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.
I'm assuming you can read. So read ... and maybe your concussion will clear.
that was extraordinarily weak. I really expected better of you.
unfortunately for you and other fans of 'natural news' and 'dr.' mercola, synthetic biology is here to stay. pretty soon genome-edited crop plants will be available that even the prone-to-hysteria Europeans won't be able to exclude
that was extraordinarily weak. I really expected better of you.
unfortunately for you and other fans of 'natural news' and 'dr.' mercola, synthetic biology is here to stay. pretty soon genome-edited crop plants will be available that even the prone-to-hysteria Europeans won't be able to exclude
you'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world at some point.
Nah, no need for that. Organic and sustainable farming is more popular now than ever before-not to mention that more and more people are getting into growing their own food. I will always try to avoid supporting companies like Monsanto and Dupont no matter how hard people like you wish to keep their products hidden.
So if GMO foods are so great, then you buy 'em and leave the rest of us the hell alone! Or don't you believe in the "Free Market"?!
who is failing to 'leave you alone'? did someone force you onto this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
Nah, no need for that. Organic and sustainable farming is more popular now than ever before-not to mention that more and more people are getting into growing their own food. I will always try to avoid supporting companies like Monsanto and Dupont no matter how hard people like you wish to keep their products hidden.
it matters not at all whether you think there's a 'need'. it's coming.
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...
No, let's not set that aside. Let's look closer at this so we can all understand what a fraud the entire thing is, and this coincides with the special treatment the big pharma-big chemical companies receive on many other levels from their bribe taking suits and black robed criminals in congress and on the court.
Perhaps YOU could explain to us why GMO labeling mandates would violate freedom of speech, but federal mandates requiring nutrition facts labels on most processed foods, or tobacco producers to attach dire health warning labels on it's products does not violate this constitutional protection? Let me help you .... it's the same reason why the pharma cartel has received the unprecedented luxury of product liability exemption for harm inflicted upon the citizenry via their witches brew of chemical-viral-neurotoxic poisons being injected into children and adults. No industry that I'm aware of has ever received such above the law protection. The pharma giants now even have their own little vaccine court which is entirely separate from our judicial system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
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.
No need for any fancy colorful graphics ... just plain old "this product contains Genetically modified organisms". And the main problem this would solve is that it would provide the consumer the knowledge of what is contained in the product they are purchasing and consuming. Given the epidemic levels of food allergies so many suffer today, it is critical for people who have allergies to certain substances like peanuts, soy, etc., to have this information. By that same basis, people who desire to avoid genetically modified substances have the right to choose .... however "irrational" you think they are for wanting to exercise their right to choose what goes into their bodies.
And we don't need to steep on what problems this might cause .. this freedom to choose ... we know what the main problem is, which is why the industry is fighting so strenuously against such labeling. The industry is afraid of massive losses in sales of their poison products, because contrary to your insinuations, the majority if people don't want to consume that crap. The truth is, this doesn't represent an irrational few, it represents the rational majority who actually do care about what they are feeding their families. Of course, there will always be the group who remain clueless, and consume anything ... as evidenced by the many who continue to consume products laced with aspartame, in spite of the well documented harmful health effects that poison produces.
Quote:
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.
Blah, blah, blah .... BS! The law could be easily written in such a way as to preclude any massive effort in record keeping. That's just a load of manure, and a lame excuse. The truth is, all that would be necessary would be to inform through labeling whether or not GMO products were contained in the product. Any significant cost increases would naturally fall on those claiming to be GMO free, as they would have to undertake the efforts to ensure GMO free ingredients, which are now more expensive, just as true organic products are more expensive.
The general public is naive. They still believe that if it is on the shelf, it's safe. They believe that the FDA is standing guard, and adequately policing the industry to keep harmful products off the shelf. This is, for the well informed, a complete myth. The well informed know full well that it is incumbent upon them to safeguard their health, and not abdicate that responsibility to an industry or consumer protection agency that has long ago proven untrustworthy.
This is the new paradigm the industry is deathly afraid of ... a consumer who is no longer willing to accept "trust us".
First, GMO technology hasn't come anywhere near its potential to deal with world hunger issues as it might have done if there wasn't so much hysteria around the subject.
