"If GM foods are safe, as the industry claims, then why the stubborn opposition to labeling?"

[marmar]

from the Progressive:


Like Knowing What You’re Eating? Get Ready for Lawsuits.


Posted: February 26, 2016
Carmelo Ruiz


The states of Vermont and California have made major strides in defending consumers’ right to know about the presence of genetically modified (GM) content in their food and the toxicity of agrochemicals. But industry wants to punish them for it.

Vermont’s state legislature passed a bill that would require GM foods sold in the state to be labeled as such. The bill, known as Act 120, signed by governor Peter Shumlin in 2014, will go into effect on July 1. And in California, the state government intends to identify Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide as a carcinogen, after concerns about the glyphosate-based agrochemical were raised by the World Health Organization.

Industry reaction to these state-level initiatives has been harsh and vindictive. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, one of the nation’s largest trade lobbies, filed suit against the state of Vermont, alleging that Act 120 is costly, misguided, unenforceable, lacks basis in health, safety and science, and runs afoul of the First Amendment and interstate commerce protections.

And California is being sued by Monsanto, which alleges that its Roundup is not a cancer risk to humans and that the WHO assessment is “inconsistent with the findings of regulatory bodies in the United States and around the world.” ............(more)

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/02/188581/knowing-what-you%E2%80%99re-eating-get-ready-lawsuits#sthash.ZPTi2g5U.dpuf

[tk2kewl]

1. It's like those transcripts. Proles need not know.

[valerief]

3. The Hillary Goldman transcripts were the first things to come to my mind, too!

Just another middle finger to us.

[Baobab]

20. Attack on labeling is part of a global attack on local sourcing and labeling in trade 'agreements'

My first batch of links is in my post a bit ago but here are some more I just found on the GMO labeling issue- This is potentially a much bigger issue than just GMOs or even just food..

How TTIP Will Limit US States’ Public Health and Environmental Protections- Pre-empting the Public Interest

IATP's main GMO index

From GMO to SMO: how synthetic biology evades regulation

[AxionExcel]

35. Excellent point

The corporate-republican pattern around debasing food and then keeping the ugly truth SECRET AND HIDDEN from the public is wretchedness in the extreme.

[Baobab]

37. They are doing it with people too

Trying to 'deskill' jobs into standardized replaceable parts and eliminate the ability to hire people from any one country preferentially in more and more jobs. (ones that get government money)

[Recursion]

2. Because consumers are stupid

Roughly, that's it in a sentence. Americans when polled support mandatory labelling of food "containing DNA".

[marmar]

4. Wow. How tremendously arrogant.

[Recursion]

5. That is arrogant of stupid consumers, I agree

Do you support mandatory labelling of food containing DNA?

[marmar]

6. I support the public's right to know.

Even those stupid consumers that you have such disdain for.

[Recursion]

10. Fair enough. I have nothing against mandating labelling of GMOs

I don't think it conveys any useful information, but I do like seeing food production companies brought to heel from time to time, so go for it.

[Igel]

13. Look at other issues.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful.

But if we want merchandise to be labeled "Made by devout Muslims" that would ding sales. It would be Islamophobic. It would be biased. And it would play into irrational, stupid fears.

But wouldn't the public have a right to know? Even if their actions would be based on ignorance? We already see calls for closer monitoring, vetting, etc., etc., of Muslim groups and immigrants and many DUers have no problem calling a large chunk of our population ignorant, racist, stupid, "low information" for this. Our disdain for them is unbounded.

But when the populace agrees with us, they're paragons of virtue and wisdom, and how dare such an educated and enlightened population be contemned.

The only difference in many such cases is whether they agree with us or disagree with us. Nonetheless, they make their decisions in the context of biased, partial, distorted information. It's pretty much the same population.

You see it play out with anti-vaxxers and their opponents as well. If you're anti-vax, then those who disagree with you are mostly educated, middle class, enlightened. If you're anti-anti-vax, then those who disagree with you are mostly dullard mouth-breathers with smeg for brains. It plays out with home schooling. It plays out on all kinds of issues. It's to fight this kind of confirmation bias and what-you-see-is-all-their-is blinders that we try to teach critical thinking. For most people, CT is a weapon to be used against opponents for victory, not to get to the truth. Hell, we already know the truth and we know that we know it.

