Monsanto Says Rogue Wheat in Oregon May Be Sabotage

Grieves

Senior Member
There is NO law preventing companies from labeling their products. They are FREE to it, if they choose.
Actually, you can't label a product as 'certified organic' without actually getting organic certification, there are laws against that. There are also a fair number of laws obliging food producers to label the contents of their products.
I do not want to pay extra out my limited food budget for expensive testing.
and why in the world would you have too?

Look at Kosher and Halal foods, they tend to be more expensive, because of the need to separate things.
and because they appeal to a cultural niche. If you were in Saudi-Arabia, bacon would probably be more expensive too
. To label something as GMO free would require the processor to test EVERY order of say corn. The testing on that scale would COST money, and the consumer would be forced to pay it, because a few folks deny hundreds or peer reviewed tests.
Whaaaaaaaaat....? That makes no sense. A team of scientists doesn't closely examine every bar of Hershey's chocolate that comes off the line with a 'peanut free' label. They just keep track of where they get their raw produce from, and make sure there's no interaction with nuts along the assembly line. That's it. All it would take to label GM food is for the food processor to know where they're buying their produce from, and what sort of produce they're growing. That doesn't take complex and expensive scientific tests that would crush your day-to-day food costs..... it takes receipts. That's not hard/complicated.

NO ONE has ever gotten sick from a GMO food, plenty of folks have gotten sick from regular crops and from organic crops.
lol. No one has ever gotten sick from a GMO food? What, are GMO's engineered to naturally exude antiseptics/antibiotics? How would you even begin to try and prove something like that? Of course people have gotten sick off of GMO's, just like they have off of other foods. There's just no strong evidence to suggest them being GMO was to blame.
I know when I see an 'all meat frank' that it will contain a mix of meats. I check to see what kinds, if one is chicken, I leave in the case. Chicken makes the texture and taste wrong to me. Heck, my Irish Setter loved hot dogs, as long as they weren't the chicken ones. She refused them out right.
So you have a clear purchase preference which a label disclosing the product contents allows you to maintain. If that label didn't list the meats involved, you'd have no way of knowing which dogs contained chicken and which didn't, and would be incapable of making an informed choice. You'd have to buy the product, open it up, and find yourself and your pooch both disappointed with the results, and that would suck for yourself and your pooch, no? Why is your choice to not eat a certain kind of mixed-meat dog any more or less valid than another person's choice not to eat GMO's? Because your choice is based on taste-preference?
 

lotek

Active Member
let ppl put a meaningless "no-gmo" sticker on their product, at their expense, as a sort of advertising hook. if they want it, they can pay for it and charge more, just like the meaningless organic labeling system we already have. teach people how to find a UPC, type it into a phone/computer, and have a .gov MySQL database webstie which disseminates all stored info on all UPC? the data is already there and tied to the codes, it just need to be linked to a public front end... fund the program via kickstarter so no one group foots the bill. it it doesnt meet the funding goal, the public obviously doesnt give enough of a fuck about it, and forget about it. only legal change needed is to require ALL products show a UPC on the product or shelf, which isnt hard at all since ALL products have one, it is only the store which breaks the chain between the back of the house/stock, the floor, and the register.

"this book contains information on evolution, the state of tenn..........."

until any rational data is produced, this is just egotistical social masturbation...

Greives, you clearly have no idea of commodity providence and prevalence of gmo products and inability to track commodity products. its alot different than allergen control, in fact in no way can you compare the two..

to label all gm products in a store would leave maybe 5% unlabeled. Bottled water, charcoal, stuff like that. Even in the bullshit, bad science "testing" done on pigs/rats that failed to use isolines, resulted in their non-gmo test groups being fed 5-10% gm food... you, and the rest of the world, need to read into this a bit more before you get your panties on so tight.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Greives, you clearly have no idea of commodity providence and prevalence of gmo products and inability to track commodity products. its alot different than allergen control, in fact in no way can you compare the two.
Modern crops are branded. Processors know which brand of produce they're buying. Tracking that isn't some logistical impossibility.
label all gm products in a store would leave maybe 5% unlabeled.
That's a totally junk figure if I ever saw one.
Bottled water, charcoal, stuff like that.
And all bread, many cereals, many vegetables, many fruits, a great deal of the canned/jarred/preserved produce, all of the wild-caught fish, any free-range meats, most dairy products, ect.ect.ect.

you, and the rest of the world, need to read into this a bit more before you get your panties on so tight.
I'm arguing the status quo for once here. If your stuff has stuff in it, label that stuff as the stuff it is. Not that complicated, not that difficult, not that controversial, not that significant. You're the one arguing against a very straightforward idea with the notion corporate profits need rescuing from the 'retarded' masses and their freedom to choose.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
HFCS, Soy Lecithin, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil... need I go on?

