it's a fallacy that you've leaned on again and again. NO ONE IN ANY OF THESE THREADS is saying that you don't have a right to know what you're buying and feeding your families. We are saying--correctly--that your asserted right does not give you authority to demand that anyone else bow to your wishes absent a compelling reason for them to do so.

And ANYONE who tries to deny grown adults that right IS SUSPECT.

That's argument by assertion, and it's a fallacy. Further, pointing out the limitations of your rights is NOT denying you those rights.

What matters is they have a RIGHT to this information, PERIOD.

Argument by assertion. Tell us WHY you believe that you have a right to this information, or why corporations should be compelled to provide it. Like all other anti-GMO types, you have failed to articulate that reason. Why is that?

[sabrina 1]

168. You eat food that has been sprayed with insecticides and you don't think that's a problem?

The reason to justify labeling food, is the public has a right to know what is in their food. Do we need any other reason than that?

Why do you support denying people basic rights?

Since they won't label their products we also have a right to believe they are afraid to do so. They are hiding something.

So, more and more people are simply not buying unlabeled food.

That is affecting their bottom line, and that is why we keep seeing these 'GMOs are Great' messages. No, they are not. Because if they were, they would be BEGGING to tell us what is in them.

[Orrex]

182. Again with the red herrings

Your purported "right to know" doesn't mean that you get to summarily demand to know whatever you decide you want to know.

Your entire basis for demanding disclosure is the assumption that GMOs differ substantively from non-GMOs, but that hasn't been demonstrated. You're simply assuming what you want to assume, and you're demanding that an entire industry go along with you.

You are also insisting that corporations must be hiding something, or else why wouldn't they allow labels. That's a circular argument, and it's the same bogus justification the NSA uses to snoop in your emails.

Why don't you post your bank and cellphone records here, along with your real name, social secirity number and your date of birth? What do you have to hide?

[Orrex]

146. Again, "visible to the eye" is your standard, not mine.

Nor is it the standard of science. In short, it's not a compelling reason to demand labelling.

I invite you to cite a single documented case of someone having a demonstrated allergic reaction to GMO food when that person did not already have an allergy to the non-GMO version of that food.

Absent such documentation, you are assuming your conclusion, which is of course a common tactic of the anti-GMO crowd.

[roody]

137. The difference is in the DNA.

[sabrina 1]

38. I know this, before accepting any medication from a doctor, I want to know what the side effects

are, whether it is needed, and how long it will be needed.

Another thing we are bombarded with are Big Pharma ads lately.

'If you suffer from (fill the blank, it's a long list) talk to your doctor about (fill in the blank, again, this too is a long list)'

Then, DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS SCROLLING ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN which generally contains warnings of 'mild headaches' all the way to 'death'. Meantime your screen is showing you happy couples, (viagra), though how happy can they be if they need viagra to make them happy? Soft music playing in the background. Or a women shoving her bosoms in your face, so you are unable to focus on the 'warning voice' in the background. 'IF you experience (fill in the blanks again) call your doctor immediately, unless you're dead, in which case have a loved one call'.

Following these ads we are also bombarded with:

'If you or any of your loved ones were EVER prescribed (fill in the blanks again) you may be entitled to a settlement IF you suffered from the following (more blanks to fill in). Please call 'Whydidnchajustsayno & gladyadidntforoursake' at 888-888-8888, unless you're dead in which case your loved ones may be entitled to a settlement'.

[Orrex]

46. "Bg Parma" is irrelevant to this discussion.

And your choice to mention it here seems like a calculated effort to resonate with the distrust of that industry despite millions upon millions of lives saved worldwide. If you wish to rail against "Big Pharma," then perhaps a thread that's busy catapulting the anti-GMO propaganda isn't the best place to do it.

I mentioned vaccines because a demand for the irrelevant disclosure of GMO foods based on unfounded fears is the same as requiring irrelevant declarations about fears of vaccine-induced autism. Neither fear is justified by scientific consensus, so there is no basis for requiring either disclosure.

[sabrina 1]

49. You mentioned it. I was thinking, 'why are vaccines relevant to this thread' myself?

If it isn't relevant then why did you mention it?

[Orrex]

50. Anti-vaccine foolishness is directly relevant to anti-GMO foolishness

That's why I mentioned it--both forms of foolishness depend on ignorance and fear and a dubious appeal to the inherent superiority of "natural" processes.

You brought up "Big Pharma" complete with skull-and-crossbones doom-preaching about the evils of side effects.


However, since you haven't actually addressed my point, I conclude that you are unable to do so. Fair enough.

[sabrina 1]

52. I was just describing all the ads we are getting on TV. Are we forbidden from mentioning

the literal tsunami of 'Medical' ads now flooding the airwaves, on this forum?

They are so bad now, nearly ALL our ads are either from the pharmaceutical companies, and no one ever died from not having an erection every time they want one, to my knowledge, so not 'life saving', that it has become REMARKABLE, OR they are from ambulance chasing Law Firms filing Personal Injury Suits on behalf of consumers who used some of these products.

Pushing pills on TV. YOU reminded me when you brought a completely irrelevant (except in your own mind) topic into the thread.

I am not a 'movement', just someone who wants to feed MY family healthy food, which I do. I don't tell you what to eat, never have, and you don't get to tell me what to eat, which the 'pro-GMO movement DOES do.

Those who support GMOs have been flooding forums telling US what to eat.

I was happy to just do what I think is best for my family.

Then I noticed people here telling me I DON'T KNOW what's good for my family.

So now, I'm telling THEM to eat what they want, and leave the rest of us alone. We don't need their advice.

[Orrex]

55. Who do you think is forbidding anything?

It seems to me that a discussion about anti-GMO foolishness is a poor venue for discussing "Big Pharma" disclaimers, but if you disagree then you are of course welcome to inject whatever topic you wish.

Pushing pills on TV. YOU reminded me when you brought a completely irrelevant (except in your own mind) topic into the thread.

The tactics of anti-GMO foolishness have been repeatedly demonstrated to mirror the tactics of anti-vaccine foolishness, so the topic is hardly irrelevant.

Then I noticed people here telling me I DON'T KNOW what's good for my family.

I have seen no one making such claims. However, in point of fact, you might not know what's good for your family. If you believe that GMOs are dangerous, for instance, then you are ignorant of well established fact, and you then literally do not know what's good for your family, or at least you fail to recognize what is not dangerous to them.

You demonstrate a bizarre persecution complex in that you fear "Those who support GMOs" as if they're a nefarious an monolithic cabal. I would be interested to see some examples of what you think qualifies as "Those who support GMOs... flooding forums telling US what to eat." I suspect that you maintain a rather low standard for such assessments.

