patrick.net

donjumpsuit says

Consumers have a choice. They have a choice, and it's called
organic.
Also, if they do not wish to participate, they can grow their own
food.

Organic is expensive. For those that don't buy organic, there is no choice. As for your second sentence, that is like saying those who don't like the policies of the gas industry can bike to work. I like my choices and I suspect for most -the world is bit grey than pure black and white. But you are being extremely unscientific and dogmatic. You are calling debate dangerous. If your principle is sound, you should be able to debate without getting this irrational-that is the trait of true believers.

By the way, they do require GMO labelling in Europe.

lostand confused says

Organic is expensive. For those that don't buy organic, there is no choice

Also even local access to organic food is an issue for some depending on the area.

mell says

donjumpsuit says

Your opinion is valuble, and it is now being used in a very dangerous context.

Thanks, yours is too. We don't have to discuss this further. What I want is that everybody can do their own research and then make a decision of whether they want to consume GMOs or not and that requires labeling.

Mell,

How do you propose consumers do their own research? Most of the raw data is not available nor comprehensible to most consumers. Its hard to make a good judgement when the only information available is from either rabid anti-whatever activists or corporate shills.

errc says

Maybe i'm not reading this correctly, but it reads as if you are suggesting that eating a pound of bacon every day for breakfast, is akin to smoking, in regards to ones health.

You're not reading it correctly, and I have no idea how you could get that interpretation out of the writing. It seems clear to me that the passage you quoted is stating that the health effects of any consumption is not a matter of opinion, e.g., bacon doesn't become healthy simply because you choose to believe it is. The health effects, whatever they are, are not influenced by your cultural preferences or sociopolitical ideology. Either smoking causes cancer or it doesn't. Smoking doesn't cause cancers in hippies, but not in rednecks.

It seems to me that the GMO debate and the pot debate are really culture wars rather than factually founded concerns. Conservatives hate hippies. Hippies smoke pot. Therefore, conservatives hate pot. This does not make pot unhealthy.

Hippies hate conservatives. Conservatives profit on GMOs. Therefore, hippies hate GMOs. This does not make GMOs unhealthy.

I have no problem accepting that pot will kill you, if someone provides solid evidence to support that claim. As of yet, I have seen zero such evidence. I have no problem accepting that a particular GMO food will kill you, if someone provides solid evidence to support that claim. As of yet, I have seen zero such evidence. The burden off proof is on those making the ill-health claims.

The core belief I have is that people need to put their stupid, narrow-minded cultural preferences away and simply rationally look at evidence when deciding whether or not pot or GMO foods are unhealthy. I don't base my diet on whether I like the Beatles or Shannia Twain, and it would be stupid to do so.

How exactly is bacon "unhealthy"? I eat it by the pound, in order to be healthy. Do you have some scientific evidence to prove that eating bacon is not healthy?

---------

Donjumps said

GMO is a "Fad". A label whose only connotation is to stir up anger, distrust. It doesn't not help the consumer to make an informed choice.

Fruedian slip?

I do agree with part of the argument, as to gmo labeling allowing consumers to make an informed decision, as it pertains to their "food" and how "healthy" a choice they are making. What difference does it make, what with the level of ignorance that has been hammered into the minds of the masses over the past decades, surrrounding food, health, and nutrition

I bet if you ask most people, they'd tell you that corn is a vegetable, LOL

donjumpsuit says

You want to educate yourself and the consumer on food ingredients? Do it
responsibly, and act accordingly.

Not like a bunch of psychos.

I get it. Anyone who buys a product with their hard earned money and wanting a choice in what they buy is a psycho.

You can be whatever you think you are, but you are just part of a company/entity that is selling something to the general public. As a consumer, we have the right to buy whatever we want to buy based on whatever belief-wether that be scientifc, personal beleifs, belief in the tooth fairy. My money-my choice. Unfortunately these corrupt companies and congress rob of us of our choice and then calls consumers who demand a choice a bunch of psychos.

Someone may choose to not buy GMO foods-just because they believe GMO crops are proof of Satan's reign on earth. As long as they are using their hard earned money-their choice-this is supposed to be a free country. But now these corrupt companies and congress has robbed consumers of a choice and on top of that insult their consumers for actually asking for a choice. Nice.

Now if you are talking of the merits/demerits of GMO-that is another issue. But you have lost the public trust-because of your industry's corrupt practices.

New Renter says

Mell,

How do you propose consumers do their own research? Most of the raw data is not available nor comprehensible to most consumers. Its hard to make a good judgement when the only information available is from either rabid anti-whatever activists or corporate shills.