Think about it Grieves.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Whole Foods says:

AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- On Sunday, Oct. 10, Whole Foods Market and retailers across the country will celebrate Non-GMO Day to raise consumer awareness about the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply. Driven by the nonprofit Non-GMO Project, this Sunday's events are designed to send a wakeup call to consumers across the country.

"Most Americans aren't familiar with GMOs or aware of the extent of their use in food," explains Joe Dickson, Whole Foods Market's food, organic and environmental quality standards coordinator. "We invite our communities to stop by our stores and learn more about this issue. Together as consumers and retailers, we can make a difference and preserve our access to food produced without the intentional use of GMOs."

Little-known facts about GMOs:

GMOs are now present in 75 to 80 percent of conventional processed food in the U.S., according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

58 percent of Americans are unfamiliar with the issue of GMOs in food, according to a 2006 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology study.

"Non-GMO" is the fastest-growing health and wellness claim on store-brand food labels, up 67 percent in 2009, according to Nielsen Co.

80 percent of Whole Foods Market shoppers surveyed said they would seek out non-GMO products with clear labeling, and would be willing to pay more for these products.

The FDA does not require food with GMOs to be labeled as such, so avoiding them is hard to do.

GMOs are banned or significantly restricted in 30 other countries around the world, including Australia, Japan and all of the nations in the European Union.

Unfortunately, due to cross-contamination and pollen drift, very few products in the U.S. are completely free of GMOs. The Non-GMO Project standard is a process-based standard that avoids the intentional use of GMO ingredients by providing suppliers with procedures and best practices for minimizing the presence of GMO ingredients.
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems like there would be different issues for processed vs. non processed foods. Since most processed foods have some GMOs in them, then it would be simplest to just label them if they are certified GMO free (which is still likely going to be <1%, not 0%)

But with non-processed, then the division is maybe more clear cut - it's either a GMO apple, or not.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
A mill would have to make sure that GM crops and non GM crops were stored, milled and shipped separately. They would have to test EVERY shipment of corn or soy to make sure that is what the farmer says it is. This is an additional COST which will be passed on to folks like me, that has a limited budget and that doesn't see a need for it.

I have mentioned surgical steel earwires before. Surgical steel should be nickle free. Most surgical steel earwires come from China. A maker there orders stainless steel wire from a manufacturer. They do not check every roll of wire to make sure that every one of them is surgical steel. Say he orders 1,000 spools, the manufacturer was low on stock so they send him 765 spools of surgical steel, and 335 spools of reg steel. They LOOK the same. They don't tell the company making the wires. The wires are made and shipped to a jewelry supplier in the US. Since they order in bulk, they ordered say 20,000 ear wires. Now the good wires and the bad ones get mixed. I order 100 earwires from the supplier and I get a package with 72 of the good ones, and 28 of the bad ones. If none of those bad ones happened to be sold to a lady that is allergic to nickle or if the purchaser never tells me, then I continue ordering from that supplier, thinking I am getting surgical steel.

If the wire maker is not honest, or the Chinese manufacturer not honest, or if the US supplier is not honest or if NONE of those folks are careful, I can end up selling bad earwires.

I can order ones that meet EU standards, and I understand that the EU does frequent testing to make sure that they are surgical steel. Instead of paying $5.00 a gross for them I have to pay $10.43 a gross. OVER twice the price and that is from the SAME supplier!

Now I am willing to pay the difference, but I am not selling any earrings priced under $10, but many folks making earrings priced under that can't, they take a chance on the cheaper wires. (I know the cost looks small, but if you have several hundred pairs of earrings in stock, it makes a difference)

The same thing would be true if we required the labeling of ALL food. I believe that many organic products are processed in devoted to ONLY organic or in machinery devoted to it. The extra cost of organic pays for this.