Your love for your family is not in question, but it sure as hell doesn't make a nutrition expert.

[Chathamization]

76. Does anyone recommend not telling people if a shot is a vaccine so that anti-vaxxers don't avoid it?

Because plenty here are saying we shouldn't tell people if a food is a GMO so that people opposed to GMOs don't avoid it. If we don't hide information for something necessary like vaccines, why should we hide it for something completely unnecessary like a GMO crop? Is it more important for people to eat round-up ready crops than to get vaccinated for the measles?

[Orrex]

78. That would be medically unethical, and it's a false analogy

There are legitimate (i.e., well-justified) vaccine-related concerns, such as injection-site-reaction and the like, that require vaccines to be identified as such before administering them. Those concerns to not merely depend upon (and are frankly independent of) anti-vaxxers' fear or ignorance.

There is no similarly compelling reason to disclose GMO content. There is no legitimate (i.e., well-justified) health concern regarding GMO foods. Such concerns depend solely upon anti-GMO fear or ignorance.

That's why it's a false analogy: you're likening legitimate concerns about statistically plausible health complications to baseless concerns about statistically non-existent health impacts.


If anti-GMO advocates can demonstrate otherwise, I invite them to do so. However, posting a list of countries that have banned GMOs is not sufficient in this regard.

[Chathamization]

113. Yes, I agree your analogy was poor; maybe GMO-boosters will refrain from comparing GMOs to vaccines

since we agree that it's a false analogy? However, since you did make the comparison, the equivalent of labeling item #1 is - and this is shocking - labeling item #2. No one is saying that GMOs should have the label "may cause cancer," which is part of the reason why your analogy doesn't work.

But as you said, GMOs and vaccines are nothing alike (do you think not feeding your children GMO foods is the equivalent of not getting them vaccinated), and that's a greater reason why the analogy is so silly. Maybe GMO-boosters can stop making something they consider to be a "false analogy" in every thread on GMOs. It would at least make there case somewhat more consistent.

[Orrex]

144. You actually went with the "I know you are, but what am I?" gambit?

My analogy was of course spot on because the anti-GMO crowd has been shown to use the same bullshit fallacious tactics as anti-vax zealots. Your failure to recognoze that donstrated fact is your failure, not mine. You are welcome to continue the use of those ridiculous tactics, but you won't convince anyone who doesn't already believe.

After your half-assed attempts at insult, you rambled on about some nonsense or other, including some unimaginative mischaracterizations of my position which I have no obligation to address. If you come up with anything worth a more elaborate response, let me know. Otherwise I can see no reason to waste further time on you.

I imagine that you think you're clever. More's the pity.

[Chathamization]

147. No, you compared GMOs to vaccines then followed up saying they were nothing alike; which, I agree

with you on. The benefits of vaccines and GMO foods are nothing alike - oh, wait, that makes you upset. You only want to talk about how the dangers of GMO foods and vaccines are completely different and completely ignore how the benefits are also completely different? When an argument starts with "let's ignore this half of the facts that completely invalidates what I said," it's hard to take it seriously.

[GreatGazoo]

296. Less than 7% of the population is anti-vax and less than 7% is against GMO labeling

so numbers wise Anti-vax and pro-GMO are equally popular.

There is no benefit for the end consumer in eating GMO food. That is why they don't want it labelled. "Withstands additional pesticide" is NOT a benefit for the consumer. Vaccines OTH have obvious benefits for the end user.

The 93% of the population that favors labeling GMO foods (and believes in vaccines) is not as stupid as the pro-GMO side wants them to be so out come the smoke and mirrors...

[alp227]

31. How do you know what a GMO is in the first place?

The problem with the "labeling GMO" movement is that it panders to the ill-informed and uses "informed choice" as a front.

[pnwmom]

37. The standard definition will do. Or we could use that already used in

the international Cartagena Protocol, which is quite similar.

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

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. GMOs are the source of genetically modified foods and are also widely used in scientific research and to produce goods other than food. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism', defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology&quot .

[sabrina 1]

42. And most of them taste terrible. Another reason we grow our own.

The EU labels their food. Is it so hard for America to do what other countries are doing?

Thanks for that link. That would be fine imo.

[pnwmom]

45. It would be hard for Monsanto. They'd lose sales.

But other food producers would benefit.

We shouldn't be putting the governmental thumb on the Monsanto side of the scale.

[sabrina 1]

40. Not much to know. Either the food is 'altered' genetically, in which case I don't want it, or it

isn't. Why the resistance to just telling people what they are eating? Seems to me they are hiding something.

So I don't buy it. Simple, we grow our own.

[sabrina 1]

51. I don't know, because they are not labeled. I would know, if they were. So my standard for judging a

REAL tomato, from a genetically altered tomato, is how they look and feel, and TASTE. Real tomatos grown naturally have an entirely different taste.

Since I know this, I don't buy store bought vegetables. I can buy them from farmers, grow them myself, which I do, or not eat them at all.

I used to wonder why vegetables were so tasteless before I knew about GMOs. Now I know.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. If you only want to eat food labelled as "GM free", that's entirely your right.

But you don't have a right to force people to label food made with genetic modification, any more than you have a right to force people to mark the religion of the grower, or any other piece of irrelevant but prejudicial information, on food packaging.

[sabrina 1]

56. I don't care if the label them or not. Not my product. But I won't BUY unlabeled food. I absolutely

have a right to NOT buy food that I am suspicious of. I am suspicious of people who are hiding things, yet are trying to force ME to buy their products.

I have never told anyone or tried to force them to eat what I think they should eat.

But now I am reacting to the Pro-GMO 'movement' telling the rest of us what we ought to eat while refusing to tell us what they are selling.

If they just did their thing, without invading internet forums, I would not have said a word.

So no, you cannot force us to eat your genetically altered food or to NOT ask 'why don't you just label it'?


I know Monsanto doesn't think we have rights, to anything. But they are WRONG.

[GoneFishin]

58. What pathetic and vacuous comparison: "mark the religion of the grower"

[sabrina 1]

64. Lol, I noticed that. Decided it was too way out there to even try to understand.

[bvar22]

193. It sounds like you are saying American's have no right to know what is in our food.

Of course, that can't be right.

Where did I misunderstand you?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

258. You didn't just misunderstand me, you misunderstood genetic modification.

It's not a thing in food, it's a process.

As far as I can tell, a lot of the opposition to GM food comes from half-remembered facts about DDT - there seems to be a vague idea that genetic modification involves injecting dangerous stuff called jeeyems into food that can build up in the tissue of people who eat it, and may modify their genes as well.