[MH1]

82. There already is such a label (albeit voluntary, as far as I know)

It's called Halal. Similar to Kosher. Seeing a Halal label doesn't deter me one bit, and I'm no fan of Islam.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Does the public have the right to know which foods were produced through radiation and chemical...

mutation? Hybridization? Cloning? Etc.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Food Babe says we shouldn't eat things with chemicals.

Which is why I live off pure sunlight.

[petronius]

38. Sunlight? Sunlight is radiation! You definitely don't want to

be consuming things with radiation -- have you forgotten about Chernobyl?

[womanofthehills]

60. Food Babe sure looks healthy too

Have you checked out how good the people who shop in the organic food stores look.

[Humanist_Activist]

70. That's not an argument, most organic food shoppers are upper class by default because the foods...

are grotesquely overpriced. These are also people who are more likely to afford gym memberships, exercise, etc.

In addition, looking good isn't really relevent when you are completely wrong about pretty much everything you have ever posted.

[AxionExcel]

34. So, it's OK to parrot Trump-Republican talking points on DU?

Maybe it's OK to do that, but calling 96% of Americans stupid must seem pretty stupid to 96% of Americans who would like to know WTF the corporations are inserting into the food they feed their families.

[Turbineguy]

7. On the face of it labeling makes sense.

But in modern day America you cannot do that which makes sense. You have to do what you can make people believe. We'll be back to burning witches before long.

By the way, I don't eat Roundup.

[tk2kewl]

8. Are you really sure you don't eat round up?

If you don't grow all of your own food I would be so sure

[AxionExcel]

9. Secrecy is a hallmark of the GMO-Chem Industry, of Republicans, and of evil

[Liberal Veteran]

11. And if they had labels: "If GM foods are safe, why are they required to be labeled?"

And what on earth does glyphosate have to do with it?

Just because a crop is resistant to glyphosates doesn't mean you HAVE to spray it with glyphosates.

This seems to be a conflation of two separate and distinct issues.

[AxionExcel]

14. As it stands today, most GMO crops have only one advantage: glyphosate resistant

So the corporate industrial borg sprays the shit all over the place.

That's why folks automatically associate GMO crap with glyphosate crud.

[Liberal Veteran]

17. It is still bad logic.

If the intent is avoiding glyphosate herbicide, then wouldn't that be more important to place on the label than a meaningless GMO label?

What I am getting at is that I could easily plant a crop of "Roundup Ready" corn and not use a drop of Roundup on it. Or that GMO potato I am eating may be engineered to resist potato blight and have no connection whatsoever to Roundup and the public is thinking "Thank god this label is protecting me from eating this Roundup infused tuber."

On the flip-side, Cibus is producing a non-GMO Flax that is glyphosate tolerant. So your flax seed/oil could be drowning in Roundup and have no GMO label.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. To be honest I'd rather eat Roundup than pig shit, which I've heard organic farms use...

even worse, they try to heat it up to kill all the bacteria in it, that's not always successful. I'd rather try to avoid e coli in my lettuce, thanks.

[AxionExcel]

26. Well, i've heard stuff, too. Want me to share my rumors?

Actually, I'm not inclined to share the rumors I've heard.
Most of them turn out to be pig shit, in a manner of speaking.
To be honest. As always.

[Major Nikon]

47. So you think people who have died from shit fertilized produce are untrue rumors?

If so that's a pretty extreme position that would probably fit best in the creative speculation group.

[womanofthehills]

55. Having been poisoned by pesticides

give me pig shit any day.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Really, which pesticides? Its not like organic farming is pesticide free...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

[womanofthehills]

61. Here is a fact check of your link above

Scientific American fact-checkers on holiday by Pan - the Pesticide Action Network

It’s the only explanation. Historically, Scientific American has been unafraid to confront right-wing attacks on science of the climate change denier and creationist sort. So when a blog appears under the SciAm masthead claiming to “bust" various myths of organics, citing industry-funded studies and commentary from fringe right-wingers like Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute, one wonders what happened.

Christie Wilcox’s “Myth-busting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture,” published last week, has already elicited rebuttals from food and ag writers at Mother Jones, Grist and more. As Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott notes, the piece is so predictable in its rehearsal of industry talking points as to warrant a big yawn. But it’s in SciAm and will no doubt serve as link bait in the ongoing debate over the future of global food and agriculture; so we find that a few basic corrections are in order.