I believe that someone pointed out the poor testing of organic products to assure that they ARE organic. We don't do enough testing to catch contamination, here or in the EU. More testing, more devoted machinery = higher cost. If the higher cost is worth it, because there is problem, then it makes sense. WITHOUT some reason, adding costs to everyone is just foolish and hurtful.
 

edgeben

New Member
So if I buy my seeds and they happened to have some monsanto seeds mixed in and i dont know about it ? Fear mongering ? What does a monsanto seed look like ? Does it say on every seed the patent number ? RT was just on the top I usually don't like to use them as a source .

Unless you spray your plants from those seeds with Roundup, you and nobody else is ever likely to know. Spraying with Roundup shows intent to benefit from the trait. And the ruling in the organic growers lawsuit holds Monsanto to the 1% level. As long as the contamination is less than 1% the judge said he would hold Monsanto to its word that they would not sue for incidental amounts.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
HFCS, Soy Lecithin, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil... need I go on?

Think about it Grieves.
Yep. Have thought about it. That stuff is present in a lot of products. Not '95% of what's available' by any stretch of the imagination.

GMOs are now present in 75 to 80 percent of conventional processed food in the U.S., according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
That's more reasonable a figure, and notice the key term: processed food.
But with non-processed, then the division is maybe more clear cut - it's either a GMO apple, or not.
precisely. Fresh meats, fruits, vegetables, and even most breads aren't likely going to contain GMO's, they'll either be GMO or they won't. Fresh meats, fruits, vegetables and even most breads take up the largest sections of most grocery stores, and are considered generally preferable to processed foods both where health and quality is concerned. There's plenty of non-gmo products out there, and absolutely no reason not to point out which is which. If we make companies tell us something as completely redundant and asinine as how much fat is in bottled water, what's the big deal about pointing out what's GMO and what isn't? Why shouldn't people have the right to know?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yep. Have thought about it. That stuff is present in a lot of products. Not '95% of what's available' by any stretch of the imagination.


That's more reasonable a figure, and notice the key term: processed food.
precisely. Fresh meats, fruits, vegetables, and even most breads aren't likely going to contain GMO's, they'll either be GMO or they won't. Fresh meats, fruits, vegetables and even most breads take up the largest sections of most grocery stores, and are considered generally preferable to processed foods both where health and quality is concerned. There's plenty of non-gmo products out there, and absolutely no reason not to point out which is which. If we make companies tell us something as completely redundant and asinine as how much fat is in bottled water, what's the big deal about pointing out what's GMO and what isn't? Why shouldn't people have the right to know?

Presenting it as a "right" is a bit of a spin, don't you think?

What about use of pesticides, don't people have a "right" to know that? What about use of manure? Detergents used when washing? Time to market?

Why not just have a voluntary "Non-GMO" labeling, like with organic produce?
 

pseacraft

Active Member
[/FONT][/COLOR]Modern crops are branded. Processors know which brand of produce they're buying. Tracking that isn't some logistical impossibility.

You are quiet wrong here Grieves. The commodities market, such as Chicago Board of Trade [CBOT] the oldest and largest commodities market, does not break down the grain crops by what type of hybrid, native, GMO, etc is in the bin. Corn is Corn, Soybean is Soybean, etc...one price for all. Same for livestock commodities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/futures/agriculture/

Grain commodities are not tracked in that manner and the processors who know what they are buying are in the agribusiness of 'Truck Farming' which is non-commodity crops like lettuce, tomato, broccoli, etc. Unless a buyer tests it there is no fore knowledge and I very much doubt that type of testing is done for the grain crops at any end processor. The mills only test for mold, moisture content and pests which is detrimental - I know my rice isn't tested beyond that.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I very much doubt that type of testing is done for the grain crops at any end processor. The mills only test for mold, moisture content and pests which is detrimental - I know my rice isn't tested beyond that.

Importers certainly test grain shipments for GMO...at least they did in this most recent case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/global/japan-and-south-korea-bar-us-wheat-imports.html

Japan and South Korea suspended some imports of American wheat, and the European Union urged its 27 nations to increase testing, after the United States government disclosed this week that a strain of genetically engineered wheat that was never approved for sale was found growing in an Oregon field.

Although none of the wheat, developed by Monsanto Company, was found in any grain shipments — and the Department of Agriculture said there would be no health risk if any was shipped — governments in Asia and Europe acted quickly to limit their risk.

