GMO free sugar makes about as much sense as organic cigarettes imo.

[yellowcanine]

Can anyone explain it to me?

[hughee99]

1. It's so that you can eat unhealthy but still feel good about your diet.

You can still tell your friends about how you won't eat GMO's.

[Angel Martin]

2. Nat Sherman

the preferred smoke of trust fund hipsters
http://natshermancigarettes.com/Cigarette101.cfm

[REP]

19. I've smoked Shermans for years

Too old to be a hipster; wrong type of family to have a trust fund.

American Spirit is another cigarette made without sugared tobacco; they're actually the hipster brand.

[Blues Heron]

3. It's all about attempting to rein in the rampant

use of pesticides.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. ^^this^^

[HuckleB]

17. Wrong again.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch

http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630

[yellowcanine]

6. I get that people believe that - but there is precious little evidence

that it is true.

[GliderGuider]

8. Purchasing based on these labels is largely a consumer protest statement

Which has been emasculated by Big Ag's legislative influence and their cynical use as marketing tools.

[GliderGuider]

7. Organic and non-GMO sugar

The "Organic sugar" push is mainly about reducing pesticide use.

It may not affect the refined end product much or at all, but it's an attempt to help the wider environment where the sugar is produced.

The "Non-GMO" label is a consumer statement against the genetic modification of sugar-beets.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/jun08/sugar_beet_industry_converts_to_gmo.php

The US sugar beet industry coordinated an industry-wide conversion to genetically modified sugar beets, thus eliminating a non-GMO alternative for food manufacturers and consumers. Meanwhile, production of GM sugar beet seed is likely to contaminate organic and conventional vegetable seed production in Oregon’s Willamette Valley.

Both labels serve as a marketing tool, of course, which IMO is totally legitimate. Like it or loathe it, consumers are making their voices heard about the manipulation of the American food supply by Big Ag.

In case anyone is wondering, that battle has been lost, the horse has left the barn - at least partially because of Citizens United.

[yellowcanine]

10. Nah, Sugar Cane (non GMO) is as much "Big Ag" as Sugar Beets (GMO)

Distinction without a difference. Sorry but that argument just doesn't fly.

[hopemountain]

30. perhaps you might have stated this in your op.

you are not interested in dialogue - nor the exchange of ideas - only your agenda.

[U4ikLefty]

47. Bingo.

Not honest, it seems to be a trait of the Big Agra shill.

[yellowcanine]

67. Of course name calling is so much more honest.

[HuckleB]

68. Conspiracy theories are so much fun, though!

[yellowcanine]

70. I just wish Monsanto would hurry up with the check!

Shilling for nothing is getting old!

[HuckleB]

71. They're working on GMO checks, with more bounce!

[U4ikLefty]

83. You actually have to be GOOD at it....no check for you.

[U4ikLefty]

81. Nah, sanctimony & ROFL smileys are much more convincing.

[HuckleB]

86. Ironic.

[U4ikLefty]

80. If the name fits......

[HuckleB]

87. Contradictory.

[yellowcanine]

112. Name calling is what you do when you can't argue the facts.

1) It is intellectually lazy.
2) It is dishonest, because you actually do not know if the name fits. You just are hoping it does.

[HuckleB]

48. Discussion is not started by industry propaganda.

And that's what GliderGuider offered. Oh, and, again. He was debunked.

[yellowcanine]

66. But yet you engaged, or at least pretended to. So the OP must not have been so bad.

[yellowcanine]

72. It did not occur to me. Do I need to consult with you on my OPs?

Why is that I wonder? Maybe start your own thread if you have something to say? Just a suggestion.

[HuckleB]

16. No, it's not. It's about marketing.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch

http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630

And the truth is that non-GMO sugar appears to be worse for the environment.

[hopemountain]

31. thanks, glider guider nt.

[HuckleB]

44. His propaganda was debunked.

[Scientific]

9. + 1

[HuckleB]

12. You really do buy into any fiction you find, don't you?

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch

http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630

[HuckleB]

11. Non-GMO sugar will increase the use of pesticides.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch

http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630

[pnwmom]

33. Organic, non-GMO sugar doesn't increase the use of pesticides or herbicides. n/t

[HuckleB]

35. You can say that, but it's not true.

And that's not even addressing the other environmental destruction associated with sugar cane.