But GMOs are not necessary for ending world hunger. Without GMOs, there's still more than enough food to feed everyone on Earth. The issue isn't with the amount of food being produced, it's who it's going to. Or really, who can afford it. Monsanto might say they're out to end world hunger, but that's a lie to anyone who is capable of legitimate thought. Like all other large food industries, their goal is profit. Even if they do legitimately care about world hunger, if they can't turn a great profit (one that is large enough to buy politicians and keep labeling from happening), world hunger will be pushed aside. Most GMO foods are sold in America, and country that was still one of the most well fed nations on the planet long before GMO technology was even thought up. These big GMO corporations do not care about world hunger. Small scale companies and scientific organizations might, and probably do, but we live in a corporate dominated world and they are the only ones with the power to end world hunger, but they won't because that's not profitable.
Quote:
Yes, there is a very strong and legitimate reason for them to oppose mandatory labeling, because the term has been so demonized in the public's mind that it considered equivalent to a Poison label and would hurt sales. Ironically, this is the very reason that mandatory GMO labelling would be struck down by the courts. It's exactly the same situation as the rBGH case from the mid-90s in Vermont. Had the rule been passed before the public had any opinion, it might have been able to stand, but all the activism to turn opinion against the product... without convincing evidence that it deserved a warning label which would predictably hurt sales... meant that term had become pejorative and damaging to the food producer.
Now with so much credible research showing that GMOs are safe and nutritious, it seems highly unlikely that there will be anything other than a repeat performance, as Monsanto has once again filed suit against the State of Vermont in the same court. Nothing is 100%, of course, but I know where I would place my money if I were betting on the outcome of that litigation.
So what if it hurts sales? The people have a right to know what's in their food. It doesn't matter if it's harmless. If something contains fricken peanuts, it's in bold in the ingredients section. That's all I'd need to be satisfied too. Contians GMO. That's all I'd ask for. It doesn't need to be some massive sticker is red letters screaming GMO! And if you want a good reason, that's it. People have a right to know what's in their food and I don't care if it hurts a companies sales. That's not my problem, and it's not the governments. They don't have to care about a corporations profits. That's for the shareholders to worry about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
And worse yet, none of the anti-GMO activists seems to appreciate that the the Natural Food industry is behind a lot of it. They want to scare people out of regular supermarkets and into their supermarkets.
Unreasonable argument. Former Monsanto VP is currently an officer of the FDA. Appointed by Obama, who said in 2008 that he'd require GMO foods to be labeled. Now, how did that happen? Could it be corporate lobbyists? Yeah, corporations influence politics and the media, but you can't really point at one side for doing it when the opposing side is just a guilty. And we can argue one does it more, but that's a losing argument for yourself as the CEO of Whole Foods isn't currently working for the FDA.
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.
Conflating GMO's with Monsanto? You cannot be serious. Do you even understand this topic at all? Dismissing the GMO link to Monsanto is like dismissing the link between chickens and eggs.
How do you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously, when you say stuff like this?
Monsanto IS GMO, and GMO IS MONSANTO.
Furthermore, all of the "science" touting the benefits of GMO, as well as the assurances of safety come directly from, and totally funded by, Monsanto ... this company you seem to agree is evil.
The real question is how do you reconcile these two competing and opposing thoughts that such an evil company is working hard to solve world hunger, and honest about the safety of their products?
With that type of incongruent logic, you'd likely invite Jeffrey Dahmer over for dinner. .
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,469,221 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga
who is failing to 'leave you alone'? did someone force you onto this thread?
it matters not at all whether you think there's a 'need'. it's coming.
enjoy
You seem to be the one trying to force GMO's onto everyone whether they want 'em or not… what kinda "libertarian" or "conservative" is that (must be a "RINO"…lol)?!
This is a standard illogical response, lacking in clear thinking. If someone shows credible evidence that counters your beliefs, you think they must be bought and paid for, is that it? It must be bogus, is that right? There's no other possibility, and you couldn't possible be wrong, is that it? Sorry, that's just nonsense, showing a complete misunderstanding of how scientific research actually works.
...bla bla bla bla bla
Please explain why you are arguing so hard as a pro GMO cheer leader, rather than spewing your standard illogical responses.
What is the reasoning for bashing anyone who wants to know what is in their food? Why is it so important to you that you'll work hard at discrediting them?
You show a sheep-like tendency to follow anything scientific. Scientists are human; they are corruptible, and one day you'll wish you questioned them more.
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.