First, the “myths” Wilcox claims to bust: 1) Organics don’t use pesticides; 2) Organic foods are healthier; 3) Organic farming is better for the environment; and 4) It’s all or nothing. Let's take each in turn.

http://www.panna.org/blog/scientific-american-fact-checkers-holiday

[Humanist_Activist]

66. Interesting, in the first claim, he gets a fact wrong...

for example, calling Glyphosate an endocrine disruptor, when it isn't:

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/glyphosate-417300_2015-06-29_txr0057175.pdf

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]E. Conclusions
The conclusion of the WoE evaluation is that glyphosate demonstrates no convincing evidence
of potential interaction with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways in mammals or wildlife.

Also, isn't anyone alarmed that for some reason Organic fertilizer use data isn't collected at all? I mean, the SciAm article mentioned this as a problem and so did the article you noted as well.

As far as trying to refute the effectiveness or lack thereof of the organic pesticides, the website you link to attacks the funding for the study without attacking the conclusions or data of said study.

Actually, that's a problem with this article, it makes grandiose claims without references, such as this:

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]Perhaps the next time a consumer is contacted by a pollster on this topic, they/we should more properly say, “I buy organics because they don’t use the kinds of pesticides that create public and environmental health hazards, harm pollinators and other indicator species, make farmers and farmworkers sick, and/or persist for years in the environment accumulating up the food chain.”

Where is the evidence, cites and references about the various claims here that organic pesticides are less toxic to humans, the environment, and other species?

So Correction #1 is a bust.

Correction #2 is quite literally not a correction, but a rewording, there's no evidence that organically grown produce is healthier, both sides concede that.

Correction #3 has nothing to do with the claim the SciAm author made, instead either self-referencing their own criticisms of GM produce and pesticide use or attacking industrial farming methods in general, failing to note that many of those methods are used by certified organic farms as well. Also, they fail, yet again, to cite any references supporting their claims that organic pesticides and herbicides are less toxic that synthetic ones.

Correction #4 includes more self-referenced and unproven assertions.

[Major Nikon]

44. Not true, there are a number of advantages

Not to mention Bt varietals are at least as popular as herbicide resistance, if not more so, not that the later is anything worth worrying about.

If you are eating organic, chances are you're eating cow shit, which unlike roundup actually does manage to make people sick and die, not that it's anything to worry about either.

[nationalize the fed]

15. Obama supported labeling before he didn't

It's clear that he gets off on promising one thing and doing the opposite. No one really holds him accountable so why not.

[closeupready]

16. Why industry opposition? The prospect of falling market share.

The food industry is incredibly competitive. Labeling your food product as containing GMO would lead to a sharp decline in market share, as the public's demand for 'healthy' foods is ascendant.

[Archae]

18. Key words here:

"Propaganda"

"Marketing"

The organic industry is major league putting out propaganda, like this:



It's absolute horseshit, and the organic producers know it.
But by putting out this propaganda, it scares the low-information people, and so they'll pay far more for the organic food.

Organic is nothing BUT marketing.

It's not any better or worse for anyone than most other farm products.

But...the FTB's, (Fucking True Believers, a term I picked up describing fundamentalist Christians,) will to the death call GMO's "poison" or "frankenfoods."

[AxionExcel]

27. What an amazingly perfect, TrueGMObeliever antifactual inversion of reality.

Last edited Sat Feb 27, 2016, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Thanks for the blast from Upside-Down Anti-science Land. That kind of screed reveals a lot.

Here's some actual factual reality you can nosh on,
and wash down with a keg of your beloved glyphosate-infested beer.

"A good deal of the debate surrounding GMOs involves attacking critics of the technology who voice genuine concerns and put forward valid arguments to back up their case. The attacks by the pro-GM lobby are nonsensical because there is sufficient, credible evidence that questions the safety, efficacy and the science used to promote GM, as well as the politics and practices used to get GMOs on the commercial market."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/the-gmo-issue-false-claims-psuedo-analysis-and-a-politically-motivated-agenda/

[Major Nikon]

45. Actual factual reality?

As proof of his anti-GM screed he simply provides links to his other anti-GM screeds.