South Korea, which last year purchased roughly half of its total wheat imports of five million tons from the United States, said Friday it would suspend purchases until tests were performed on arriving shipments. Results of the tests, by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, were expected in the first week of June, according to local media.
Content from External Source
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Yep. Have thought about it. That stuff is present in a lot of products. Not '95% of what's available' by any stretch of the imagination.

That's more reasonable a figure, and notice the key term: processed food.

precisely. Fresh meats, fruits, vegetables, and even most breads aren't likely going to contain GMO's, they'll either be GMO or they won't. Fresh meats, fruits, vegetables and even most breads take up the largest sections of most grocery stores, and are considered generally preferable to processed foods both where health and quality is concerned. There's plenty of non-gmo products out there, and absolutely no reason not to point out which is which. If we make companies tell us something as completely redundant and asinine as how much fat is in bottled water, what's the big deal about pointing out what's GMO and what isn't? Why shouldn't people have the right to know?

If you consider any animal fed GMO grains as containing GMO's then nearly all non-organic meat, dairy and egg products "contain" GMO's. Nearly all breads and other baked goods contain soy lecithin and/or oil from GMO crops, even those made in the store's bakery. Pretty much the only foods that are majority non-GMO are fresh fruits and vegetables. I think lotek is way closer to being right than you realize. And what percentage of fresh fruits and veggies do you think the "typical" US family consumes anyways?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...kly-shopping-reveal-cost-ranges-3-20-320.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grieves

Senior Member
Presenting it as a "right" is a bit of a spin, don't you think?
my words were
Why shouldn't people have the right to know?
as in why shouldn't it be a right. I'm not talking on some intrinsic entitlement of humanity to have their food labeled, I'm just saying it's something we do because we feel as a society people have certain rights so far as knowing what they're eating is concerned. Given how broadly we've decided to extend these rights, and how extensive our employment of them really is (Seriously, why the in the ever-loving-fuck do I need to be told my water has no fat in it...?) I don't see the harm or problem in a label distinguishing gmo/non-gmo products.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
. I think lotek is way closer to being right than you realize.
Only he's not, obviously, as pointed out by the figures mick presented.
And what percentage of fresh fruits and veggies do you think the "typical" US family consumes anyways?
Far too few, as supposedly rampant obesity in the country would suggest. I can imagine a skeletal old British lady surveying the spread in that picture, calling the family disgusting and demanding to examine their shits. (anyone remember that show? Good lord that was messed up stuff...) Those grapes look terribly lonely.

Nearly all breads and other baked goods contain soy lecithin and/or oil from GMO crops, even those made in the store's bakery.
Cool. So on the list of ingredients, when 'canola oil' or 'soy lecithin' is featured, put (GMO) beside it. "OMG, so difficult and misleading, what terrors would await the GMO industry with a minor addition to tiny print on packaging...!"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
(Seriously, why the in the ever-loving-fuck do I need to be told my water has no fat in it...?)

You don't, unless it claims to be anything other than just water.

Labeling requirements are science based, not public opinion based.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
You don't, unless it claims to be anything other than just water.
bottled_water_label.jpg
The standard bottled water label, as required.
Labeling requirements are science based, not public opinion based.
And how are GMO's excluded from consideration in that regard?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
bottled_water_label.jpg
The standard bottled water label, as required.
Only required (in the US) if it's not just water (or mineral water, or pure spring water). Like vitamin water.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceReg...ryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064904.htm
L122. When labeling mineral water, is nutrition labeling required if the label does not reference any specific minerals?
Answer:
Under FDA labeling regulations the term Mineral Water is a statement of identity and does not trigger mandatory nutrition labeling if there is no nutrient content claims about a particular mineral and if all required nutrients are present at insignificant levels.
Content from External Source
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...iv8&view=text&node=21:2.0.1.1.2.1.1.6&idno=21

Title 21: Food and Drugs
PART 101—FOOD LABELING
[h=2]§ 101.9 Nutrition labeling of food.[/h](a) Nutrition information relating to food shall be provided for all products intended for human consumption and offered for sale unless an exemption is provided for the product in paragraph (j) of this section.
...

(j) The following foods are exempt from this section or are subject to special labeling requirements:
...
(4) Foods that contain insignificant amounts of all of the nutrients and food components required to be included in the declaration of nutrition information under paragraph (c) of this section, Provided, That the food bears no nutrition claims or other nutrition information in any context on the label or in labeling or advertising. Claims or other nutrition information subject the food to the provisions of this section. An insignificant amount of a nutrient or food component shall be that amount that allows a declaration of zero in nutrition labeling, except that for total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, and protein, it shall be an amount that allows a declaration of “less than 1 gram.” Examples of foods that are exempt under this paragraph include coffee beans (whole or ground), tea leaves, plain unsweetened instant coffee and tea, condiment-type dehydrated vegetables, flavor extracts, and food colors.