I am a proponent of a free society, that includes the freedom of educating yourself as much as possible and the government staying out of making judgement calls rather than presenting the facts - of course there are issues where the government must act, e.g. when other liberties or health is infringed upon. GMOs are actually a perfect example for a government that believes it cannot make a sound judgement at this point to stay neutral and simply require labeling, as it does for many other additives, even non-allergens. The public then can access the data, read about studies on the web, talk to their scientist friends or MDs and then decide whether they want to buy GMO food or not. Plain and simple, everything trying to cloud this simple solution is FUD IMO and not good for a healthy debate. As lostand confused mentioned, European countries often either require labeling or have an outright ban on GMOs. It would be silly to dismiss the fact that nobody has the monopoly to the exact truth at this point, and thus - as eastcoastguy mentioned - it is about probability and whether one wants to take the risk or not. Just label it already ;)

donjumpsuit says

Can you see what harm is done to both those products, if a generic and obtuse label of GMO is casually slapped on the front of the package?

Labeling GMO's doesn't do ANYTHING to educate.

Of course it does. even with the obtuse numbering system which has been used in Europe for decades (E123, E406 etc.) or in the US (e.g. yellow #8). One can easily look up the actual ingredient, do a bit of research and then decide to consume or avoid.

Mell,

Its simple. If a food is labels organic or even better naturally farmed then it is GMO free. If it has no label just assume it contains one or more GMO ingredients. That will redress the majority of your your consumer anxiety.

Reserve the detail for ingredients that have been proven to have an impact on health, otherwise you run the risk of diluting the message.

mell says

donjumpsuit says

Your opinion is valuble, and it is now being used in a very dangerous context.

Thanks, yours is too.

No it's not. He is being completely rational and scientific. You are being completely irrational and emotional.

We don't have to discuss this further. What I want is that everybody can do their own research and then make a decision of whether they want to consume GMOs or not and that requires labeling.

That is not rational. I could say that food processed with red tractors needs to be labeled, whereas food processed with green tractors does not. There is no scientific evidence that the color of the tractor makes any difference to your health. But by your logic, we should be required to put a label on the food so people can "make their own decision".

mell says

Of course it does. even with the obtuse numbering system which has been used in Europe for decades (E123, E406 etc.) or in the US (e.g. yellow #8). One can easily look up the actual ingredient, do a bit of research and then decide to consume or avoid.

Great. I'm all for listing the ingredients. GMO is not an ingredient, so it doesn't need to be listed.

mell says

I am a proponent of a free society, that includes the freedom of educating yourself as much as possible and the government staying out of making judgement calls rather than presenting the fact

Yet you want the government to force retailers to put labels on food because of YOUR unfounded belief that it is harmful? How is that "staying out of it"? That seems decidedly like getting into it.

Homeboy says

No it's not. He is being completely rational and scientific. You are being completely irrational and emotional.

I meant his opinion is valuable.

Homeboy says

That is not rational. I could say that food processed with red tractors needs to be labeled, whereas food processed with green tractors does not. There is no scientific evidence that the color of the tractor makes any difference to your health. But by your logic, we should be required to put a label on the food so people can "make their own decision".

Again, you are dismissing hundreds of scientific voices out there and studies that claim otherwise. Actually you are ignoring whole countries, which is ok if you think the US is the central source of truth - I don't know of any scientist or country that thinks that the color tractors used in farming makes a difference in the assessment of health risks ;)

errc says

I bet if you ask most people, they'd tell you that corn is a vegetable, LOL

Why is that funny? Tomatoes are usually thought of as vegetables, too. It's about how they are used and prepared. The average consumer doesn't concern himself with nitpicky scientific definitions, and really shouldn't need to.

Homeboy says

mell says

Of course it does. even with the obtuse numbering system which has been used in Europe for decades (E123, E406 etc.) or in the US (e.g. yellow #8). One can easily look up the actual ingredient, do a bit of research and then decide to consume or avoid.

Great. I'm all for listing the ingredients. GMO is not an ingredient, so it doesn't need to be listed.

The actual type of corn is an ingredient, if you want to split hairs you can say I want them to be more specific in that case instead of listing an additional ingredient, similar to donjumps example (corn #234567).

donjumpsuit says

Don't play the victim. It weakens your position.

Don't 'whoa is me'. You are well researched, you can avoid GM foods, you know
what you choose, and you pick what you want.

Demanding others to follow your wishes, and your wants it kind of
Totalitarian, don't you think?

Obama needs to take some PR lessons from you on how to deal with the current scandals. It is your industry that fights labelling tooth and nail . It is your indutry that pays huge lobbying fees to congress . I do not want to assume. I want it labelled-so I have a choice. I am not asking for it to be banned-I just don't want to go on the word of corproations that make money off me. Label it-I may choose to buy or not. That is what you are afraid of-that people may choose not to buy and so will cut into your cash flow. Pure greed .

