[Guy 13]

The entire free-market as it exists today with big business describes their mantra as "Less Government". It's the general complaint of industry that there is way to much government regulation. The equalizing solution is big business will remain compliant to the will of the public through litigation. If there is a problem we are suppose to sue them. As opposed to having government regulation to avoid any negative impact in the interest of the public. That is where we at now and what they try to pull-off as Capitilism.

This is what the food processing industry wants now. They are well aware of the potential litigation so in an effort to bypass or bog down any efforts their strategy is to uneducated the public. Labelling sits right in the face of that strategy because it undermines their business model of food processing in the dark. We just recently seen this played out in the Herbicide end of it. Chemical companies tried to replace the chemicals that describe their patents with trademark names. So instead of Glysophate we would see Roundup. That failed but it really shows what they are up to as it creates a first line of defence in discouraging litigation. It's scummy actually and it really does not make any sense why people are not in full support of labelling.

Well said - writen Werd.
I agree 100% with you. 

Guy 13

[JerryM]

The entire free-market as it exists today with big business describes their mantra as "Less Government". It's the general complaint of industry that there is way to much government regulation. The equalizing solution is big business will remain compliant to the will of the public through litigation. If there is a problem we are suppose to sue them. As opposed to having government regulation to avoid any negative impact in the interest of the public. That is where we at now and what they try to pull-off as Capitilism.

This is what the food processing industry wants now. They are well aware of the potential litigation so in an effort to bypass or bog down any efforts their strategy is to uneducated the public. Labelling sits right in the face of that strategy because it undermines their business model of food processing in the dark. We just recently seen this played out in the Herbicide end of it. Chemical companies tried to replace the chemicals that describe their patents with trademark names. So instead of Glysophate we would see Roundup. That failed but it really shows what they are up to as it creates a first line of defence in discouraging litigation. It's scummy actually and it really does not make any sense why people are not in full support of labelling.

That's probably the single most elitist thing I have ever read.

Please, let me ask you: If you could wave a magic wand and remove 100% of each, every, and all GMOs from both past and present; yet know that more than one billion people would immediately die; would you wave that wand?

[rajacat]

What's elitist about it?

[FullRangeMan]

That's probably the single most elitist thing I have ever read.

Please, let me ask you: If you could wave a magic wand and remove 100% of each, every, and all GMOs from both past and present; yet know that more than one billion people would immediately die; would you wave that wand?

GMO food will poison people sooner or later and maybe will modify the soil.

[ctviggen]

That's probably the single most elitist thing I have ever read.

Please, let me ask you: If you could wave a magic wand and remove 100% of each, every, and all GMOs from both past and present; yet know that more than one billion people would immediately die; would you wave that wand?

That may be the most red herring/slippery slope argument I've seen in a long time.  I mean if we wiped out GMOs, there's now way one billion people would immediately die.  It's not possible. 

[werd]

That's probably the single most elitist thing I have ever read.

Please, let me ask you: If you could wave a magic wand and remove 100% of each, every, and all GMOs from both past and present; yet know that more than one billion people would immediately die; would you wave that wand?

The post is not anti-GMO. Its a pro labeling post. The post puts both GMO and non-GMO in the same light. It has nothing to do with population control or the science behind GMOs. The post supports labeling from an education and marketing POV.

Your post is a text book example of a straw argument. It has nothing to do with my post.

[Johnny2Bad]

In many ways the "debate" over GMO foods is already over. With Corn and Canola oil, although the take-up amongst farmers in North America is somewhat less than 100%, the reality is that seed stock has spilled over into the non-GMO crops being grown to the point where the last 10% or so of farmers who are not growing the GMO variety actually are growing the GMO variety.