I am saying that Americans have no right to demand that irrelevant but prejudicial information about how their food was made is marked on the packet - if sellers want to write "GM free" on their food as a selling point, that's exploiting the ignorance and fear of their consumers, but legitimate nonetheless. If they don't, however, that's their choice.

[Bradical79]

54. It seems like a mostly meaningless label

But if enough people make a big stink about it, I suppose they probably will label the food as gmo at some point. I honestly don't care either way from my consumer standpoint, I'm not going to make a big fuss either way.

I'm not clear on what is bad about GMO's in general or why they need labeling. There is nothing inherently bad about gene modification as far as I'm aware.

[sabrina 1]

60. Europeans label them. An overwhelming number of people in those countries demanded it.

We are grossly uninformed here about so many things. THEY have access to far more information which is probably why they succeeded in forcing the labeling of their food products.

Americans are treated like children by their government and by big Corporations.

I know that I don't want to feed my family 'fake' food, if I can feed them the real thing.

And when I see vegetables in the store, if they are not labeled, I won't buy them.

But recently on this forum, I have seen several 'Pro-GMO' posts. Why are they pushing this topic, trying to tell us we are wrong when we know we are not?

I don't tell them what to eat.

Now I'm telling them 'don't tell me what to eat', that's all.

[abelenkpe]

161. Europeans label them?

And manufacturers aren't driven out of business by costly labeling? The labels aren't overly confusing?

[customerserviceguy]

59. I'm in agreement with you

My prediction is that the price tag is the most important label for many people. Of course, that comment dates me, as we no longer use price stickers on foods in the stores, but you get my point.

I would not expect GMO 'warnings' to be any more effective at deterring purchase than the labels to that effect on the backs and sides of cigarette packages.

[sabrina 1]

63. True, regarding how much attention people pay to cigarette warnings. But food is a different thing.

Sometimes I see a vegetable in a store and it LOOKS great. But then I wonder 'is this a real vegetable or a genetically altered vegetable'.

Because for a long time, before we knew about GMOs I noticed that no matter how good they looked, some vegetables, like Corn and/or Tomatoes, just didn't taste like real corn or tomatoes.

I prefer natural foods that haven't been messed with, for one thing, they DO taste better.

And yes, I am sure it's all about money. They CLAIM their products are great yet don't want us to now which products are theirs. That raises suspicions. So I don't buy unlabled fruits or vegetables.

They are however, pushing these GMOs even on forums like this now.

So, the OP is simply my response to being pressured into accepting what I consider to be 'fake food'.

[customerserviceguy]

67. You're right about the better foods

That's why I try to spend at least a few dollars when I'm near a genuine "Farmers' Market" on my travels, but for the majority of the time, I'm stuck with supermarket food. I am fortunate to have a really good produce market nearby, that has all kinds of exotic products from around the world on the shelves, especially rarer ones from Middle Eastern countries, and I shop there.

However, a Fairway market (upscale, yuppie supermarket) just went in last year across the street from them, and now I rarely wait in lines to check out. I sure hope they make it, because my lady made the mistake of bringing home a "natural" pesticide-free pineapple from the Fairway not long after it opened, and it took me weeks of bombing to get rid of the fruit flies that traveled in with it. I ask her to leave the shopping, cooking, and dishes to me, I'm perfectly happy doing them and the laundry!

[GoneFishin]

66. "Stop asking what's in it. Just STFU and eat it!". An immoral and dishonest business

practice.

Coming from any entity which was not buoyed with billion$ in profits this would be condemned sharply.

[sabrina 1]

84. Exactly. Americans are treated like children by their own government, viewed as too 'stupid to know

what is good for them'. Europeans otoh, are still viewed with a lot more respect by their governments.

Corporations rule!

[whereisjustice]

71. Absolutely! eom

[Rex]

73. I've seen the excuse people won't buy anything with long scary looking words

in the label. Which is total crap imo. People will buy anything.

[roody]

80. Because the public is too stupid. Signed, Monsanto

[TheKentuckian]

149. When that is your argument you bet your ass you are dealing with crooks and villains

and if not it is still a smarmy asshole that needs to be out on their behind.

They lost me right there. Who thinks like that? Damn undemocratic with the little d.

[Dont call me Shirley]

81. I would rec this 60,000 if DU would allow me. Yes, if Gmos are so fabulous, label them!

[proverbialwisdom]

85. This 2012 PSA by Food and Water Watch remains as relevant and funny as ever, IMO.

Right to Know: Vote Yes on Prop 37

Food & Water Watch

Published October 8, 2012

"What makes you think you have the right to know?" asks Danny DeVito in a witty, ironic public service announcement by the political action committee sponsored by consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch in support of Proposition 37. California's ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods. A diverse, all-star cast joins DeVito in the "Right to Know" PSA, including Bill Maher, Dave Matthews, Jillian Michaels, Emily Deschanel, John Cho, Glenn Howerton, Kaitlin Olson, KaDee Strickland and Kristin Bauer van Straten.

http://act.foodandwaterwatch.org/site/PageNavigator/Food_GE_CA_Vote_Yes_on_37.html

MORE: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org

[Oilwellian]

98. Perfect n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. Brilliant! +1

[proverbialwisdom]

88. FYI, the public is "moving the market" even without labels. Vote with every dollar you spend.

http://www.confectionerynews.com/Ingredients/Hershey-in-non-GMO-and-no-high-fructose-corn-syrup-pledge

Hershey's Milk Chocolate and Kisses to go non-GM
By Oliver Nieburg+, 23-Feb-2015

Hershey intends to remove genetically-modified ingredients from Hershey’s Milk Chocolate and Kisses by the end of the year.
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED TEXT

via Robyn O'Brien @foodawakenings · Feb 23

[Cha]

286. Ah ha!

[uppityperson]

102. Welcome to DU. Yes, you can post. Now what? Tell us about yourself, please.

I wonder if I will get my question answered as to are there one or two people behind it all?

[GP6971]

111. Testing for what? Finals

SATs?.

[NYC Liberal]

103. Labeling is a scare tactic with no rational or scientific basis.

It would be akin to posting signs everywhere telling people what their chances are of being mugged, murdered, or assaulted in each location. The end result is ultimately just irrational fear.

[sabrina 1]

107. I don't agree. Labeling is more akin to 'Beware of Vicious Dog' so long as there is a vicious dog on

the property. It might look friendly, but if the sign says 'beware' then we know, 'just leave it alone'.

[closeupready]

124. What nonsense - do you really believe this, or are you being paid to post it here?

Labeling is labeling. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Major Nikon]

167. ...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

179. Shills do exist.

And people will be suspicious of them showing up in any online debate in which one side aligns with corporate interests as long as the participants are pseudonymous. Actually register and verify user identities and their affiliations, and you can eradicate the suspicion of 'shilling'. Keep allowing people to post under fake names, and of course people will suspect paid operatives in such arguments.

