Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Label it and all problems will be solved. Claims of inflated food prices due to labeling are completely bogus.
Actually I think both of your statements are false. Setting aside for a moment the fact that it's already been decided in federal court that mandatory labeling would be illegal, on constitutional grounds, let's look at those claims...
Folks on both sides of the debate seem to agree that about 85% of the foods sold in the supermarket today contain at least some GMOs, because of the broad use of canola oil, corn oil, sugar, corn syrup, soybean oil, soy, corn meal, etc. from GMO crops. So let's just imagine that when you wake up tomorrow morning 85% of the food products in your supermarket have a colorful new rendition of the skull & crossbones on them proclaiming "CONTAINS GMOs!"
Now, what problems have been solved, really, other than that people who have bought into an unscientific witch hunt will be able to avoid the foods they fear? What about everybody else? And what new problems have been created as a result? I'll let you steep on that one.
Second, the increased cost due to mandatory labeling could be considerable, based on careful analysis of possible impacts by the New England states which have passed laws requiring such labels... but only to take effect if a number of other states pass similar laws. Why the delay if it's such a big deal? Well, because lawmakers realize it really isn't about food safety, it's about an emotional agenda which has become popular, despite an absence of scientific evidence, and there is concern about the cost that would ensue, inevitably raising food prices.
It's not about the cost of a sticker or a label change, which are inconsequential, but it's about all the record keeping that would be required as a result. You can't just mandate a label, you have to have rules and regulations and enforcement, and there have to be records, and there has to be follow up. A food product using five different GMO ingredients from five different food producers would have to maintain five different sets of records, and report on them as part of the process. Analysis of the proposed Connecticut law called out that if they were the only state to pass such a law that some companies would likely just stop selling their products in the state due to the increased costs, and others would raise prices. That's why they added the provision that other states would have to join them for the law to take effect, to hopefully minimize the impact on food costs.
Other facts not mentioned ... Monsanto's first product was the artificial sweetener, saccharine, and you don't need to be the most informed person on earth to know about the health effects of artificial sweeteners. Another of Monsanto's creations was DDT, now banned in most countries. Then we have the infamous "agent orange" for which Monsanto and Dow Chemical produced for the US military to be used in Viet Nam.
Wow, these boys at Monsanto have a great history f producing healthy stuff, don't they?
All of this is off topic, having nothing to do with GMOs. I'm no fan of Monsanto, and I think they are truly an evil corporation, but I'm clear that conflating GMOs with Monsanto is a way to avoid actually discussing GMOs. Thousands of GMO projects worldwide have nothing to do with Monsanto.
No, there actually is no convincing evidence that any of that is true. You can't prove a single thing you said. That's all simply anti-science rhetoric. And as more and more research concludes that GMOs are not harmful, and that in fact they hold promise to solve all kinds of agricultural and health issues, rational thought and credible scientific will triumph over the misinformation campaign your comment represents.
And laughably, I can tell from the comments that many of those opposing what this study reveals haven't even bothered to read the Forbes article about the study.
There's plenty of evidence that GMO's increase sterility, cancer of various sorts, and mortality rates in NUMEROUS studies that have been conducted. To say there's no "convincing" evidence that GMO's are harmful speaks towards your bias or lack of knowledge. Since the inception of GMO's food allergies, obesity, diabetes, impotence, infertility, and cancers have sky rocketed.
I feel that by the time the masses wise up and stop buying GMO products for their homes, stop visiting restaurants that use GMO's (Which is virtually all of them), and begin cooking and buying organic it will probably be too late for many people. People are way too trusting of our government especially given our governments track record. It's time people grow up and start taking control of their own health.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,481,750 times
Reputation: 6671
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
All of this is off topic, having nothing to do with GMOs. I'm no fan of Monsanto, and I think they are truly an evil corporation, but I'm clear that conflating GMOs with Monsanto is a way to avoid actually discussing GMOs. Thousands of GMO projects worldwide have nothing to do with Monsanto.
Then what's your "dog" in this fight? Regardless whether GMOs are "safe" or not, I can see the POV of the folks who are skeptical and might even be a bit "over-cautious" about what they consume.
But that doesn't explain why some others, like yourself for example, are such strident advocates? Is there some magical 'benefit' to GMOs that we're unaware of, or do you own stock in the company, or work in agri-biz? Or else maybe you're a paid "astroturfer", hired by 'public relations' to prowl forums like this one? So why do you care so much about this particular subject, let alone work so hard to try and turn other folks' opinions around (apparently unsuccessfully I might add)?
Actually I think both of your statements are false. Setting aside for a moment the fact that it's already been decided in federal court that mandatory labeling would be illegal, on constitutional grounds, let's look at those claims...
Folks on both sides of the debate seem to agree that about 85% of the foods sold in the supermarket today contain at least some GMOs, because of the broad use of canola oil, corn oil, sugar, corn syrup, soybean oil, soy, corn meal, etc. from GMO crops. So let's just imagine that when you wake up tomorrow morning 85% of the food products in your supermarket have a colorful new rendition of the skull & crossbones on them proclaiming "CONTAINS GMOs!"