So yeah, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to down a keg first, because it's gonna be a good long while before you find anything remotely approaching a fact, assuming there are actually any in there which doesn't seem likely. If it's anything like the usual rants you find here, the best you get in the way of "facts" and "genuine concerns" are references to NaturalNews, Mercola, and Seralini. The author claims to be a an "extensively published independent writer", but short of a few muckraking sites that give soapboxes to this sort of thing, there doesn't seem to be much else.

Actual factual reality would be nice. I got bored after following the 3rd link searching for one from this guy.

[Jim Beard]

36. There is difference in taste. Most of the small farmers will use

heirloom varieties and also, less fertilization is used in organics producing a smaller vacuole with less water but much sweeter.

There are some advantages to the culture growing chemical free.

[Archae]

39. Except nowadays the "small farmer" you mention only exists in third world countries.

Even the "family farm" nowadays uses a great deal of machinery, pesticides, (organic farms use pesticides that are horribly toxic,) herbicides and such.

We can't live with the "hippy farmer" fantasy farms, anymore.

Farming is a *BUSINESS* that provides a product.

When was the last time you were in a Mom 'n Pop country store?

Even the little towns my Mom lives near in northern Wisconsin have grocery stores, with aisles. And supermarkets.

[womanofthehills]

54. Just curious

Can you give me the name of the horribly toxic pesticide that you claim organic farms use.

Here in NM, most of the large organic grocery stores also carry produce grown locally. Many of the farms advertise that they use no pesticides. One large raspberry and vegetable farm uses turkeys to eat the bugs.

[Archae]

56. And guess what turkeys do on those plants.

Yup, they shit on them, and bird shit is notorious for carrying disease.

As to natural pesticides that can be even lethal, here's two articles.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/20/myth-busting-are-synthetic-pesticides-used-with-some-gmos-more-dangerous-than-natural-ones/

http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/CoopExt/4dmg/PHC/psticid2.htm

[womanofthehills]

62. I have been eating those raspberries forever

and I'm not sick yet. They were so good, I bought enough to have in my freezer for 6 months. Eating f..king tons of raspberries with turkey shit and I'm still well.

My organic gardens are loaded with chicken shit from my chickens and all my neighbors have organic gardens with cow or horse shit.
We all look almost as healthy as the Food Babe.

[Major Nikon]

72. Lots of 3rd world countries have life expectancies similar to the US

Which is pretty good when you consider their load of "toxic" substances is undoubtedly higher and their health care is worse.

In China you see all sorts of people in their 70's and beyond living very active lives while here in the US we warehouse old people in assisted living centers.

[Major Nikon]

46. I'm not sure what those advantages are

Heirloom varietals don't require "chemical free" assuming such a thing exists commercially. Organic certification isn't cheap, which generally puts it out of the range of the smallest farmers. Without certification there's no guarantee any standards are being followed, so all you have is the word of the person who is trying to make a sale. Certification most certainly doesn't insure "chemical free" either. It doesn't even guarantee organic as many non-organic products are approved under the NOP.

As far as I'm concerned, taste is a very important consideration. Most commercial produce is concerned with efficiency, transportation, and lots of other concerns which take a front seat to taste. I'm certainly willing to pay more for taste. I'm also willing to pay more for sustainability and fair trade, however I can afford it while others may need an affordable supply of wholesome basic ingredients. While these things can certainly be produced under the marketing umbrella of "organic", there's nothing about that term which guarantees any of those things.

[Jim Beard]

49. There are several things that use the Organic umbrella

with non GMO being one. If its Organically grown, it is GMO free.

[Major Nikon]

51. I'm not seeing the advantage

If you produce a varietal in a lab by using gene splicing to produce completely predictable mutations, you can't ever sell it as "organic". But, if you produce a varietal in a lab by bombarding it with ionizing radiation to produce completely random mutations, you can produce it under the umbrella of "organic" and sell it to consumers. The same is true of any other propagation method like hybridization or cross breeding. None of these methods produce any varietals that are inherently safer, more nutritious, wholesome, or more sustainable than any other (although an argument could be made for all of these things from the first one).

[womanofthehills]

65. Also less pesticide runnoff

to our lakes and streams.

[Deadshot]

53. "Organic is nothing BUT marketing".

This.

That's all it is. And there are suckers out there who'll pay way more for something because it doesn't have teh evil GMOs in them, even though GMOs are incredibly safe to eat.