[Major Nikon]

183. So do 4 leaf clovers

The idea that large numbers of "shills" would appear on a relatively low traffic website is both sad and laughable. More often the "shill" allegation is nothing more than a bullshit allegation which is the product of paranoia, which the anti-GMO crowd also largely depends.

Just sayin'

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

185. I don't know about the traffic here.

We had a shill or two booted from Daily Kos over the years, and there it's generally considered a 'bannable' offense to 'out' someone, so you really had to take a risk yourself if you wanted to show that any given poster really was a shill.

[Major Nikon]

186. Here's what you have to ask yourself

Are there more "shills" or people making bullshit ad hominem shill gambit attacks?

The answer for me is pretty simple. YMMV.

[NYC Liberal]

180. Yes of course. Someone disagrees with you so they must be paid.

Just go with what.

[roody]

139. How come the fat and calories in a pint of Ben and Jerrys

has not scared me out of eating it?

[Chathamization]

143. Nutrition labels need to be removed; consumers can't be trusted to decide for themselves what they

eat.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

159. I will actually admit that seeing calorie counts on menus has scared me out of eating

certain items. When you're getting 3/4 to a full day's calories in a single dish, that's darned scary.

[Major Nikon]

187. That information is quite useful in making informed decisions

Which is why it's required in most instances.

[NYC Liberal]

181. Because fat and calories have not been turned into scare words

the way "GMO" has. And fat and calories are very specific terms, whereas GMO is a very nebulous one.

[Major Nikon]

169. Imagine if "big agra" financed an effort to label food that's been fertilized with cow shit

Because unlike GMOs, fertilizing food with cow shit actually does manage to kill and sicken people on a regular basis.

I suspect if such an effort were financed, "big organic" would complain that their products were being labeled in an effort to stoke irrational fear and drive people away from them for no good reason, and they would be right.

Labels should contain information helpful to consumers, not information designed to further someone's agenda and sell more shit while promoting irrational fear of the food supply.

[GreatGazoo]

267. The wonderful benefit of GMO corn is that it can be sprayed with extra glyphosate

I don't consider that a benefit. Yields are the same or lower and now Round Up is not working anymore.

The real fear is on the side of GMO sellers -- fear that, when given the choice, consumer pick non-GMO. And THAT is a rational fear:

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

Btw, you couldn't come up with an analogy that suited your point apparently -- fear of being mugged based on scientific statistics is not irrational (but neither is aversion to GMO foods).

[Logical]

112. Simple solution, don't buy un-labeled products. Like corn from the farmers market. Might be GMO. nt

[cascadiance]

152. I have a solution. Have some GMO company execs consume completely unlabeled food we prepare...

... for them to eat and do blind taste tests.

Would they trust us not putting in any kind of poison in this food if we weren't forced to label such poison in the food that we had them eat? Huh? I don't think they'd touch that food. And that should be a lesson to them, that we don't want to be forced to eat THEIR poison that they don't want to have to label content for us either! If they wouldn't trust us feeding them, why should we trust them either?!

[sabrina 1]

165. I don't, we grow our own! And we know the farmers we buy from.

[Agnosticsherbet]

120. I'm good with that. I would happily consume GMO foods, anway.

It is easy to recognize Non-GMO foods, at least according to GMO Awareness.

Buy Organic.

[cascadiance]

154. And you have to pay extra for "organic" labeling and validation processes too,

... which is something that we didn't have to pay for before GMOs were around, and shouldn't have to pay for now either!

Those that introduce this food content should have to label it. I'm glad at least some food labeling lets me find which food has high fructose corn syrup and which uses real sugar that is healthier for me.

[Major Nikon]

171. If you have irrational fear, the burden is on you

Countless research has proved GMO is as safe or safer than the alternative.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

"real sugar" is not healthier than HFCS regardless of what you think. Regardless of whether you consume "real sugar" or HFCS, the risks of overconsumption are the same.

[cascadiance]

174. YOU and the GMO people have to prove that our fears are "irrational"...

There are a lot of rationalizations that have been made that don't make us "irrational" when we distrust the sources and the money behind that propaganda designed to give them more profits at our expense.

As this topic notes, if GMO really are good for us, then these companies should be PROUD to label their products as such, and then use good salesmanship to put that in their ads to sell how good it is for us. They can't, and they know it!

Real sugar is digested in a way that tells me when I've had too much sugar. HFCS doesn't, which is why we continue to eat more, amongst other things, that leads more to obesity, than those who consume more glucose oriented sugars that help the body know when its had too many calories that HFCS doesn't. I've read articles noting that though diet drink sweeteners don't have as many calories themselves, they have the same problem, so that even if we're drinking diet drinks, we tend to eat more of other foods and aren't really controlling our overall caloric content then.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/01/01/how-corn-syrup-might-be-making-us-hungry-and-fat/

Also, incidence of type 2 diabetes started it's upward climb in the 1970's when industry switched from using natural sugar to HFCS. There have been scientific studies linking HFCS to type 2 diabetes. Thankfully, just because many of us are being called "irrational" by industry lobbyists, at least industry must label products containing HFCS so that we can avoid them when possible.

http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/Fructose/Fructose.html

[Major Nikon]

177. Already been done. That's why it's irrational

Real sugar is digested in a way that tells me when I've had too much sugar. HFCS doesn't, which is why we continue to eat more, amongst other things, that leads more to obesity, than those who consume more glucose oriented sugars that help the body know when its had too many calories that HFCS doesn't.

This nonsense goes a long way towards explaining irrational fear.

From your pseudo-scientific link:

Table sugar has both fructose and glucose, but high-fructose corn syrup, as the name suggests, contains a higher proportion of fructose.

HFCS used as a sucrose substitute has virtually the exact same ratio of fructose to glucose, which is what makes it a good sugar substitute. HFCS-55 (used in soft drinks) contains 55% fructose compared to about 50% for sucrose. HFCS-42 (used in processed foods) contains 42% fructose. The idea that it somehow magically causes you to eat more of it is just as much rubbish. Chemically there's almost no difference.

Also, incidence of type 2 diabetes started it's upward climb in the 1970's when industry switched from using natural sugar to HFCS. There have been scientific studies linking HFCS to type 2 diabetes. Thankfully, just because many of us are being called "irrational" by industry lobbyists, at least industry must label products containing HFCS so that we can avoid them when possible.

Higher sugar consumption is linked with higher type 2 diabetes? Who could have ever imagined that?

[cascadiance]

190. I think I'd trust "nonsense" that supports my argument published in Scientific American...

... over your nonsense.