Content from External Source
And how are GMO's excluded from consideration in that regard?
They are not. Science say's there's no functional difference, so no need to label.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Science say's there's no functional difference, so no need to label.
There's an incredibly obvious difference, that being the genetic modifications allowing the plant to survive roundup, which required the insertion of bacterial genes into those plants. Plants and bacteria don't do the nasty in nature as I understand it, and the artificial 'offspring' of a plant and a bacteria isn't the same as a regular plant, clearly. It thus makes perfect sense to point out that the produce used to create a processed food product is GM, as the genetically modified organism is not the same organism as the that which hasn't been genetically modified. If anything, it would be misleading to have GMO corn and regular corn labeled as the same thing, as not only is GMO corn not the same plant at the discreet genetic level, but the very patent policy of GMO's clearly distinguishes the GMO as a unique and separate organism. So what we're saying here is they get to have it both ways. At the seed-scale, GMO corn isn't just corn, it's a new and unique organism to which laws apply that are quite different from more traditional corn varieties. It's different, and thus requires special treatment. At the processing scale though, suddenly corn's just corn, and it's silly/wasteful to consider labeling GMO corn as being different, appealing to emotion rather than science. So when does GMO corn stop being a unique species and become a generic variety worth no distinction/indication? The very moment, it seems, that distinction stops being financially beneficial to producers.
 

pseacraft

Active Member
You are correct about importers, particularly those who have regulations for all agricultural imports which most countries do. But it is not done in the domestic market where it is produced and the significant percentage is consumed.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Well, I don't want to PAY more because some folks refuse to accept science. Those that want non GM products should be able to buy them, just like those that want organic, or kosher.

Kosher and halal products are more expensive, not because of a 'niche market', but because they must be processed separately from other products. The same is true of organic and is also true for non GM foods.

I am interested in something. I am wondering about the price of food in the US as compared to the EU and other countries. It would be interesting to come up with a list of common items and compare prices. It would most likely need it's own thread. I am curious if the GM restrictions in the EU effect price or what other things would effect price.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Well, I don't want to PAY more because some folks refuse to accept science. Those that want non GM products should be able to buy them, just like those that want organic, or kosher.

Kosher and halal products are more expensive, not because of a 'niche market', but because they must be processed separately from other products. The same is true of organic and is also true for non GM foods.

I am interested in something. I am wondering about the price of food in the US as compared to the EU and other countries. It would be interesting to come up with a list of common items and compare prices. It would most likely need it's own thread. I am curious if the GM restrictions in the EU effect price or what other things would effect price.

I am happy to help if you draw up a list for products. On the subject of halal meat in the area I live it is the cheapest option as are many of the fresh fruit and vegetables. The Asian/Pakistani shops tend to sell in larger quantities and at far cheaper prices than UK sourced food. However this is often at the expense of quality and freshness. I often buy a 10lb box of tomatoes for around £4 to either dry or make into chutney but from that I will lose a pound or two from poor quality and damaged. Virtually all of the takeaways and pizza deliveries are halal. No real problem with that in principle but you try to get a pizza with ham or anchovies on and you have a problem. You end up having to go to the main franchised ones like Pizza Hut or Dominoes and paying 3 times the price what the kebab/pizza shop a couple of hundred yards away charges.

As to the price of food in general there has been quite a dramatic rise in UK food prices due to increased supply and transport costs etc. I think that has gone in line with inflation and our recessions. If we had GM grown or made openly available I cant see there been much difference. At the end of the day the farmers mainly supply the supermarkets or secondary food processors and I cant see any cost saving been passed onto the consumer. Either way it is academic. When GM labelling came into force it meant that virtually everything had to be labelled and the supermarkets simply made the decision not to stock the items. There has been a change in legislation over the past couple of years which have lead to meat that has been fed on GM not requiring labelling and some other items like milk and eggs as well. There is a list here.

http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gm_labelling#.UcDZ4Z1wbIU

It is causing a little controversy and there is no real harmonisation of labels across the EU and there are calls for the UK to adopt a GM Free label, so in essence a product will just have a label saying there is no GM. Just on the note of GM meat. Only one supermarket insists that its animals are not fed on GM crops (Waitrose) and that supermarket does tend to be at the upper end of the price scale. None of that really affects me as I buy locally sourced meat produce and most of that tends to be organic or pasture fed.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Well, I don't want to PAY more because some folks refuse to accept science. Those that want non GM products should be able to buy them, just like those that want organic, or kosher.