[pnwmom]

36. Why?

[HuckleB]

37. I already showed why.

[pnwmom]

38. This Harvard professor disagrees with you.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/avoiding-pesticide-residue-on-fruits-and-veggies/

Avoiding pesticide residue on fruits and veggies

Chensheng (Alex) Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), discusses the problem of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables in a new video on the website of Environmental Working Group (EWG), a leading environmental health research and advocacy organization. The video appears in conjunction with the release of EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce 2013.

In the video, Lu cites his 2008 study that monitored pesticide levels in children who normally ate non-organic fruits and vegetables but who were given only organic over a five-day period. “During that five-day period, most of the pesticides [in the children’s urine] disappeared,” Lu said. “We believe the most vulnerable population would be small infants and children, because of their small body weight.” Possible negative health effects from pesticides include impaired mental development or problems with motor skills.

Lu recommends that families seek information about which fruits and vegetables have the highest pesticide residue levels—EWG’s Shopper’s Guide lists a “dirty dozen” on its website, for example—so they can decide when to buy organic instead of regular.

[HuckleB]

39. Well, the professors in the links I provided actually discussed reality.

Anyone who wants farmers to go back to the more dangerous pesticides and herbicides and more frequent spraying of non-GMO sugar beets is not ethical, in my book.

[pnwmom]

40. They don't use chemical pesticides on organic sugar beets. n/t

[HuckleB]

41. Yes, they do.

They just didn't test for those products in your long-debunked, and completely out-of-context link. And why would you promote the type of deforestation that would be needed to do that, on top of it?

[pnwmom]

42. Not in the U.S. It's regulated by the Department of Agriculture here.

https://www.floridacrystals.com/product/organic-1

[HuckleB]

43. And they use plenty of pesticides and herbicides.

Are you really going to pretend otherwise?

[pnwmom]

45. The Dept. of Agriculture doesn't allow organic food producers to use them. n/t

[HuckleB]

46. You keep telling yourself that.

[Todays_Illusion]

52. Here, the FDA can tell you. https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-pro

[HuckleB]

62. So you think organic pesticides are not pesticides?

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:57 AM - Edit history (2)

Say what?

[Todays_Illusion]

76. Isn't that the same as asking me if I think water is water?

[HuckleB]

77. You might want to look a little further.

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-pesticides/

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

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

http://www.beeculture.com/catch-the-buzz-organic-pesticides-still-kill-bees/

http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/06/17/save-the-bees-ban-these-two-toxic-pesticides-immediately/

[Major Nikon]

56. Demonstrably wrong

Not only do they allow the use of pesticides, they allow the use of synthetic pesticides. So not only is "organic" nothing more than a marketing term, it doesn't even mean organic.

§205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production

§205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production

[pnwmom]

57. The alcohols listed, for example, are not comparable to the pesticides

used in non-organic foods.

[Major Nikon]

58. Demonstrably wrong again

Some of the pesticides used by the organic industry are far more toxic to people and the environment than their synthetic counterparts.

[pnwmom]

59. Your link doesn't support your point. nt

[Major Nikon]

60. It was your points you never supported to begin with and twice you were proven wrong

But you certainly make a convincing argument to the contrary.

[Lancero]

61. Here's something showing pesticides are used in organics. You'll ignore it though.

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES

Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?

A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.

When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.

WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?

For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.

Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".

As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.

The hypocrisy is astounding, really. Anti-science advocates say that companies are trying to push untested synthetic pesticides on people... All the while they are pushing untested pesticides on people. More hypocrisy is that, while saying big ag is pushing carcinogens on people... it turns out that the 'organic' pesticides they pushed were carcinogenic too.

I'd have more respect for this group if they had the honesty to admit to their hypocrisy, but they don't.

[yellowcanine]

73. Organic producers can use some pesticides. All pesticides are made of chemicals. Even water is a

chemical. You need to work on your terminology if you are going to discuss science.

[HuckleB]

65. You used a marketing site as a link? And it does not support your claim.

PS:

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-pesticides/

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

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

[MattBaggins]

49. When you don't test for so called organic pesticides

on so called organic food; that food seems to be pesticide free. Funny how that works.

[HuckleB]

51. It's funny how she ignored the content of the links I offered.

And now she claims pesticides are not allowed on "organic" food.

I don't even know what to say to that.

[yellowcanine]

74. Easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Really.

[womanofthehills]

90. Actually, the organic food industry is tightly regulated

where convention food is not.