I've posted articles here supporting my contentions. You have not. Monsanto and a lot of these companies seem to think that they can play God and know what's best for the human race and not be capable of human mistakes that humans should know about when they play around with plant and animal DNA that could mess up and looks to be showing signs of screwing up our environment and the healthy cycle of life. Seems like the way you contend with arguments you feel the same way without feeling the need to actually support your arguments before calling those that think otherwise having "irrational fear".

[Major Nikon]

198. "The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American."

If your idea of something that supports your argument is a non-peer reviewed opinion piece from someone who has zero expertise on the subject and is easily debunked (as I have shown), then that certainly explains a lot as does someone who describes transgenesis as playing with an imaginary friend.

[cascadiance]

200. But you are only quoting YOURSELF...

... and don't seem to be able to get published yourself by Scientific American, so why should we believe your crap here! Why don't you point to some published sources to prove anything other than what your "God-like" mind "knows" happens.

[sabrina 1]

293. Just so you know, as someone who has not yet delved as deeply into this

as other people have, yet, reading the responses of most of the ProGmo people, I see a lot of derisive, dismissive posts while those who are asking for labeling at least, are far more persuasive, backing up their claims with credible links.

This thread has given me a lot of information I did not have regarding products I did not know contained GMOs which I will not no longer buy.

If you refrained from the snide comments, it might be possible to sort out whatever substance might be in your comments. But as soon as people see these kinds of comments, they dismiss everything the person has to say because it makes you look very defensive, desperate and angry that anyone dares to demand to know what is in the food they are eating. And THAT is irrational.

[eridani]

238. there is no GMO research not vetted for publication by Monsanto et al n/t

[Major Nikon]

278. I just don't see how promoting nonsense helps the anti-GMO case

YMMV.

[eridani]

318. There is no research on GMOs that is not controlled by Monsanto, et al

This doesn't settle the safety issue, of course.

[Major Nikon]

323. Perhaps not

But it goes a long way towards explaining the paranoia issue.

[HuckleB]

324. Say what?

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

[eridani]

337. They have to get the seeds from Monsanto. Monsanto has final say over publication n/t

[HuckleB]

338. Who else would give them the seeds? And wrong. Very wrong.

Do you have an honest bone in your body?

It's time to stop pushing anti-GMO BS.

[eridani]

344. "only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward technology.”

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy.”

[NuclearDem]

347. Seralini.

[Agnosticsherbet]

189. They are available.

[cascadiance]

192. What is available? GMO or "organic" labeling?

Yes, we have the latter, done by both food producers and paid for by consumers who care about their health. But WHY should they have to pay for something that no one used to have to pay for before GMO pollution of our food products have been introduced to our food supply without letting us know how they are changing it. And we've had food labeling requirements for just the components of food in our products for a long time now to serve us consumers.

WHY can't we have GMO labeling, and WHY can't those that are putting that in to the marketplace, and complaining that their food prices will be higher pay for this labeling when crap they've put in food causes others to have to label that their products don't have this crap in it.

THE WRONG PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO PAY FOR PRODUCT LABELING TODAY!

And they rationalize that them having to label their food will raise food prices. Well, that should be the cost of their doing business and THEIR putting this crap in to our food. If they introduce changes in to the marketplace, THEY should have to pay for the costs of this. Not the rest of the marketplace!

[Agnosticsherbet]

195. Organic labelilng is the current state of GMO free.

So GMO free food is available.

[cascadiance]

197. But Organic food producers should be sending GMO food producers the bill!

Don't you think? Why should people that produce and consume have to pay more for the same food they had before GMO food was produced just because GMO food producers want to charge less and get more of the market with what THEY have put in to foods being what consumers want to know about?

It's not whether it's available that I'm questioning, but why should organic food producers and consumers be forced to pay more of this price and artificially give GMO products more demand than they should? If it's not such a big deal about the added costs for labeling that GMO food producers feel that it's not unfair for organic producers to have to bear this cost and that organic food will always be available for them who want it, even if it's more expensive, then why should they make that a big part of their ad campaign against food labeling laws that the big problem is higher food costs because of the added costs of labeling?

If GMO foods truly cut costs of food production and allow for more of it, then they shouldn't be that concerned about labeling costs, as they should still be able to offer more food at lower costs if this is true. If it isn't, then the question is WHY, besides owning seed patents to inhibit farmers from having control over their crops (that triggers Indian farmer suicides), do they produce GMO food?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

160. I'm noticed that while those GMO free labels are popping up in a variety of places around the store

none have popped up on any of the dehydrated potato products. Not that I don't prefer to simply grow my own, but I've got a friend I send care packs to every so often, and I'd like to be able to send her something potatoish to use around Thanksgiving.

[Agnosticsherbet]

191. There is no uniform law except with organic.

[proverbialwisdom]

224. Just saw this, FYI.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2015-articles/15988-the-superfluous-gmo-potato

[djean111]

253. How interesting!

The obvious question to the GMO potato fans is: Rather than genetically engineering a naturally high-asparagine potato to make it low-asparagine, what’s wrong with existing non-GMO low-asparagine potatoes?

As for bruise-resistance, another trait claimed for the Innate potato, there are plenty of non-GM varieties in the European potato database and the UK Potato Council database. A bruise-resistant potato with moderate resistance to late blight is also available in the Kifli potato from the Sarpo blight-resistant family.

Finally, no animal feeding trials have been conducted on the Simplot GM potato to check for toxicity. There is a transgene (GM gene) in these potatoes. The fact that the gene produces a gene regulatory RNA molecule rather than a protein is irrelevant. It's still a transgenic GMO and thus involves all the unpredictability of the technology. The RNAi (RNA interference or gene-silencing) technology used to develop this GM potato will have additional off-target gene-disturbing effects. It seems these have not been looked into.

So what’s the big deal about Simplot’s Innate potato? Apparently the only unique selling point is that it’s GM and therefore more easily patented in more countries than the non-GM versions.

No one wants to buy this potato, there is no need for this GMO potato.

Heh....

Acrylamide is formed from an amino acid, asparagine, which occurs in potatoes at varying levels. The Simplot potato is intended to produce less asparagine, so that less acrylamide will be formed on cooking.

However, this GM potato appears to be yet another GMO white elephant. Not only does nobody want to buy it (e.g. McDonald’s and Frito-Lay), but nobody needs it either.