[womanofthehills]

63. I noticed all you people who hate organic

seem really angry - must be the buildup of chemicals in your body.

[Archae]

64. We don't "hate organic."

We hate scams, which is what most organics are.

We hate hysterical anti-science bullshit, which is what most anti-GMO stuff is.

[Major Nikon]

89. ...

[Baobab]

19. Why the attack on labeling? Trade rules-Links to info and my thoughts on the main issues

There are some excellent descriptions of the problem at both IATP.org - and CIEL.org - Here are some examples of the many pubs they have on the issue..


[link:http://www.ciel.org/Publications/CODEXSubstantialEquivalenceandWTO.pdf|Codex, Substantial Equivalence and WTO Threats to National GMO Labeling Schemes
]

An Activist's Handbook On Genetically Modified Organisms and the WTO


How New Free Trade Agreements Would Undermine Local Procurement

[link:http://www.iatp.org/blog/201308/trade-rules-versus-sustainability|Trade rules versus sustainability
]

[link:http://www.iatp.org/blog/201512/senators%E2%80%94voluntary-is-not-cool|Senators—Voluntary is not COOL!
]

TPP Fine Print: Biotech Seed Companies Win Again


The attack is against people deciding themselves, using their own information, to decide what to buy, or not buy,and in no small part also against whats called "local sourcing" - and local laws that encouraged, and now, having almost won that - even laws that simply allow it. Via procurement rules that will force procurement through bidding systems only allowed to use 'objective criteria' determined by industry dominated panels-

Corporate stakeholders are being given the opportunity to permanently shift global policy so they can most effectively maximize the value in the supply chains by procuring goods and services at the lowest possible prices and selling them for the highest possible prices, without governmental interference.

Customs, like requiring accurate labeling, that deviate from some lowest common denominator international standard, are under attack. basically, this effects everything- not just labeling.

They would like to control the purchasing habits of everybody by making it more and more difficult to bypass the products of globalization by selecting products based on your beliefs - which they might not agree with. Since they have the ears of governments and you don't their wishes are being granted on a massive scale, in ways that lock them in in wys even local governments are powerless ti influence. A similar attack is being mounted against environmental laws of all kinds at the supranational trade deal level.

They are the deciders of what "objective standards" can be used, to protect heir profits and they want to be the ones to decide whats healthy for you.

This applies to both goods and services. Everything in both areas is changing due to international trade agreements, and will not be recognizable in a few years.

In the exact same way, regulations for services procurement at all levels of government and quasi government are being changed in ways that will render preferential local sourcing inmpossible unless somebody is in an officially recognized least eveloped country or developing country, A lot of regulations which we have grown used to may not be allowed, generally all regulations must not have the effect of discriminating against foreign providers of goods or services, all domestic regulations must conform to new "disciplines on domestic regulations", for example, a legal standard of "fair and equitable treatment". Regulations must be "no more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service".


This is a real problem because the US public is largely unaware of this change and the reasons for it and the media is not being helpful - they are playing along.

[Major Nikon]

48. Here's the problem with using political rather than objective criteria

Let's say the conventional farming industry wanted to attack the organic farming industry using a disinformation campaign and unnecessary regulatory burdens in the same way the organic industry is. Given their superior market position it just wouldn't be that hard. The first thing you would see were commercials publicizing how many people have been sickened and killed by organic produce through the use of animal feces. Once public hysteria reaches a sufficiently highly level, you'd see them pushing for labels requiring the identification of produce fertilized with animal shit. Undoubtedly you'd see a significant decline in the organic market share because who in their right mind would want to eat cow shit that kills people?

It's just not that hard to manufacture irrational fear among consumers. So while this is going to happen anyway, the government shouldn't be the ones to encourage it. That's why regulation does and should require objective standards rather than political forces.

[Deadshot]

23. It's funny that we have our own anti-science people on the left.

The Right has climate change denialists and, well, science denialists in general while the Left as the anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOers.

Look, I hate Monsanto as much as the next person here. But Monsanto doesn't own GMOs. GMOs and Monsanto are mutually-exclusive entities. Direct your hate towards Monsanto if you hate them. Leave GMOs out of it.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. Monsanto is a boogeyman for the left, hell some of the conspiracy theories revolving around the Zika

virus try to link it to Monsanto, even though there's no connection. Its getting ridiculous.