[Major Nikon]

96. Tightly regulated by the USDA Marketing Service, as in they are providing a service to Big Organic®

http://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program

Where you got the idea that "convention food" isn't regulated is anyone's guess, but you might want to check your shorts.

[HuckleB]

128. Beahahahahahahahaha!!!!

You are funny.

[yellowcanine]

115. That article doesn't mention sugar or GMOs. It is about fruits and veggies.

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

It also is not about pesticide use, it is about pesticide residues. Not the same thing.

[GulfCoast66]

22. LOL

For all that round-up ready cane?

[cpwm17]

4. It makes even less sense, since sugar is sugar.

The source of the sugar is irrelevant. It's all the same stuff.

[hopemountain]

32. perhaps to you - but nearly every product on the

market now contains genetically modified beet sugar.

i prefer organic non gmo cane sugar that has not been sprayed with pesticides and rat poison. you?

[cpwm17]

34. Here's formula for sugar (sucrose):

It's impossible to know the source for any sucrose because it is all exactly the same stuff. Anyone that says otherwise doesn't know science or is a con-artist.

[hopemountain]

53. so i guess you would not care whether your sucrose came

from a diabetics urine or cane sugar because it is "all the same" molecule. suit yourself.

a molecule of sugar is a molecule of sugar - but it's source is important to me.

[HuckleB]

63. So you have a religious preference.

And that preference harms the earth and farmers.

That's not cool.

[womanofthehills]

91. So according to you, Roundup in all our rivers & air is not a problem

ROUNDUP IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER

According to two reports released this month by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), it is common to find glyphosate, better known as Roundup, in rain and rivers in the Mississippi River watershed.

“Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we know very little about its long term effects to the environment,” says Paul Capel, USGS chemist and an author on this study. “This study is one of the first to document the consistent occurrence of this chemical in streams, rain and air throughout the growing season. This is crucial information for understanding where management efforts for this chemical would best be focused.”

While communities that depend on the Mississippi River for drinking water treat and purify the water for human uses, nothing is done for the fish and wildlife that also depend on the River. The costs of cleaning up excessively polluted water are usually incurred by local communities and taxpayers.

Pesticides and fertilizers are commonly used by large-scale farms but that’s no reason they should end up in the Mississippi River. Conservation programs in the Farm Bill pay farmers to do things like set up native barriers to streams that line their farms, preventing overflow into waterways.

http://1mississippi.org/roundup-found-in-mississippi-river/

U.S. RESEARCHERS find ROUNDUP chemical in water, air - Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/us-glyphosate-pollution-idUSTRE77U61720110831

"It is out there in significant levels. It is out there consistently," said Paul Capel, environmental chemist and head of the agricultural chemicals team at the U.S. Geological Survey Office, part of the U.S. Department of Interior.

[Major Nikon]

101. In other news, researchers discovered water is wet and the sky is blue

Anything you put on a crop is going to find it's way into the watershed. This is also true of chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, ozone, boric acid, sulfates, carbonates, oxides, silicates of zinc, iron, copper sulfate, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, cobalt, manure ash, strychnine, lead salts, nicotine sulfate (from tobacco dust) and arsenic all of which are used by the organic industry.

Do you think this is a problem? I'm not really counting on an answer here since you never seem to provide any, but French organic farmers seem to think so since they have abandoned organic farming specifically due to the environmental concerns of organic practices.

[HuckleB]

103. When wil you worry about more toxic products?

And why do you want the, to be used again?

[MattBaggins]

50. You really believe that organic farmers don't use pesticides?

[hopemountain]

54. not local organic farmers - perhaps mass

growers who fancy themselves organic growers to sell their adulterated and contaminated products use pesticides - but they cannot put an "organic" label on their product if there are more than minute traces of pesticides.

[MattBaggins]

55. Your last statement is not true

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1672

[HuckleB]

64. Not true at all.

[womanofthehills]

93. Organic farms are government inspected every year

Organic 101: ENSURING ORGANIC INTEGRITY THROUGH INSPECTIONS http://blogs.usda.gov/2014/02/26/organic-101-ensuring-organic-integrity-through-inspections/

Every organic operation must be inspected each year. The inspector verifies that the operation’s plan accurately reflects the operation and that the farmer is following the plan. Organic inspectors are trained to look critically at all aspects of an operation.