Canola is a bit of a special case, in that it has two very different GMO aspects to it. It is, in fact, the world's first Genetically Modified Food. The fact that we can consumer Canola Oil in the first place is the result of Genetic Engineering when a poison was removed from Rapeseed, creating the edible, heart-smart vegetable oil Canola (in 1952). The second aspect is the Monsanto GMO modification making Canola resistant to Roundup (which is such an old herbicide that the patents have run out and generic versions are commonplace). The so-called "Roundup-Ready" Canola variety is grown by more than 90% of farmers in North America, essentially insuring that any store-bought container of Canola Oil is GMO.

With corn, it's similar in that more than 90% of the crop grown in North America is the GMO variety, and corn is such a common ingredient in US-produced foods (it's less common in foods produced in Canada or Mexico, since without the US Sugar Tariffs, sugars from other sources are much cheaper in those countries, and in Canada livestock is typically grain-fed rather than corn fed (Oats, Barley, Wheat) again because subsidies for Corn don't exist as they do in America (where corn is sold by US growers below the cost of production and the difference made up by subsidies).

But there is plenty of other foods that are GMO that North American consumers routinely buy ... seedless varieties of most fruits, for example.

I don't know about the "one billion people would die" argument, but I do know that GMO variants of many foods, where the result is resistance to common fungus or other crop perils, has significantly reduced the application of pesticides worldwide (they are not needed). Again, it's hard to argue against a benefit such as that, even amongst those who prefer "greener" options in our food supply.

The State of California has concluded, after a meta-study examination of GMO foods (where a number of studies are pooled, examined and compared) of I believe 1700 Studies over many years has concluded that a female who lived to the average lifespan of US women, and who during her youth, child-bearing years, and beyond, ate the full amount of the recommended amount and number of fruits and vegetables per day for her entire life, were those fruits and vegetables GMO varieties would not experience any health issues as a result. Males are somewhat less at risk to almost any similar perils. The State of Cali can find cancer in 40 things we touch every day, so to me this is compelling.

I am in my 50's and almost anything I eat in what is left of my lifetime (I almost died last year, within hours of it according to the doctors in the ICU I woke up in, fell into a Coma and had most of my organs shut down before someone came along and called an ambulance) isn't going to have time to affect my health over what I'm already in store for, so personally it's not an issue to me whether I eat the seedless variety of grapes a few times a week. For younger people, or those with young children, perhaps the issue is more dear to them. For me, I have looked into it, and concluded that as far as my own diet is concerned, it's a non-issue.

[werd]

I agree we are getting GMOs whether we like it or not. All farmed food is a GMO. The problem that exists are GMOs programmed to resist herbicides designed to be used with them. Buying up huge tracks of land for the purpose of farming a single crop is Corporate farming. How much Canola is being used for Ethanol? I am guessing lots and I've read %80 is fuel based production.  Wheat, Oats and cereal crops are not GMO'd to withstand herbicide. How bad are the crops? You missing out on any cereal or bread lately? This is about pure robotic farming to generate mono crops for the purpose of producing sugar for junk food and oil for burning in gas engines. Also corn for feed. This use of farmland with blanket spraying of herbicides is the problem. Not some GMO

I keep hearing about feeding the planet. Which is the most laughable thing when applied to GMOs in corporate farming. They are not about feeding the planet. They are about buying up huge tracks of land and planting crops that can be used to make the world fat and fuel engines. Yes lab GMOs will be useful in feeding the hungry. But they will not come from a Monsanto lab.. like every body Wake UP! 

Btw pesticide use and herbicide use has gone up heavily. We see it in our lakes with Algae BLooms that have not existed until recently. Lake Winnipeg is a good example and Lake Erie. Completely filled with farming phosphates from run off. Herbicides use has gone up big time. Saying it hasn't is factually wrong.

[rajacat]

What happens when the pests develop resistance to Roundup? Could we see the huge Roundup enabled monocrops fail within a relatively short period of time? If 90% of corn, wheat and soy crops are "protected" by Roundup and they all fail; that would be a catastrophe of global proportions.
 The monocrops lack the natural diversity and natural selection that protects them from mass failures of this scale.
A healthy crop should have some plants die of pests so that the others that have a natural immunity thrive and
 natural selection can run its course. We should work with nature and encourage this natural weeding out process.