I don't even understand all this hate directed particularly at Monsanto, they may be at the forefront of research in many cases, but honestly I don't get the hate that is generated. Particularly if you research the history and details of claims against them, at most they have acted like a typical corporation.

[Jim Beard]

32. Pioneer Seeds, a long established good corn seed company was bought by DuPont

Think Plastics

[killbotfactory]

33. just google "monsanto poisons town" nt

[womanofthehills]

57. Workers File Lawsuit Against Monsanto Alleging Chemicals Caused Cancer

http://trofire.com/2015/10/01/workers-file-lawsuit-against-monsanto-alleging-chemicals-caused-cance/

"Monsanto currently faces lawsuits from an American farm worker and horticultural assistant who claim that Roundup caused their cancers. Just six months ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified the weed-killing ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Attorneys expect hundreds of lawsuits to be filed against the corporation as Roundup is the most popular herbicide on the planet. WHO recognition of the danger of glyphosate gives support to the claims these plaintiffs are bringing against Monsanto."

[womanofthehills]

59. From America's best lawyer Mike Papantonio network

More Evidence Shows Monsanto Chemical’s Deadly Effects

The Monsanto-produced chemicals have long been linked to dwindling insect and plant populations and illness. However, new research links the dangerous products to deadly diseases that have run rampant in Latin America and other countries, reported TruthOut.

Across many Latin and Asian countries, chemical-laden products produced by Monsanto are causing an epidemic of varying health issues. In Central America, Sri Lanka, and India, farmers exposed to herbicides and metals have contracted cases of Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown etiology (CKDu). This means that the cause of these cases is still not known.

However, Sri Lankan scientists Dr. Channa Jayasumana, Dr. Srath Gunatilake, and Dr. Priyantha Senanayake believe they have cracked the mystery behind these CKDu cases. It wasn’t until the 1990s when these cases began occurring. They believed that the cause couldn’t have been around more than 30 years. Knowing that agrochemicals were introduced in the 1970s, they investigated.

Upon their research, they noticed the presence of glyphosate, used in Roundup weed killer, an herbicide used heavily in the region. Glyphosate binds with metals and lingers in soil for long periods of time. Naturally, its placement in the soil can cause the chemical to seep into the groundwater for those nearby to drink.

Upon entering the body, the chemical, while carrying heavy metals, goes through the liver and leaves the metals inside of the kidneys. High enough concentrations can cause kidney failure and death. This discovery led to the expanding research of chemical herbicides and how they end up getting consumed by humans. Last September, El Salvador banned the use of glyphosate.

In April, researchers at the International Agency for Research on Cancer released a study of 25 years worth of research concerning herbicides and illness. They were able to link glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Roundup also causes brain cancer in children.

In a sample of children with brain cancer from Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, it was found that either parent was exposed to glyphosate within two years of the child’s birth. That exposure doubled the child’s chance to develop brain cancer. The results are surely the same in other countries that have heavily relied on glyphosate during farming.

“We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before,” said Dr. Medardo Avila-Vazquez, an Argentinian pediatrician. “What we have complained about for years was confirmed and especially what doctors say about the sprayed towns and areas affected by industrial agriculture.”

[Humanist_Activist]

67. First off, Links? Second off, where is the evidence for all these assertions?

Even the WHO and California only go so far as to claim "probable" links, and even those are extremely weak, yet you are asserting, as fact, that glyphosate causes specific types of cancer under all sorts of conditions.

[Archae]

68. Are you kidding? GMO's and Roundup are blamed in anti-GMO propaganda for everything.

I've seen articles and drawings linking Roundup to autism, Parkinson's, all sorts of cancer, you name it.

This is why all this propaganda angers me, meanwhile, the organic producers are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Humanist_Activist]

69. While also failing to demonstrate that organic pesticides and herbicides are safer, as claimed...

I don't understand why we are supposed to be hyper-vigilant towards one side of the industry(Big conventional agriculture) while being completely credulous towards the claims of the Organic industry.

[Archae]

71. Like I said before, propaganda.

GMO advocates are pictured as mad scientists poking needles into fruit, while organic producers paint themselves as hippy farmers singing love songs to the plants they tenderly water by hand.