Kosher and halal products are more expensive, not because of a 'niche market', but because they must be processed separately from other products. The same is true of organic and is also true for non GM foods.

I am interested in something. I am wondering about the price of food in the US as compared to the EU and other countries. It would be interesting to come up with a list of common items and compare prices. It would most likely need it's own thread. I am curious if the GM restrictions in the EU effect price or what other things would effect price.

Have you heard about the book Hungry Planet?

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4943.Hungry_Planet

In HUNGRY PLANET, the creative team behind the best-selling Material World, Women in the Material World, and MAN EATING BUGS presents a photographic study of families from around the world, revealing what people eat during the course of one week. Each family's profile includes a detailed description.
Content from External Source
Here's a comparison of 16 common food items:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/food-price-comparison-around-the-world/
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Some of the reduced prices may be, because there are less middlemen between the producer and the store. I find better produce and meat prices in many of the Hispanic stores--on produce that is seasonal, that is. They still cut meat in store, so they may be buying direct from a slaughterhouse instead of from a cutter. One Hispanic market will often have goat or pig carcasses available (smaller pigs). That one also fries their own cracklins (cracklins are fried pork skin often with some fat still on it--tasty---I like to put them in hot corn bread).
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The labeling discussion reminds me of Hyacinth on "Keeping up Appearances" when she calls the dairy and asks if her milk can come from a certain 'picturesque herd of cows'.

Since GM products are safe, wanting them labeled because you think otherwise makes as much sense as her request to the dairy.

The REAL purpose of labeling them is to force them off the market.

[...]

The American public is not well educated in science. They will see a warning label and decide that it is THERE because the food is dangerous. I can find examples of that in another convo I have been in recently. The poster pointed out that the EU required 'WARNING labels" on GM food.

The common reasoning is "if a label is required, then that there is a reason that it is WARNING me. The food must not be as safe."
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I really wonder.

Grieves, what do you really expect American consumers will do when they find out that new labels come out showing that they have been eating GM foods for many years. Do you really think they will stop eating their favorite Doritos or Oreos, will they reject a 1/4 pounder or something else they have come to rely on just because it has a new label?

Things might have been different if you came up with the idea before people had a chance to try GM products for themselves, to become used to them.

It seems to be rather more difficult to stop people from eating things they are accustomed to than to prevent them from eating something new and different, especially if here is a perception of danger. Telling them an old food they grew up with is dangerous might not be so easy as you think......

What if your proposal backfires, and more and more folks realize that they have been eating GM's for a decade or more to no ill effect?

What if the labeling scheme actually increased public acceptance of GM's? Surely the food industry will wage a massive advert campaign against such a rule, and I expect a very successful one, too. Mom and Doritos, Grandpa and Oreos, that sort of thing. Most people associate the foods they ate as children with home, family, safety. It is very very difficult to erase food preferences once established.

What if the consumers found that something they have always eaten now costs more simply to comply with new labeling laws?

What if they rebelled against this new imposition of cost with no discernable benefit?

Just sayin' this could be a blowback problem for you.....
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I really wonder.

Grieves, what do you really expect American consumers will do when they find out that new labels come out showing that they have been eating GM foods for many years. Do you really think they will stop eating their favorite Doritos or Oreos, will they reject a 1/4 pounder or something else they have come to rely on just because it has a new label?

Things might have been different if you came up with the idea before people had a chance to try GM products for themselves, to become used to them.

It seems to be rather more difficult to stop people from eating things they are accustomed to than to prevent them from eating something new and different, especially if here is a perception of danger. Telling them an old food they grew up with is dangerous might not be so easy as you think......

What if your proposal backfires, and more and more folks realize that they have been eating GM's for a decade or more to no ill effect?