[werd]

What happens when the pests develop resistance to Roundup? Could we see the huge Roundup enabled monocrops fail within a relatively short period of time? If 90% of corn, wheat and soy crops are "protected" by Roundup and they all fail; that would be a catastrophe of global proportions.
 The monocrops lack the natural diversity and natural selection that protects them from mass failures of this scale.

I already know how that will sound off. You will have Monsanto claiming the problem exists outside their farming technology and its not their fault. They will claim the problem is from over use of herbicide non lab GMO'd crops.

Monsanto operates in a fashion that completely undermines our way of life. Their history is herbicides  destroying vegetation with Bio weaponry. They are on campaign to generate controversy with GMOs while concealing their real problems with herbicide use. They got every one thinking herbicide use is not a problem and safe. They produce data on cancer and GMOs, and they are using social media (shilling) science sites to moderate and point people in the wrong direction towards GMO controversy. Not telling anyone or hoping no one notices that the exact same thing that went on in Vietnam (using Bio Weaponry)destroying jungle vegetation is exactly what is happening to our lakes and rivers. All from farming chemicals sold by Monsanto and others. The destruction is huge to the environment and is extremely obvious in our lakes. It's about the over use of chemicals that makes them money.

So now we have organic farms which use herbicides but it's far less and it's not a blanket toss. vs Coroporate farming that basically doesn't give a shit. To the point they mislead the public and create smoke n mirror science sites along with campaigns against labelling. They do not want people figuring anything out. That is the problem with Big Business and especially Monsanto.

The thing with the Science-shilling I have seen on social media are the use of memes to misdirect from (issues of herbicide overuse) to using data on cancer in GMOs.

[DaveC113]

All farmed food is a GMO.

NO... we need to be aware of and differentiate between breeding and genetic modification. 2 totally different things. Breeding is natural, genetic modification is not. Breeding is how we get different breeds of dogs, etc, but breeding wouldn't allow us to created a bird/dog hybrid that can fly because dogs can't breed with birds. With GMO we are combining genetics that could never naturally happen. BIG difference!

[DaveC113]

What happens when the pests develop resistance to Roundup?

This is currently happening.

People celebrate the reduction of pesticides required by GMO plants, but there are other issues as you've pointed out. The reduction in pesticides is only a short term thing, after that things will get worse than they were before.

Plenty of documentaries about the results of farmers buying into Monsanto crops in many countries, it has done an incredible amount of harm.

IMO, GMO is just stupidity and arrogance, and the people who say organic can't feed the world are incredibly misguided. I've actually farmed and gardened before, I know what's possible. I've owned an organic mushroom farm and worked with farmers, sold at farmer's markets etc... The truth is when people say organic farming can't feed the world that's only because the current organic acreage can't. The real truth is organic can be more productive and more reliable vs chemical/gmo agriculture.

People are getting brainwashed.... what we really need is a return to local, organic farming where the majority of food is produced locally. The amount of fossil fuels used to transport food is incredible and the process for converting fossil fuels to fertilizer is also an abomination. Our food supply is so intertwined with fossil fuel use at this point it's inseparable and the world depends on fossil fuels to grow and distribute food. This is a major problem, and the reason food production needs to return to local organic farms.

[werd]

NO... we need to be aware of and differentiate between breeding and genetic modification. 2 totally different things. Breeding is natural, genetic modification is not. Breeding is how we get different breeds of dogs, etc, but breeding wouldn't allow us to created a bird/dog hybrid that can fly because dogs can't breed with birds. With GMO we are combining genetics that could never naturally happen. BIG difference!