[Orrex]

76. GMOs are responsible for my power steering leak.

[Major Nikon]

79. People also used to laugh at the hypothesis that Rock-n-Roll caused devil worship

[Major Nikon]

77. US postage rates have been linked to global warming and the evidence is pretty convincing

[Humanist_Activist]

24. The opposition is simple, GMO is too general a term, what type of GMO should be labeled?

Hybrids? That would be practically all food. Clones? That's a way to label Bananas. How about strains created by radiation and chemicals? That sounds scary enough! Its been practiced for many years, but never too late to put the GMO label on them. Oddly enough, they are less controlled, and there could be unintended mutations that aren't noticed occurring, something that's much more difficult to do with modern genetic engineering.

[Warpy]

29. Not only that, but it would be largely useless

because most processed foods and foods sold in bulk would be labeled with the weasel words "may contain genetically modified____," especially if it contains corn or corn by products. In addition, some hybrids that produce sterile seeds (or no seeds) could conceivably need the labeling, too.

[nationalize the fed]

40. 64 other countries in the world have no problem with informing their citizens

what is in the food. The "too general a term" is complete utter nonsense.



Smart countries are just banning imports. Like Russia. More Americans would care if they knew they were eating this stuff. It's in almost EVERYTHING. Every box of food listing corn syrup is a box with GMO ingredients. Same with sugar- from beets. Corn and tortilla chips- GMO. Cereal - GMO sugar. Candy- GMO ingredients.

[Jim Beard]

42. Blue Corn is Non GMO

Too small of a product distribution to cross the frog with a flower then to a goose and then to corn.

The heirloom varieties are non GMO. I get a Burrell seed catalog every year and in the description they tell of Yield and how well they SHIP, not how they taste.

[Major Nikon]

52. Almost none of the unprocessed corn you buy in the market is GMO

[Orrex]

74. In other words, 135 countries think that the complaint is silly. Got it.

[Jim Beard]

28. Maybe we could start our own grocery store chain

and label them on the shelf space. Instead of label labeling, store shelf labeling.

[Warpy]

30. Or you could buy a farm and grow your own.

Oh, wait, a lot of us tried that in the early 70s, it's a good way go to bust.

[MisterP]

31. they'd be friggin' running ads 24/7, flying banners over beaches and fireworks at night

nobody's convinced that "those mean hippies tricked America into HATING SCIENCE!" *wipes snot* "it's as bad as when they got rid of The Bell Curve!"

[Jim Beard]

41. Just how many food processors are there

in the US. I am talking about the processors/canner/packers that under one name but to different stores.

Food Club, Lucerne, Janet Lee, Del Monte all are a mix mash of interactive parts of the huge chain. Del Monte will package for others in a different label and that same company will be part of an organization will combine other crops and sell under Janet Lee.

Its really scary when you think about how few entities are actually manufacturing processed food. I had a link at one time and lost it showing the list of all packagers and it is small.

This isn't what I was looking for but its a start........

Store Brands

[Major Nikon]

50. I don't think the number of them is the problem

The problem is the influence they have over food producers. Pretty much every varietal of a basic ingredient like meat, fish, or produce is identical to every other regardless of which name is on the label. The reason is because distributors and processors are dictating exactly what the foundation ingredients are from the producers. The biggest driving force behind this is completion for lower and lower prices which is what the public demands. If you buy a chicken at the market, it's going to be a 3lb (give or take 1/2 lb) 6 week old hen which is going to be the exact same breed fed the same diet as every other 3lb 6 week old hen from every other producer. If you buy a gallon of milk, you might get to choose between a variety of milkfat levels, but whatever you choose is going to be produced and processed from the same breed of cows fed the same diet as every other gallon of milk in every other supermarket in America and it isn't going to taste any different. The same is true for just about every other product you can name.

[Rex]

43. So this is a fight between organic companies and chemical companies?

Why am I not surprised?

[AxionExcel]

75. No. That's one way the industrial chemical-GMO-pharmaceutical-ag Corps frame it

Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

If you look beneath the digital screed & talking points so glibly
and repeatedly parroted on DU by the Usual Suspects ,
you'll learn it's a fight between human beings
who want to know what they are feeding their families, and vast
multinational industrial chemical-GMO-pharmaceutical ag corporations .