So if someone who buys something wants to know what he is buying-he is playing the victim and is trying to turn it into a totalitarian state? My, even Cheney cannot come up with such mind-bending descriptions. I buy, I am the customer and all I ask is I know what I am buying.

If you think GMO is great-fine-stand by your product-proudly. Like the organic folks. Now by the way, I don't buy organic animal products, because they are not supposed to use antibiotics. I don't think that is right-now I don't like what they do in commercial farms, but anyone who has big animals, know they get sick and not giving them antibiotics is not right.

But your logic is intriguing. What's next -no labelling of country of origin on manufactured goods-because that is totalitarian. Or what's next -can't ask any questions to used car salesmen, becaus eyou just know that going to a used car salesman means he is a fraud? I would expect these kind of arguments from politicians not scientists. But thanks for the laugh!

New Renter says

Mell,

Its simple. If a food is labels organic or even better naturally farmed then it is GMO free. If it has no label just assume it contains one or more GMO ingredients. That will redress the majority of your your consumer anxiety.

Reserve the detail for ingredients that have been proven to have an impact on health, otherwise you run the risk of diluting the message.

This is a fair point. However companies can use the "all natural" label as they see fit so it's hard to figure out what is what beyond organic and non-gmo labels. Also, I don't want the government be the judge but rather the messenger. You are right it could dilute the message, but I don't mind that much as I don't consider it primarily a warning label in the first place. Strangely it is the GMO corporations and pro-activists that claim it would not dilute the message but instead scare the public enormously.

mell says

Again, you are dismissing hundreds of scientific voices out there and studies that claim otherwise. Actually you are ignoring whole countries, which is ok if you think the US is the central source of truth - I don't know of any scientist or country that thinks that the color tractors used in farming makes a difference in the assessment of health risks ;)

I don't deny that there is a very vocal minority that has it in for GMO foods. I am dismissing them, but I am not dismissing them out of hand. I am dismissing them after duly considering their "evidence", and concluding that it is ALL bogus. The anti-GMO faction does not seem to have any qualms about using improper scientific procedure, falsifying results, drawing unwarranted conclusions, and even knowingly continuing to present "evidence" that has already been discredited. For people who claim to be interested in helping consumers, they don't seem to have any ethics whatsoever. To use rats in a study that were deliberately bred to grow tumors, then publish pictures of the rats, claiming that GMO food caused the tumors, is just beyond the pale. And that's just one example of the misdirection and misinformation this faction is spreading to a gullible public. Donjumpsuit has given you all the information; you are just choosing to ignore it.

The reason I used the tractor color analogy is that your position is not an iota more rational than that. The fact that "hundreds" of people believe an irrational proposition does not sway me in the least. A lot more people than that have believed much stupider things.

lostand confused says

Or what's next -can't ask any questions to used car salesmen, becaus eyou just know that going to a used car salesman means he is a fraud?

Next is no labeling or message when you are being wiretapped and spied upon - oh wait, we already have that ;) But why do you care that you are being spied upon, it's proven that you don't suffer any ill-effects from it, and the government says so. Don't rattle the public and scare it shitless! ;)

mell says

This is a fair point. However companies can use the "all natural" label as they see fit so it's hard to figure out what is what beyond organic and non-gmo labels.

What's hard about that? Organic means organic. If it doesn't say organic, it's not organic. Problem solved.

errc says

Do you have some scientific evidence to prove that eating bacon is not healthy?

Are you fucking kidding?

I honestly don't know what your point is. You go off on rants about race, conservatives vs. liberals, justice, totalitarinsim-when someone asks for a simple label on their food products. Just a label. Sigh- you refuse to deal with the point. I don't want to assume what is in my food-I want to know. As someone who buys them with my money-your sort and the govt have conspired to take away that choice from me. All I ask is for you to restore that choice-not just assuming if I go to this store on this date after this policy change and at this price range -I get this product.

All I ask as someone who buys your product-is I need to know what is in it. MY CHOICE. Oh no racism, the n word, totalirainism, conservatism, liberalism, smug in justiceism-can you throw in a few more monikers in there?? You still haven't answered my question-why as a consumer should I not be informed of my chocie when I buy a product. My dollars, my choice-I want to be clear on what I buy and eat-what is it to you-oh yes you are afraid you will lose money. Same old, same old.

I don't want to assume-I just wanna know. What is your problem with that-how am I supposed to figure out what is what among the hundreds of thousands of stores and their varying descriptions and what they consider to be GMO or not. Not my job-have a standard, slap a label and be done with it. Give me back the choice you stole from me to make more money.

donjumpsuit says

Great.

I made a new product for you.

It's called Organic.

It comes in many shapes and forms, and whole Markets specialize in this type
of food product.

It contains everything you want in a food product, and nothing you don't
want, or nothing that you don't know.

Are you happy?