When first arriving at an organic operation, the inspector is looking for things like buffer zones from neighboring farms to ensure that the organic integrity of crops is maintained. The inspector then visits the fields and asked questions about pest management, soil fertility, and other factors. They also look at storage and preparation areas to make sure everything meets the organic requirements.

One of the most important responsibilities of the inspector is to examine records that doc­ument farming practices. Specifically, the inspector will audit invoices, records of material applications, organic sales, harvest, and yield. The inspector can explain the organic regulations but is not allowed to provide advice on how to farm or how to overcome identified barriers to certification. This separation between the farmer and the certifier maintains the “independent third party” nature of the transaction.

During the visit, the inspector may also collect samples for residue testing. Certifying agents use test results to identify and address instances in which organic products may have unintentionally come in contact with prohibited substances and to detect and deter fraud.

[Major Nikon]

98. They aren't inspected by the government

Kinda funny how you claim pesticide residue isn't tested when it is, and then you claim organic farms are "government inspected" when they aren't.

[womanofthehills]

119. FDA will begin testing of GLYPHOSATE - FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR

You know this is true because we have been there before. Your bullshit meter is definitely a projection!!



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration confirmed on Thursday that it would begin testing for residues of the controversial herbicide glyphosate on foods sold in the U.S. for the first time this year. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is widely sprayed on American farms, and is the most-used agricultural chemical in the world. It has been labeled “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the United Nations’ International Agency for Research on Cancer, though a European food safety agency has disputed those claims.

The FDA says IT DIDN'T TEST food for glyphosate in the past because the “available methods” would have been “very cost- and labor-intensive to implement.”

[Major Nikon]

123. Sure, because as we all know the "government" doesn't extend past the FDA

[Major Nikon]

130. And yeah we have been there before and you even admitted your claim was complete bullshit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7831654

The reason the FDA doesn't test for glyphosate is because there has never been a need to test for glyphosate. The USDA certifies pesticides within allowable limits which aren't being exceeded. The only reason it's working on testing them is to disprove the nutbags who keep suggesting otherwise, kinda like the CDC appeased the anti-vax nutbags until everyone realized they were nuttier than squirrel shit.

[womanofthehills]

89. Organic fruits and vegetables much cleaner than conventional food

We have shown
that consumers who buy organic fruits and vegetables are exposed to just one-third
as many residues as they’d eat in conventionally-grown foods, and the residues
are usually lower as well," said Edward Groth III, Senior Scientist at
CU and one of the paper’s co-authors.

http://consumersunion.org/news/cu-research-team-shows-organic-foods-really-do-have-less-pesticides/

[Major Nikon]

99. what should be made clear to consumers is that 'organic' does not equal 'safe'

The demand for organic foods is constantly increasing mainly due to consumers' perception that they are healthier and safer than conventional foods. There is a need for information related to food safety to inform consumers of the health benefits and/or hazards of food products of both origins, in order to optimise the impact on health and minimise the risks. Several gaps and limitations in scientific knowledge with regard to food risk evaluation make it difficult to draw generalised conclusions. Still, some organic foods can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues and lower levels of nitrate than conventionally grown alternatives. On the other hand, environmental contaminants are equally present in foods of both origins. With regard to other food hazards, such as natural chemicals, microbial pathogens and mycotoxins, no clear conclusions can be drawn, although several interesting points can be highlighted. It is difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but what should be made clear to consumers is that 'organic' does not equal 'safe'. If producers adopt proper agricultural practices and consumers maintain hygienic conditions, risks associated with food contaminants can be minimised, regardless of the food's organic or conventional origin.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19087390

"Our regulations do not address food safety or nutrition."
-- National Organic Program

[womanofthehills]

121. Buy your organic food from local farmers who you know and it's safe

There is a huge raspberry and vegetable farm in my area - they use zero pesticides - they send in the turkeys to eat the bugs.

[Major Nikon]

124. Either they aren't huge or they use pesticides

...or they are lying to you, or you just made this all up.

[womanofthehills]

92. they sure don't use the most toxic ones like 2,4-d and glyphosate with polyethoxylated tallow amine

and they are very regulated. The majority of organic pesticides are not synthetic. Most organic farmers that I know in my area try to use zero pesticides.

[Major Nikon]

97. No they use ones that are more toxic like copper sulfate and a lot more of it

Along with alcohol, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, ozone, boric acid, sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, cobalt, manure ash, strychnine, lead salts, nicotine sulfate (from tobacco dust) and arsenic.