What if the labeling scheme actually increased public acceptance of GM's? Surely the food industry will wage a massive advert campaign against such a rule, and I expect a very successful one, too. Mom and Doritos, Grandpa and Oreos, that sort of thing. Most people associate the foods they ate as children with home, family, safety. It is very very difficult to erase food preferences once established.
Whatever, man. If GMO labeling sells more GMO's because people decided GMO's were for them, then that's their choice and power too them. You seem caught up in the notion that I'm trying to 'stop people from eating GMO's'. That's not the case at all. Had some corn with my supper last night. Probably GMO. Pretty tasty. I'm just saying people should have the choice. Y'know, that foundational element of capitalism which keeps the whole system in check? That determines which products survive and which products don't through the decisions of informed consumers? I love the switching back and forth though, really rather telling. "GMO's aren't pressuring the food industry at all! Farmers and consumers have a choice between GMO's and more traditional options! If they didn't want them, they wouldn't buy them! If they buy them, it means they've chosen them! Let the market decide, and let farmers select the product they think is better! Whut...? Labeling...? Oh... well.. labeling's silly! Why should anyone need a choice between GMO's and more traditional options? Such a choice would just confuse the ignorant consumers, and incur pointless labeling costs distinguishing identical products...! There's no difference between GMO's and more traditional options after all...!"
It's a real treat.
What if the consumers found that something they have always eaten now costs more simply to comply with new labeling laws?
Right. Because food prices haven't already been skyrocketing for the past few decades. The pennies spent on a few extra letters per ingredient label is surely what's going to drive the consumer to rebel. :rolleyes:
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There is NO difference, there is NO reason to label. It makes as much sense to require companies to label what varieties of corn was used in their product. In fact that is EXACTLY what you are wanting.

You are free to go to a store like Whole Foods and buy non GM food, if you wish. Just like you can buy organic there. If MORE folks want them, then they will show up in Kroger and can you imagine, even Wal Mart.

Let the market decide, not those that want to destroy Monsanto and the advances of science.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
There is NO difference, there is NO reason to label.
Oh, really? No difference at all? None whatsoever?
It makes as much sense to require companies to label what varieties of corn was used in their product. In fact that is EXACTLY what you are wanting.
You don't say! So there's nothing remotely special about GMO corn/soy compared to non-gmo corn/soy, and it doesn't deserve any special treatment? That's interesting! Because I could have sworn you'd said, in another discussion on this topic,
They altered the corn or soybeans, the same way I take a strand of beads and some wire and make a piece of jewelry from it.
So a GMO goes from being a beautiful new design using traditional plants like mere raw materials... to the exact same plant, NO difference at all, NO reason to treat it differently from non-gmo varieties, its all the exact same stuff! What a miraculous(ly profitable) transformation.
 

anonname

New Member
Grieves what is happening with a lot of GMO plants is that their being made resistant to pesticides which means farmers can cover their crop in poison with no loss of profit sadly humans do not have the same resistance to toxic pesticides.
Theirs also a study that had 10 groups of rats. Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely (before deaths could be put down to normal aging) compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group.
Across all treatments and both sexes, researchers found treated rats developed 2-3 times more large cancers than the control group.By the beginning of the 24th month 50%-80% of females in all treated groups had developed cancers, with up to three tumors per animal. Only 30% of the controls were affected. The first large detectable cancers appeared after four and seven months in males and females respectively but only after 14 months in the control group. However, the majority of cancers were only detectable after 18 months.
Obviously not conclusive evidence but I would stay away from GMO.

Although you can not taste the difference it is their on the biological level they are a new thing if they where not Monsanto would not try to patent them.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Grieves what is happening with a lot of GMO plants is that their being made resistant to pesticides which means farmers can cover their crop in poison with no loss of profit sadly humans do not have the same resistance to toxic pesticides.
Theirs also a study that had 10 groups of rats. Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely (before deaths could be put down to normal aging) compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group.
Across all treatments and both sexes, researchers found treated rats developed 2-3 times more large cancers than the control group.By the beginning of the 24th month 50%-80% of females in all treated groups had developed cancers, with up to three tumors per animal. Only 30% of the controls were affected. The first large detectable cancers appeared after four and seven months in males and females respectively but only after 14 months in the control group. However, the majority of cancers were only detectable after 18 months.
Obviously not conclusive evidence but I would stay away from GMO.