That’s partly because the acrylamide problem may result from bad practices in chemical agriculture – in which case it could be solved by cleaning up those practices. Acrylamide is a building block for the polymer polyacrylamide, which is used in irrigation to stick degraded soil together so it won't blow away. Not only is this practice banned in organic agriculture, it isn’t needed because soil with high levels of organic matter isn’t so prone to blow away. Acrylamide is also an ingredient in herbicides, added to reduce spray drift and improve plant absorption.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

262. Thanks, I got several useful links off that article.

And am trying to decide if I need to buy one of the articles linked or if I can find the data elsewhere on fructose content in potato varieties. One of the triggers for gout is fructose, along with purines, and if fructose content varies by 49 times from one type of potato to another, there are obviously potatoes it would be better for me to use and those better to avoid.

[Chathamization]

271. The products you're seeing with GMO free labels must be 10 times as expensive, since I've been told

that labeling is terribly expensive and will make food prices rise sharply.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

280. So far, most of them seem to be maybe

10-15% more expensive than similar products nearby.

[mother earth]

156. I agree, it would be a "selling" point, greatly sought after, perfectly fine & dandy.

K & R

[DeSwiss]

173. Labeling GMOs would mean we're a government ''of the people.''

- And we haven't been that in a long, long time. If ever.

K&R!

[center]


















[/center]

[cascadiance]

194. Pretty soon Monsanto will be bragging about helping with population control in India!

[DeSwiss]

205. It's just a blip on Monsatan's radar.

- They've killed millions already. Some are even still walking around, and they don't know they're dead yet.....

[NuclearDem]

215. Oh, Vandana Shiva.

What doctorate degree is she claiming she has today?

[C Moon]

178. Brilliant!

[blm]

184. Simple enough

Who can argue with that?

[midnight]

202. kick.

[cstanleytech]

207. I suspect that we wont see a labeling law passed until something

happens to show that a GMO product can potentially cause actual harm like how it was for tobacco.

[cascadiance]

209. And if it passes, it would get overturned by TPP corporate courts if that passes!

Definitely have to shut down that bill from passing. Would be interesting to find out how much money Monsanto is putting in to lobbying for that getting passed!

[cstanleytech]

211. Probably more than I will ever see in a lifetime even if I was lucky

and managed to win a 600 million jackpot.

[cpwm17]

212. Almost everything we eat has been genetically modified by man, through selective breeding.

Nature is constantly modifying the genetic makeup of organism through evolution. There is no magical sky being that looks after nature, such that, organisms that have been modified by nature are any safer than what has been modified by man.

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

Genetic modification involves the mutation, insertion, or deletion of genes. Inserted genes usually come from a different species in a form of horizontal gene-transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for any reason. To do this artificially may require:

-attaching the genes to a virus

-physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host with a very small syringe

-with the use of electroporation (that is, introducing DNA from one organism into the cell of another by use of an electric pulse)

-with very small particles fired from a gene gun.

Other methods exploit natural forms of gene transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, or the ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.

With proper food safety regulations, GM foods can be at least safe and more beneficial than foods modified by nature or selective breeding.

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food. Although labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA. In a May 2014 article in The Economist it was argued that, while GM foods could potentially help feed 842 million malnourished people globally, laws such as those being considered by Vermont's governor, Peter Shumlin, to require labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients, could have the unintended consequence of interrupting the benign process of spreading GM technologies to impoverished countries that suffer with food security problems.

And what would be labeled as a GMO? Sugar from GMO's is no different than any other sugar.

Mandatory GMO food labeling is an attempt to mislead and scare people. Such a label would be just as useful as a label that says the genetic makeup of this food has been modified millions of times since the first life form appeared on this planet four billion years ago.

With a growing population GMO's can go a long way towards feeding the world.

[DeSwiss]

245. Ah.... BULLSHIT.

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE ME EAT SHIT THEY MADE UP IN A LABORATORY!

More to the point, Nature is allowed to splice and dice and otherwise rearrange ''her genes'' anyway she sees fit since she was the one who made them. Not the plastic laboratory-numbskulls you're thinking of who think they know it all and don't know squat. Look around at this world you're so proud of saying the scientists have created for us. Did it ever occur to you that the reason there's so much illness, so much pollution, so many new and strange diseases is maybe because of this so-called scientific progress? No, I'm sure it hasn't. No one wants to know the answer because lifestyles will change and bank accounts will melt to nothing. No one ever does, until it's already too late:

[center]http://vimeo.com/34176018[/center]

It is DELUDED thinking to think they know what the hell they're doing. They don't. All these stupid clowns know how to do from the evidence provided thusfar, is to continue to poison and pollute the fucking world beyond use. All the while forcing us to become unwilling and unwitting guinea pigs in their evil experiments.

To make the specious claim that man has always ''modified'' genes by comparing plant hybridization and other forms of plant-species cross-pollination and specialization (while still using all Mothers Nature's genes I might add) and then to try and compare that to the use of recombinant DNA gene-splicing of totally foreign DNA from outside of the nature of a given plant -- even outside the species of any plant -- or any type species for that matter, and a type of gene recombination that would never happen otherwise, is the most laughable and totally bullshit and dangerous argument that has ever been made on this subject. You are not the first.

When that Frankenpollen they've made enters the wild we have no idea what shit will be cooked up!

[center]

[/center]

- Fcuk Monsanto and all who ride abroad her ship!

[font size=3]Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA[/font]

Abstract

Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication. Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals.

CELL RESEARCH: Full Study

And then there's always Seralinni's rats:

MONSANTO GMO's NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOL STANDARDS

"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

The Science DELUSION......

[NuclearDem]

247. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is called the appeal to nature fallacy.

Just a giant of it.

[sabrina 1]

255. It makes so much sense. What problem do you have with it?

Again, if you are so confident in GMOs, why are you SO resistant to labeling them? What are you trying to keep the people from knowing? You are working so hard to PREVENT people from knowing what they are eating.

Anything I have confidence in, I WANT people to know about.

[NuclearDem]

268. Still waiting on that citation.

And once again, your post is heavy on slogan, not so much on science.

[cpwm17]

298. Clearly you're not a fan of science and the scientific method.

Your last link is somewhat entertaining.

In it, Rupert Sheldrake attacks his version of the foundations of science, such as:

"Matter is unconscious. The whole universe is made up of unconscious matter. There's no consciousness in stars, in galaxies, in planets, in animals, in plants, and there ought not to be any in us either, if this theory is true."

"The laws of nature are fixed. The laws of nature are the same now as they were at the time of the big bang and they'll be the same forever. Not just the laws; but the constants of nature are fixed, which is why they are called constants."

"Memories are stored inside your brain as material traces. Somehow everything you remember is in your brain in modified nerve endings, phosphorylated proteins, no-one knows how it works. But nevertheless almost everyone in the scientific world believes it must be in the brain."

"Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain, nothing more."

"Psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible. Your thoughts and intentions cannot have any effect at a distance because your mind's inside your head. Therefore all the apparent evidence for telepathy and other psychic phenomena is illusory. People believe these things happen, but it's just because they don't know enough about statistics, or they're deceived by coincidences, or it's wishful thinking."

"Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. That's why governments only fund research into mechanistic medicine and ignore complementary and alternative therapies. Those can't possibly really work because they're not mechanistic. They may appear to work because people would have got better anyway, or because of the placebo effect. But the only kind that really works is mechanistic medicine."

He's a heavy promoter of anti-science woo.

[DeSwiss]

357. What I find ironic is your choice of avatar.

It'll probably be the only example of butterflies that'll be left thanks to your GMOs.

- Buh-bye.....

[Zorra]

244. Every single argument on this thread that is against labeling GMO's

is like the nonsensical dialogue of corporation produced consumerbot idiots from a scene in the film "Idiocracy".



Un-fucking-believable.

[DeSwiss]

249. It's in the water.....

[Cha]

254. I don't care what anyone else eats at all but I've been caring what I eat for a long time now

and it sure as hell ain't GMO infested with Roundup with its assorted chemicals(Science!/Agent Orange!)..



Amazing that there are those around here who push the big Ag Corp on other Dems.. and I do mean "pushy".

mahalo sabrina

[sabrina 1]

256. I completely agree with you, Cha. I don't get it. Why the desperate resistance to simply

letting people know what they are eating? To me, if I knew nothing else about GMOs and Insecticides, that means they are hiding something. The effort that goes into to all the excuses is simply amazing.

Monsanto's poisonous products are a threat to our environment, I only hope it isn't too late, even if they are stopped, for the planet to recover from the decades of abuse from these products.

[Cha]

257. Yes, a very serious threat to our environment.. like the Bees..

Get Monsanto Out of your Kitchen..

If you have never heard the name Monsanto before, you are likely thinking that Monsanto isn’t in your kitchen as it isn’t really branded on any packaging. Monsanto products probably make up 25% of your grocery store’s inventory, but you don’t know this because Monsanto supplies the companies that make the food products you buy. Here’s a list of just some companies that make use of products developed by Monsanto:

Betting this list is not up to date..


Might know Tombstone Pizza is supplied from Monsanto..

http://www.filteredmind.com/get-monsanto-out-of-your-kitchen

I have no problem keeping it out of my kitchen.. I've been eating the "dreaded" Organic Products for decades.. the kind with the slash through GMO

HOpe it's Not too late

[Scuba]

260. K&R

[KansDem]

264. Agreed

If you're putting salamander DNA in my tomatoes, I want to know about it...

[randome]

269. The irony is that people put incredible amounts of crap and 'non-food' in their bodies every day.

If you want to eat healthy, it's fairly simple and has been known for a long time: eat vegetables and fruits and breads and skip the desserts, the chips and cooked meats.

Otherwise, you really don't care about eating healthy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[greymattermom]

273. just label the products that don't have them

Easy, legal, and would help sales, right?

[sabrina 1]

285. That's an excellent idea. I wonder why it hasn't been done? I just read that Hershey is

going to remove GMOs from their milk chocolate. I didn't know they were using them. Wonder
will they use it in their advertising, or woud Monsanto try to stop them?

I ike that idea.

[NCTraveler]

290. According to a post upthread.

Monsanto owns Hershey.

[sabrina 1]

304. I didn't know that. Now I do so will add it to the ever growing list of products/food

to try to avoid. It seems everything is owned and controlled by just a few corporations and it's getting more and more difficult to avoid subsidizing them by buying their products.

[NuclearDem]

288. That label already exists.

You see that or labels like that everywhere.

[blackspade]

282. Exactly right.

I get so pissed that Pro-GMO people want to act like people who want a choice about what we eat are somehow akin to anti-vaccers or some shit.

[mmonk]

283. Bingo. You ask the right question.

[Petrushka]

284. K & R

[lofty1]

289. Presidents eat organic privately but kowtow to agribusiness publicly

Presidents prefer organic and Romney too.

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/10/do-presidents-eat-organic-food-what-about-romney-richard-kujawski/

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/report-monsanto-man-mitt-romney-eats-organic

You peasants can eat the crap.

[laundry_queen]

349. My thoughts exactly

every time someone over the years has posted a menu for some political function for the .01%ers and political leaders, it's always 100% organic everything. They probably know something we don't.

[HoosierCowboy]

292. The Organic People go out of their way

to fill out all the paperwork and engage in the practices that enables them legally to label their stuff "Organic", and it commands a higher price on the store shelves.

So the GMO people know that a GMO label won't add to the demand for their product. Because a "No GMOs" label seems to be doing the same as an organic label.

[whatchamacallit]

297. Sorry if they've been asked and answered up-thread, but my questions are

Seriously, how much could it cost to add 'Made with Genetically Modified Ingredients', or if you're really penny pinching, 'Contains GMOs', to the label?

If it's not really that costly, and it's truly safe, why fight it?

[katsy]

328. I was an art director

It costs next to nothing to slap a bullet on existing labels. Arguing cost of a design change is ignorance of the design process. Existing text/art on a label is resized or moved around. Slap the contains gmos bullet on and that's it. It does not affect the cost of printing the labels. ZERO NADA cost on print runs. And design groups of the caliber to work for fortune 100 companies wouldn't even think of billing a client for an insignificant design change like this.

Cost my ass. 😜

[G_j]

301. this should be a no brainer

everything you say makes complete sense!

[Vinca]

319. Exactly. Anyone producing food with GMOs ought be be proud to label them.

Otherwise, don't produce them.

[HuckleB]

321. A PRINCIPLED CASE AGAINST MANDATORY GMO LABELS

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE MANDATORY GMO LABELING
http://www.itsmomsense.com/oppose-mandatory-gmo-labeling/

Why labeling of GMOs is actually bad for people and the environment
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/

Why GMO Food Labels Are a Bad Idea
http://www.realclearscience.com/2012/10/09/why_gmo_food_labels_are_a_bad_idea_249411.html

And the Mercury Decides: Say No to GMO Labeling, Even If It Feels Terrible
http://www.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2014/10/20/and-the-mercury-decides-say-no-to-gmo-labeling-even-if-it-feels-terrible

Why Mandatory Labeling for GMOs is a Very Bad Idea
http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/why-mandatory-labeling-for-gmos-is-a-very-bad-idea/

Whole Foods' Anti-GMO Swindle
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/whole-foods-anti-gmo-swindle.html

The Costs of GMO Labeling
http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-costs-of-gmo-labeling.html

BAD IDEAS: GMO LABELS
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/09/bad-ideas-gmo-labels.html

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html?_r=0

GMO Foods: Why We Shouldn't Label (Or Worry About) Genetically Modified Products
http://mic.com/articles/5226/gmo-foods-why-we-shouldn-t-label-or-worry-about-genetically-modified-products

GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/

Antivaccine versus anti-GMO: Different goals, same methods
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

[sabrina 1]

325. I cannot think of a single 'principled' reason for denying the public the right to know what is in

the food they are eating.