[HuckleB]

13. It's about feeling better about something, even though it harms the environment.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch

http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630

[sendero]

14. Then...

..... don't buy any.

[HuckleB]

15. But why would anyone buy something that pretends to be better when it's worse?

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch

http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630

[womanofthehills]

94. GM Crops Now Banned in 38 Countries Worldwide – Sustainable Pulse Research

Official GM crop cultivation bans:

Africa (2)

The picture on GM cultivation bans across Africa is not clear due to the current pressure being put on many African governments by the Biotech industry and the Gates Foundation to lift long-standing bans on the import of unmilled GMO seeds or unmilled GMO food aid, however two countries do still have full legal bans on GM crop cultivation:

Algeria (since 2000)

Madagascar (since 2002)

Asia (4)

Turkey,

Kyrgyzstan

Bhutan

Saudi Arabia

Americas (4)

Belize

Peru

Ecuador

Venezuela

Europe (28)

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Germany

France

The Netherlands

Malta

Cyprus

Greece

Bulgaria

Russia

Serbia

Croatia

Italy

Denmark

Hungary

Moldova

Latvia

Lithuania

Austria

Poland

Slovenia

Azerbaijan

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Luxembourg

Ukraine (although there is massive GM contamination in the country)

Norway

Switzerland
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Google BookmarkShare to Facebook32.8KShare to TwitterShare to PrintMore AddThis Share options1.5K

[HuckleB]

104. And there is no logical justification for that.

Can you name the anti-GMO logical fallacy you just used?

[yellowcanine]

20. I don't make the distinction. But anti gmo activists are pushing it.

It is not as simple as saying, "then don't buy any." They are attempting to interfere in the marketplace which could result in me paying more for something and I would not make that choice.

[GulfCoast66]

23. Got news got you

Due to price supports pushed by FL, LA and northern States I am not sure of(beets you know) we pay way more for sugar than we should and provide an incentive to continue degrading the S. Florida environment. Oh yeah, and making some super rich folks even richer.

Please push to help end sugar price support.

[yellowcanine]

24. The way I see it is I help pay for price supports also.

So I get hit several ways when the market is interfered with this way.

[GulfCoast66]

27. I am dense at times

But I think you are agreeing with me? You want to end price supports?

Because they have caused the devastation of the Florida Everglades. I can't speak to what sugar beets have done. But the few small farmers in Louisiana could grow other profitable crops.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. There is, chemically, no difference, both are heavily processed and bad for you. N/t

[Luminous Animal]

21. I might on average, eat about a teaspoon of sugar a week. And I eat organic.

Lots of people I know eat very little sugar and also eat organic.

[HuckleB]

29. So you know lots of people who have been conned ...

... Into paying more money for food for no good reason. So what!

[womanofthehills]

95. It is worth paying more money for chickens raised humanly than for tortured chickens

These chickens, although expensive, are the most delicious tasting chickens I've ever had in my life - very popular at the Santa Fe Farmer's market. I would prefer to pay more for a chicken who ate fresh chicory, millet, wheatgrass, etc. then one who lived in a crowded cage eating glyphosate GMO corn.






SAME WITH THE SUGAR BEETS

I would rather buy sugar from an organic farm than buy sugar where
Farm Workers Are Exposed to High Levels of Pesticides

A recent report from Farmworker Justice highlighted just how bad the pesticide exposure has become.2 Up to 20,000 farm workers are poisoned by pesticides each year, according to data from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

VALUE LIFE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

[HuckleB]

105. That has nothing to do with GMOs.

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

[womanofthehills]

120. YOU MUST BE KIDDING - ALL THE ANIMAL FOOD HAS HIGH LEVELS OF GLYPHOSATE & GMO'S

The FDA is going to be testing eggs soon . Eggs are supposed to be one of the foods with the highest levels of glyphosate along with wheat, corn and soy. The animals get the worst of the food supply and most eat GMO's big time. EVEN THE ORGANIC EGGS ARE CONTAMINATED WITH GLYPHOSATE because of the drift.

The US government’s food watchdog will soon begin testing certain products for the presence of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, which the World Health Organization linked to cancer last year.