No they are same thing as breeding. What you are alluding to is a potential at altering genetics among different  species. What we see from lab GMOs are not that. Adding a resistance is not like adding or making the crop different. It is just looking for resistance to herbicide in genomes. They do not hack together different species to make a new species. That would be fucked up and disconcerting.

I like the organic farming though. Not so much that I am anti GMO but I do not like Corporate farming and they seem to spew out a lot of chemicals by default. For crops that do not really have any food value. It's all processed garbage or animal feed or Ethanol. I guess we have apples now.

[DaveC113]

No they are same thing as breeding. What you are alluding to is a potential at altering genetics among different  species. What we see from lab GMOs are not that. Adding a resistance is not like adding or making the crop different. It is just looking for resistance to herbicide in genomes. They do not hack together different species to make a new species. That would be fucked up and disconcerting.

I like the organic farming though. Not so much that I am anti GMO but I do not like Corporate farming and they seem to spew out a lot of chemicals by default. For crops that do not really have any food value. It's all processed garbage or animal feed or Ethanol. I guess we have apples now.

What I'm saying is they can find a gene in a pig and insert it into a fish, or a plant even... this is common.

A quick search pulled up a pig altered with E Coli bacteria and mouse genetics, and a cabbage that produces scorpion venom:

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/mad-science

OTOH, selective breeding for yields, quality, etc. is within the range of naturally occurring events and and shouldn't be confused with GMO.

[werd]

Ok I see, I was only referring to what is approved by the FDA and EPA and our CFIA.

[JerryM]

Ok I see, I was only referring to what is approved by the FDA and EPA and our CFIA.

Again, that is elitist. You have no concept of world hunger.

I asked you before; I'll ask you again. In what language should your problem-solving labels be written?

GMOs solve an immediate, and growing, threat to mankind. Whether you like, or dislike, how the world is going about taking care of the future is irrelevant. How can you not see that?

[werd]

Again, that is elitist. You have no concept of world hunger.

I asked you before; I'll ask you again. In what language should your problem-solving labels be written?

GMOs solve an immediate, and growing, threat to mankind. Whether you like, or dislike, how the world is going about taking care of the future is irrelevant. How can you not see that?

You appear to be stuck on this "feeding the world" merry-go-round. I am not arguing GMOs will play apart. I said they probably will at some point. You see it as this great golden opportunity. How did you come to this conclusion? Starvation isn't about no food. It is about the political corruption that oozes out of countries at the are heart of these famines. Getting food and growing food to them is not a problem its getting past the armed cartels or militias that are causing the starvation. That is the problem.

What ever food they get is not an issue for labeling. I am only concerned with Canada which would be English or French. I would ultimately like to see the States too but judging by the choices in political leaders, I can see being rational will not be noted... So I can only hope for the best.

[JerryM]

You appear to be stuck on this "feeding the world" merry-go-round. I am not arguing GMOs will play apart. I said they probably will at some point. You see it as this great golden opportunity. How did you come to this conclusion? Starvation isn't about no food. It is about the political corruption that oozes out of countries at the are heart of these famines. Getting food and growing food to them is not a problem its getting past the armed cartels or militias that are causing the starvation. That is the problem.

What ever food they get is not an issue for labeling. I am only concerned with Canada which would be English or French. I would ultimately like to see the States too but judging by the choices in political leaders, I can see being rational will not be noted... So I can only hope for the best.

Okay, so you're just an asshole?

What do people think on this? Is everyone ok with these genetically modified grown stuff? Frankenfoods born out of Monsanto lab. Do we trust Monsanto and their GMO'd herbicided tolerant stuff? Remember they brought us stuff like PCBs and bio weaponry like Agent Orange. Sold it too knowing full well it was evil.

[werd]

Okay, so you're just an asshole?

Ok, so you got Monsanto Stock and can't justify no-Labeling other than applying some obscure connection with World hunger? 

[JerryM]

Of course I own stock. 

I am trying to work out this persistent attempt to align Monsanto with Norman Borlaug....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5pA32cD1DM