IF these Corporations ARE principled, then they have no reason NOT to label the food they want us to buy.

I have read the excuses and that is what they are.

Dan Quayle was the tool who first, to my knowledge, did the work of denying the public the right to know what was in their food.

What I don't understand is 'when did the Left jump on Dan Quayle's bandwagon'?

It's simply, either label the food, or better yet, as someone above suggested, food producers who do NOT use GMOs should label their products 'No GMOs in this product'.

It is a simple request from the public, just tell us what we are eating.

[HuckleB]

329. There is no justification for labeling one seed development technology, but not all of them.

There is no justification for labeling any seed development technology, as it gives the consumer no actual information about the product.

There is no justification for the organic and "non-GMO" industry vilification of GMOs. It is an ugly marketing tactic that has sucked people in because fear mongering works.

Read the pieces I offered. Your response makes it clear that you have not bothered to explore the topic outside of parroted anti-GMO propaganda. That's not a good way to explore the world.

[sabrina 1]

336. Let me ask you something There appears to be little doubt anymore that the disappearance of honey

bees is related to insecticides Since honey bees are such an important part of the eco system this is a serious matter.

So let's say that producers of these insecticides did not have bad intentions, but are now aware of this development, knowing the importance of the issue.

What would an ethical Corporation do once told that at least one cause of this potentially disasterous result of the use of THEIR product?

As for reading your links, I have followed this issue for more than a decade. I'm for erring on the side of caution. There is enough material out there to demonstrate that GMOs, even if we don't agree with some of the hysteria about them, are questionable enough that millions of people all over the world, including now, EVEN CHINA, should be restricted until the concerns of many scientists and environmentalists and all the millions of people, farmers across the globe, can be satisfied that their fears can be set aside.

At the very least, do what most developed countries are doing, let the people know when they are buying food products that contain GMOs.

Meantime continue the research, we are after all, talking about human lives and the environment and let the people decide if they are willing to risk ingesting food products about which there is still so much controversy.

Afaik, Monsanto has not addressed the problem of the disappearing honey bees. Maybe they have, maybe they are withdrawing any of their products that have named as probable causes IF they do that, I would revise my opinion of them, because that would be the responsible thing to do.

I do not completely oppose GMOs, I am sure some good has come and could come from them. But we are entitled to information that affects the health and wellbeing of the population, and Corporations have shown how far they will go to control governments, previously in the Third World, where they brutalized populations for daring to do what we are now finding it necessary to do, demand the simple right to know what is in our food

[HuckleB]

339. You're going on and on about things that you can't support with a consensus of science.

Do you remember when I asked you to stop parroting bad anti-GMO propaganda?

Why would you simply regurgitate more of it?

The ONLY FACTOR that has been clearly shown to affect bees around the world is varroa mites. Thus, it's time for you to stop pushing nonsense and address things with honesty.

Can you?

[sabrina 1]

341. Well, I gave you a chance and you blew it. I take Monsanto is ignoring the threat to our

environment their products are and have refused to do the responsible thing and offer to cooperate to end that threat

Thanks for the response, I was hoping you could focus on the issue, but instead you resorted to same old 'you this' and 'you that' nonsense and simply refused to engage in an actual discussion.

And then you wonder who so many people believe that all this is nothing more than an effort to cover up and hide what they are actually trying to force on the public.

Blame yourselves, attacking people has never been a good, winning tactic. By now one would have thought that lesson would have been learned..

Same thing ten years ago. I could write the Progmos comments in advance.

[HuckleB]

361. You are spreading baseless fear mongering.

Last edited Tue Mar 17, 2015, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact that you are ok with that, and that you choose to ignore the science of matter is the problem. You have failed to give science its chance, and have chosen to go with fictions. The earth will not be better because of that.

[NuclearDem]

348. The labeling isn't about informing people.

It's about getting a highly-charged term slapped on foods, driving business towards organic foods, and subsequently driving up the cost of the average person's groceries.

The labels are pointless, because they'd either have to be so vague as to be meaningless or delve so far into jargon the average person would have no idea what the label means.

There is no significant difference between GM foods and conventional crops. That has been demonstrated over and over again, but the organic industry has pushed so damn hard for something that clearly benefits them this myth won't die.

There are labels everywhere for GMO free. Buy those foods if you're so irrationally terrified of scientific progress, and stop trying to force the organic industry's nonsense on the rest of us.

[sabrina 1]

351. Yes, it is! And the people have a right to have that label, as Europeans do.

We'll figure out what it means We don't you to figure it for us, or Monsanto.

The very idea that you think YOU are smarter than millions of people and have the gall to think YOU have the right to determine that millions of people, actually it's now in the billions, are too stupid to make their own determinations about something that is of the utmost importance to them, is one of the main reasons why nothing the Progmos have to say has a shred of credibility.

What your 'opinion' means is that there is a whole lot of effort going into to trying to hide something.

Here's some advice, clearly Progmos are on the defensive. The reaction of people on the defensive is to lash out. To call names, to insult those who are making a reasonable request..

That is a very bad strategy which should be obvious by now..

People with nothing to hide, generally have better social skills, they are not on the defensive, they are generally understanding of reasonable requests and they do not generate the distrust these tactics have only intensified over the years.

The irrational anger I have encountered from Progmos over the years has only convinced me more, that we need more than just labeling.

There's an old saying which Progmos ought to think about: 'You catch more flies with honey'

[NuclearDem]

352. Ah, I see what's going on here now.

[sabrina 1]

356. Tactic # 22. When all attempts to defend the indefensible fail, post moronic animated emoticon.

And once again, the people have a right to know what is in their food.

The refusal to provide them with that information, confirms their suspicions.

Thanks for keeping this thread kicked.

I understand how frustrating it must be to TRY to defend something that there is no defense for.

But seriously, we've seen all this before. Could you try to find some new material, all this old stuff was boring years ago.

*yawn*

[NuclearDem]

358. That's awfully specific to be as far high on the list as 22.

[petronius]

354. Interesting collection, thanks for posting! (nt)

[zappaman]

355. Thanks for posting these!

Interesting links!

[Cleita]

327. K&R

[HuckleB]

366. Don't fear science behind either vaccines or GMOs

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2015/03/23/fear-science-behind-either-vaccines-gmos/25204835/