Milk, corn, eggs and soybeans are on the list of foods the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) intends to test for glyphosate residue. SOY AND CORN ARE THE MOST WIDELY USED IN ANIMAL FEED and are among the crops routinely sprayed with variants of Roundup, a herbicide developed by Monsanto in the 1970s. Glyphosate is now off-patent and widely used around the world, with Monsanto promoting “Roundup Ready” crops genetically modified for immunity to the chemical.

“The agency is now considering assignments for Fiscal Year 2016 to measure glyphosate in soybeans, corn, milk, and eggs, among other potential foods,” FDA spokeswoman Lauren Sucher told Civil Eats, an American food news publication.

https://www.rt.com/usa/332819-fda-test-glyphosate-monsanto/

[Major Nikon]

125. Meh. Putin's mouthpiece RT

[HuckleB]

127. Which is BS, and has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Get a clue.

[NobodyHere]

25. I only eat salt that's GMO free.

[Rex]

28. I usually pour some GMO on my salt that I pour on my HFCS that I pour on my

multivitamin that I take at 9000% the RDA level, so that I can levitate to work each morning.

[yellowcanine]

75. Added bonus is that it is gluten free also.

[Rex]

26. I thought cigs were organic?

You mean they grow those things in a lab?

[yellowcanine]

69. Yeah I have tried to make that point before but it is wasted effort.

And GMO is just a different kind of plant breeding but you won't get far with that one either. Choose your battles.

[Major Nikon]

102. GMO is a superior form of plant breeding

All other forms of plant breeding rely on unpredictable random mutations to thousands of genes created in an artificial environment. One in particular relies on exposing seeds to ionizing radiation in order to literally create mutant seeds which are fully eligible for organic certification (nothing more natural than that, eh?).

Meanwhile GMO modifies only one gene at a time with fully predictable results.

To counter these realities, people bring up half fast points like playing god and that other forms of plant breeding are really "natural".

[Jesus Malverde]

78. Here is a list of Additives that are allowed to be put in cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

Organic cigarettes would be additive free. The american spirit brand is one that claims not to include these additives.

[Rex]

79. I dunno, Mr. Esler would disagree.

[Thor_MN]

82. It makes as much sense as Gluten Free, Organic, Fat Free Sugar

There's people that would pay a premium for it.

[Lancero]

84. That makes more sense than gluten free water. And yeah, that IS a thing.

Gluten free sugar is a eye roller. Gluten free water is a mouth dropper.

[Vote2016]

85. Leaving the health issue out of the debate, the GMO movement has turned natural plant life into

corporate intellectual property dependent on corporate owned pesticides and fertilizers, etc.

Then the GMO cross pollinates with the non-GMO crop of the neighbouring farm and now the neighbouring farmer has a crop dependent on the corporate exclusively owned pesticides etc.

Monsanto has framed the debate on the cloudy issue of whether the GMO food is risky to eat when the replacement of natural crops with patented crops licensed and owned by Monsanto is the more insidious risk.

GMO-free sugar is better than GMO sugar for reasons that have nothing to do with the red-herring debate about the relative health and safety of the two sugar products and everything to do with farmers' access to non-GMO contaminated crops grown naturally and without the aid of pesticides and herbicides developed and marketed to go along with the GMO crop.

[HuckleB]

88. Read the links in post 16 and get back to us.

You really should fact check the rest of the anti-GMO cliches you offered up, as well.

[Vote2016]

106. Unless you're being paid to promote GMOs on the internet, I doubt you have read as much research on

GMOs as I have.

Put aside your puff pieces and try reading some research:

Liability for Damage Caused by GMOs: An Economic Perspective

Genetically Modified Organisms: Who Should Pay the Price for Pollen Drift Contamination?

Seeds of Dispute: Intellectual-Property Rights and Agricultural Biodiversity

Remembering the “Big Five”: Hawaii's Constitutional Obligation to Regulate the Genetic Engineering Industry

 

[HuckleB]

108. You are ignoring science, and your "research" is just industry propaganda.

You have been conned by a scam of the worst kind. Pushing the shill gambit doesn't change that. You are now working to harm the planet and its people. You can change, but you have to actually look at the actual science.

You clearly don't know the first thing about the topic. I asked you to fact check your claims, and you just offered crap links parroting those claims. That only confesses your ignorance of the topic. Whoops.