Now, what problems have been solved, really, other than that people who have bought into an unscientific witch hunt will be able to avoid the foods they fear? What about everybody else? And what new problems have been created as a result? I'll let you steep on that one.
Second, the increased cost due to mandatory labeling could be considerable, based on careful analysis of possible impacts by the New England states which have passed laws requiring such labels... but only to take effect if a number of other states pass similar laws. Why the delay if it's such a big deal? Well, because lawmakers realize it really isn't about food safety, it's about an emotional agenda which has become popular, despite an absence of scientific evidence, and there is concern about the cost that would ensue, inevitably raising food prices.
It's not about the cost of a sticker or a label change, which are inconsequential, but it's about all the record keeping that would be required as a result. You can't just mandate a label, you have to have rules and regulations and enforcement, and there have to be records, and there has to be follow up. A food product using five different GMO ingredients from five different food producers would have to maintain five different sets of records, and report on them as part of the process. Analysis of the proposed Connecticut law called out that if they were the only state to pass such a law that some companies would likely just stop selling their products in the state due to the increased costs, and others would raise prices. That's why they added the provision that other states would have to join them for the law to take effect, to hopefully minimize the impact on food costs.
Umm so are you for or against labeling? I personally am against GMO's, but that's neither here nor there, and I don't think I should be able to decide for others whether or not they should consume GMO's. Though that's the liberty pro-GMO persons wish to take from me. There's a strain of GMO corn where the pesticides grow within the corn, I as a consumer have the right to determine for myself whether or not I want to put that into my body. People have the right to know what they're putting into their own body and that's not for anyone else to determine for them, and it's for this reason I am for labeling.
If companies started labeling the labor cost would be but a drop in the bucket, and as far as the regulating and record keeping, so what? They do it with calories, they do it with allergens, they do it with sodium, they do it with ingredients, they do it with sugar, they do it saturated and unsaturated fats... The main reasons so many companies are against labeling is because they would lose money. Generally speaking people don't want this Frankenstein food, non-GMO food has served humanity just fine for how many thousands of years? We don't need Monsanto scientists coming along and mucking with our food supply, they're not helping anyone or anything besides themselves.
Finally, overwhelming evidence to close down the anti-GMO activists' unproven and unscientific claims of risks from GMO food. It's time to put an end to the hysteria.
Researchers from University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science examined the health and productivity of 100 Billion farm animals over a 27 year period, encompassing a trillion feedings, both before and after GMO foods were introduced to their feedings... and look at what that massive project showed:
I always thought this whole thing was silly. Agricultural research has produced disease resistant crops that are also pest resistant, and they produce larger, better tasting produce, and more bushels per acre.
Funny. I thought liberals were "pro-science." I guess not.
There's plenty of evidence that GMO's increase sterility, cancer of various sorts, and mortality rates in NUMEROUS studies that have been conducted. To say there's no "convincing" evidence that GMO's are harmful speaks towards your bias or lack of knowledge.
Convincing, credible, believable... what word would you choose to refer to studies which can actually pass muster in the scientific community? Yes, there are lots of studies that claim all kinds of things in the alt.health field but most of them have not met the gold standards of credible scientific research, including rigorous peer review, analysis of statistical relevance, publication, replication of results by other researchers.
In the Seralini rat tumor fraud case I referred to earlier, which was cited to me as gospel by a true believer only two days ago, every single aspect of the project was derided by responsible scientists... the sample was too small to be significant, the rat breed chosen develops tumors spontaneously, experimental controls were missing, data was falsified... it was pretty much the poster child for Bad Science Projectof the Year, but because it was a hot topic, the startling announcement of its dramatic but fake conclusions just before the weekend went viral, while its speedy exposure as a fraud has not gotten the same coverage.
Quote:
Since the inception of GMO's food allergies, obesity, diabetes, impotence, infertility, and cancers have sky rocketed.
Again, and this is basic... correlation does not imply causation. Many, many other factors in the environment are being shown by credible research to be causative, whereas the case against GMOs remains extremely flimsy.
Did you even read the story? It says nothing about damage to the planet.
Quote:
I feel that by the time the masses wise up and stop buying GMO products for their homes, stop visiting restaurants that use GMO's (Which is virtually all of them), and begin cooking and buying organic it will probably be too late for many people. People are way too trusting of our government especially given our governments track record. It's time people grow up and start taking control of their own health.
Well, before you get too cozy with that thought, consider the fact that the Natural Foods industry, which has big, big expansion plans, and a lot to be gained by creating fear of "conventional foods," is providing a lot of cash to anti-GMO activism. In Hawai'i, for example, where activists are trying to kill the GMO seed business, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits and hundreds of local jobs at stake in a small population, it has been documented that most of the money for this campaign is coming from big money mainlanders in the Natural Foods business. It's naive to think all this opposition is actually "grass roots."
No there isnt...... GMO STUFF IS GARBAGE!! (No one should be exposed to it)
Fine. Don't eat. See if I care.
I love the beautiful, wonderful tasting and pest free crops (mmmmm the delicious sweet corn season just ended. Oh, my, it was good! We put some 'Bodacious' away in the freezer to enjoy in January, grown locally, of course).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