Although you can not taste the difference it is their on the biological level they are a new thing if they where not Monsanto would not try to patent them.
First of all there are no pesticide resistant GM crops. There are however herbicide resistant crops and crops that produce their own pesticides. The herbicide (glyphosate) resistant crops. The use of glyphosate is not limited to GM crops though and is used widely in all conventional farming. The fight against glyphosate shouldn't be just anti-GM. Organic farmers spray the same pesticide (Bt) that GM crops produce themselves. Bt has been shown to be safe for mammalians because humans lack the alkaline environment needed to turn the cry into a active toxin. Mammals also lack the proper receptors in their digestive track to absorb the active toxin even if we did eat it.

The Saralini rat study is junk science and has been discussed here multiple times. I'm still waiting but not holding my breath that Saralini will release the full results of the study so someone can try and duplicate it. You should sign the petition to get him to release his data.
http://www.science20.com/news_artic...lleseric_seralini_release_gmo_test_data-95574
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dr-seralini-please-release-data/signatures
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymi...-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Dan Wilson The Monsanto and Dewayne Johnson Court Case Health and Quackery 13
Dan Wilson Zika Virus, Pyriproxyfen, and Monsanto: What's Causing Brazil's Microcephaly Outbreak? Conspiracy Theories 12
Critical Thinker Debunked: Monsanto wants to replace the bees they are killing with genetically engineered flying ant General Discussion 5
deirdre Debunked: Monsanto to replace honey bees with genetically engineered ants Health and Quackery 5
Dan Wilson Glyphosate (Active RoundUp Ingredient) Toxicity Health and Quackery 31
Critical Thinker More scare-mongering, now about GMOs in beer, from Organics.org Health and Quackery 10
Qualiall Claim: Mike Adams of Natural News behind Monsanto Collaborators website Health and Quackery 4
Dan Wilson PopSci article claiming to debunk ten GMO myths Health and Quackery 10
Critical Thinker Hoax: Madagascar Pranks March Against Monsanto Conspiracy Theories 12
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails (Infowars' GMO-Chemtrail Connection) Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Mathias Olsen Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government Conspiracy Theories 30
jvnk08 Monsanto acquires Climate Corporaton for $1.1 Billion Contrails and Chemtrails 13
BlueCollarCritic Conspiracy Theory Update - Theres No Monsanto Act General Discussion 34
Alchemist Who's bunk here? FOX News Reporters or Monsanto? Conspiracy Theories 12
Cairenn Monsanto buys Blackwater General Discussion 3
PCWilliams European Union -vs- Monsanto General Discussion 8
Critical Thinker Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign Conspiracy Theories 308
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto and USAF School of Aerospace Medicine chemtrail study 1977 Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Leifer Debunked: Monsanto canteens (cafeterias) serve non-GMO foods Conspiracy Theories 7
Rory Claim: Harriet Hall says that acupuncture isn't "ancient" and maybe doesn't come from China Health and Quackery 0
Rocky Upcoming UFO report will be 'difficult to explain,' former national intelligence official says UFOs and Aliens 6
Bunkmeister Cosmonaut Miroslaw Hermaczewski allegedly says earth is flat - [joke] Flat Earth 10
tadaaa Debunked: Trump says "Republicans dumbest voters" Quotes Debunked 2
deirdre Berenstain VHS says Berenstein General Discussion 37
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
Bruce Lansberg Main prosecuter Westerbeke says metal particles have been found in the victims bodies and luggage Flight MH17 10
Mick West Debunked: FBI Says No one killed at Sandy Hook [Included in CT State total] Sandy Hook 48
Tobes Debunked: Movie producer Nathan Folks claims bombing false flag, Voice of Russia says blood too red Boston Marathon Bombings 137
Alchemist Odigo Says Two Workers In Israel Received Message Predicting Some Attack Hrs Before 9/11 9/11 6
BlueCollarCritic Senator Says None of our [Constitutional] Rights are Absolute Conspiracy Theories 81
jvnk08 SSDI says Adam Lanza died a day before Sandy Hook massacre Sandy Hook 20
Danny55 Rosalind Peterson says no evidence of chemtrails (was: Did anyone listen to Roxy?) Contrails and Chemtrails 63
Steve Andrews JazzRoc says the chemtrail era will end Contrails and Chemtrails 19
JFDee BBC: "Too much weight to fringe views", says review Practical Debunking 4
Mick West What the Bible says about Debunking and Skepticism Practical Debunking 95
Mick West Debunked: Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon Quotes Debunked 52
E Netenyahu Says not to Obama's pre-1967 plan. General Discussion 0
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Related Articles







































Related Articles

Top