[Major Nikon]

114. It actually looks more like a google search

A kinda funny one too, because all those legal strategies kinda failed the test back in 2012. Remember a few years back when the anti-GMO crow was full of glee about the organic industry suing Monsanto over crop contamination where they couldn't produce a single case? Predictably a judge threw their case out and the SCOTUS told them to go pound sand. You don't hear about that one so much anymore, but it's well worth repeating.

[HuckleB]

126. Oh, I'm sure of that.

"Let me find some pieces that agree with my preconceptions." Ugh.

[Major Nikon]

111. Here's some even more interesting research

A few years back the anti-GMO crowd was all excited about a group of organic farmers and trade groups that were suing Monsanto because GMO might contaminate their crops. The problem was they couldn't cite a single instance where this had actually happened and predictably a judge threw their entire case out.

http://www.osgata.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-MTD-Decision.pdf

Kinda looks like the legal strategies you provided fell flat on it's face and not surprisingly you don't hear much about them anymore.

[Act_of_Reparation]

113. Is that because you're being paid to hawk organics on the interwebs?

Funny how that door can swing both ways, especially when your side of the debate is just as interested in profit as the other.

[Major Nikon]

117. It gets even funnier

If this self-described expert really did as much research as claimed it would have produced the following results:

Number of times the biotech industry has sued a farmer for inadvertent crop contamination: 0
Number of times the organic industry has unsuccessfully sued the biotech industry for crop contamination: 1

[Act_of_Reparation]

129. And funnier still

Much of the organic, non-gmo yuppie feed is produced by the very same big businesses. Kellog, Cargill, Nestle, Miller-Coors, General Mills, ConAgra... they all own "organic" assets worth well into the hundreds of millions.

So, I guess the argument is "buy from big business so you don't buy from the same big business"?

[Major Nikon]

100. Plant patent laws have been around for almost 100 years

Hybridized patented seeds are non-reusable by design (unlike GMO) and were a significant segment of the market long before GMO ever came around. For instance hybridized and patented corn made up about 90% of the market before GMO. So whatever "insidious risk" you think exists was around well before Monsanto.

Speaking of red herrings, crop cross pollination has been going on for thousands of years. So kinda interesting how you'd want to frame the debate that way, and yes, health and safety concerns are most definitely a red herring, but that nonsense is most definitely being promoted on a daily basis by people who parrot out junk science like widely discredited Seralini rat studies. So you might want to save the finger wagging for them.

[Vote2016]

107. If you are really interested in this topic, here is some real research on GMOs and intellectual

property rights:

Liability for Damage Caused by GMOs: An Economic Perspective

Genetically Modified Organisms: Who Should Pay the Price for Pollen Drift Contamination?

Seeds of Dispute: Intellectual-Property Rights and Agricultural Biodiversity

Remembering the “Big Five”: Hawaii's Constitutional Obligation to Regulate the Genetic Engineering Industry

 

[Major Nikon]

109. And what am I supposed to derive from any of this?

Have you read them yourself? Somehow I get the feeling your reading list is a product of a google search.

[yellowcanine]

110. "Then the GMO cross pollinates ... and now the neighbouring farmer has a crop dependent..."

Poppycock. This statement as written is flat out false.

First of all, with the largest GMO crop, soybeans - there is almost no cross pollination at all because soybeans are self pollinating.
With corn there can be cross pollination, but where GMO corn is planted the majority of corn is hybrid corn so no one is saving seed anyway.

Second, even if such cross pollination did occur and the neighboring farmer were saving seed for replanting, it would not make him dependent on anything even if a significant part of his crop got contaminated with GMO pollen, which is in itself unlikely. Planting Roundup Ready corn does not mean the farmer HAS to use Roundup. It just means he can and of course that is the reason he bought the Roundup Ready corn seed in the first place.

[Major Nikon]

116. It's just repetition of anti-GMO talking points which have been debunked a million times

That shit gets weaker every time they throw it against the wall.

Eventually it will go by the wayside just like the 9/11 truthers' shit, the anti-vaxxers shit, the 'power lines causes cancer' shit, and all the other garbage perpetuated by the anti-science crowd, which are the same people more often than not. Albeit slowly the public eventually catches on that bullshitters gotta bullshit.

[yellowcanine]

118. "Power lines cause cancer" would have more of a potential scientific basis though.

One could speculate about electromagnetic fields and what not.

Whereas with anti GMO it is hard to see any scientific starting point.

[Major Nikon]

122. Que the Monsatan skull and crossbones then