No?

Why not?

You know I honestly don't know if you are a troll or just bored out of your mind.

Organic is better than nothing!
Just ask 90% of the population that can't afford it.

You know when I was a kid my brothers and I spent the summer in South Carolina in the mountains at my Mom's childhood friend's of house.
Every morning she was serve up a country breakfast with cat head biscuits, milk sausage gravy and the works.
I just loved those Biscuits something fierce, they were the best biscuits I ever had in my life. My brother wasn't a big fan of them, and would never even try them. The rest of us, would just say, fine more for us.

It wasn't until after the summer, and we were back in Jacksonville Fla, that my brother told us why he wouldn't eat the biscuits. He said the first morning we were there, the sound of banging pots, and frying sausage woke him up. And though she didn't see him, he saw her digging deep scratching her ass, inside the garments, as she was kneading the dough.

Now I can tell ya, those were some damn fine biscuits, but now had they been labeled as "Butt Biscuits", I would have chose to forgo them as well and just had white toast.

My beef is that the world seed supply will be controlled by a handful of companies, that GMOs would be considered IP, etc.

GMOs should be "open-source" and "patent-free".

I'm not convinced of physical harm, but rather the dangers both to seed diversity and centralized power.

Homeboy says

errc says

I bet if you ask most people, they'd tell you that corn is a vegetable, LOL

Why is that funny? Tomatoes are usually thought of as vegetables, too. It's about how they are used and prepared. The average consumer doesn't concern himself with nitpicky scientific definitions, and really shouldn't need to.

Are you fucking kidding me?

errc says

Are you fucking kidding me?

Dude, what planet do you live on?

Mmmm... I think I'll get me some tomato pie with ice cream on top. Then I'll have a fruit salad with apples, oranges, bananas, and tomatoes. LOLOL.

donjumpsuit says

Are you happy?

No?

Why not?

People like that aren't happy unless everyone ELSE is UNhappy.

thunderlips11 says

GMOs should be "open-source" and "patent-free".

Without patents, there would be no innovation. There would be no reason for anyone to invent anything new. Is there a successful country in the world that does not allow patents? I don't think so.

Homeboy says

Without patents, there would be no innovation.

Really? The Gladius, the Windmill, and the Printing Press were patented? How about 3-field rotation, chain mail, and the ox yoke? Bronze Working? Seed Drills? Obsidian Arrowheads?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/is-a-tomato-a-fruit-or-a-vegetable

THomeboy says

errc says

Are you fucking kidding me?

Dude, what planet do you live on?

Earth. Where words have meanings

Corn is a grain. Yet you confuse it as a vegetable.

What will you tell me next, you don't eat bacon because you believe it is unhealthy. And instead you eat soy laden tofu, because you believe it is healthy,,,loolololololol

donjumpsuit says

Large Hadron Collider will create a black hole and kill us all. My opinion is "Bring it on".

Now that brings back the good olde days, just between HS and College ...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/3mbBbFH9fAg

Chris Cornell called the Hadron catastrophe a generation too soon.

errc says

Corn is a grain. Yet you confuse it as a vegetable.

Liar. I never said it's a vegetable. I said it is USED like a vegetable, and only nitpicky little shits like you make a big deal about it.

What will you tell me next, you don't eat bacon because you believe it is unhealthy

On Earth, bacon is not health food. Therefore, I eat it in moderation. I don't know what the case is on YOUR planet, and frankly, don't care.

Honestly, I don't even know why I'm wasting my time arguing with a person who thinks "eating bacon by the pound" is healthy, and isn't aware that people eat tomatoes and corn like vegetables. I'm thinking you possibly have some sort of learning disability.

thunderlips11 says

Really? The Gladius, the Windmill, and the Printing Press were patented? How about 3-field rotation, chain mail, and the ox yoke? Bronze Working? Seed Drills? Obsidian Arrowheads?

How about them? Since patent law has existed, mankind has made more technological progess in the past 700 years than in the entire 200,000 years we've been on the planet. Arrowheads are a kind of stupid example, since native Americans had a tribal society, not a capitalist society. Labor was divided and goods were shared. Of course things were invented before the modern concept of a patent, but ideas were protected in other ways. How are you going to steal the medicine man's knowledge when there's only one medicine man in the tribe? Other societies protected their knowledge by having guilds. You couldn't steal another person's technology because you weren't allowed to practice in that field unless you were a member of the guild.

The idea of rewarding innovation is not new. It has always been an important instrument in advancing as a species. If there were nothing to be gained by innovation, there would be much less of it.

It's worth torturing living beings by breeding them to develop grotesque deformities and letting them live in agony just to make a false political point, because Whole Foods Inc. is gonna make bank as soon as they get the government to put scarlet letters on everything the competition makes and cut them out of the picture.