If you follow along on this thread and other on DU, you will see the relentless attack on organics and clean food in general, as a way of trying to estaBlish a FALSE EQUIVALENCY. Pay attention. Some DEEP DOO DOO is going down. Your food and health depend upon it.

[Major Nikon]

81. It would be pretty fucking stupid if that were the case

Because the same "industrial chemical-GMO-pharmaceutical-ag Corps" now happen to own the lion's share of the organic market.

There's also a pretty good list of "usual suspects" who continuously trot out the same pseudoscience after it's already been well debunked, which means they either don't really care about checking the integrity of the information they are parroting out, or they know it's complete shit and hope that it will influence other people who don't really care about checking the integrity of their information. I'm not sure which is worse.

[AxionExcel]

83. Agreed. It is pretty freaking stupid. And evil, if you ask me.

Who is funding the campaign to keep GMO food secret and unknown by the general public?

No. Donor No On 37 No on 522 No on 92 No on 105
1 Monsanto Co. $8,112,867 $5,374,411 $5,958,750 $4,755,878
2 Dupont $5,400,000 $3,880,159 $4,928,150 $3,000,000
3 PepsiCo $2,485,400 $2,352,966 $2,350,000 $1,650,000
4 Grocery Manufacturers Association $2,002,000 $11,000,000** $169,190 $106,600
5 Kraft Foods $2,000,500 - $870,000 $1,030,000
6 BASF Plant Science $2,000,000 $500,000 - -
7 Bayer CropScience $2,000,000 $591,654 - -
8 DOW Agrosciences $2,000,000 $591,654 $1,157,150 $306,500
9 Syngenta Corporation $2,000,000 - - -
10 Coca-Cola North America $1,690,500 $1,520,351 $1,170,000 $1,108,000
11 Nestle USA $1,461,600 $1,528,206 - -
12 General Mills $1,230,300 $869,271 $695,000 $820,000
13 ConAgra Foods $1,176,700 $828,251 $350,000 $250,000
14 Kellogg's Company $790,700 $322,050 $500,000 250,000
15 Smithfield Foods $683,900 - - $250,000
16 Delmonte Foods $674,100 $125,677 - -
17 Campbell Soup Company $598,000 $384,888 - -
18 Smucker Company $555,000 $349,978 $295,000 $345,000
19 Hershey Company $518,900 $360,450 $320,000 $380,000
20 Biotechnology Industry Organization $502,000 - 11,200 $108,000

http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-opponents/

[Major Nikon]

86. So who do you think is buying off the AMA and the NSA?

Not to mention virtually every science advocacy and advisory organization on the planet. I'd just like to know which secret evil cabal they belong to.

[Orrex]

73. So-called "organic" food producers use chemicals much worse than glyphosate

So where are the cries to call out organic farmers for their use of toxic products?

[AxionExcel]

80. Rest easy, Orrex. There are plenty of digital minions emitting those phony whines about organics

If you look around on DU you will be able to readily pick out the usual
suspects flinging false allegations at clean food. It's a systematic campaign,
with the regularity of ExLax bowel movements. Trust me. And good luck in
your noble and courageous effort to find and call out these minions..

[Orrex]

85. "Clean food." That's funny, what you wrote.

[Major Nikon]

87. It's also kind of funny when someone who has been here a week has all the "usual suspects" mapped

Almost makes you think they are a repeat customer.

[Archae]

90. Library Girl?

[Major Nikon]

91. ...

[Major Nikon]

92. SpiralHawk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=109787&sub=trans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7766768

[bkkyosemite]

78. Label them. I do not want GMO's in my food supply from a chemical company

[Zorra]

84. They are not required to list the poisons in household cleaners, either.

They will hide the truth whenever truth will result in diminishing their bottom line, unless required to be transparent by law.

[Major Nikon]

88. I'd be interested to know if you could name just one that doesn't

Because not only are they required to list them, they are also required to list all sorts of things like irritation effects, inhalation effects, ingestion effects and first aid remedies for those. They also as applicable have to list storage concerns, physical properties, flash points, spill response, fire hazards, toxicity, disposal, reactivity, carcinogenic effects, and all sorts of other things.

http://www.scjohnson.ca/pdfViewer.aspx?pkMSDSId=375&language=en

http://www.whatsinsidescjohnson.com/us/en/brands/windex/windex-advanced-glass-and-multi-surface-cleaner