>> every PROMINENT anti-GMO person (that I've read) is a nut case.
I think I understand that. That's what I was trying to partly agree with when I went on about it being easier to make "good copy" from alarmist BS that is not constrained by trying to explain complicated facts.
If you are willing to lie boldly enough, or you're such a raving nut-case that you believe obvious untruth, then it probably IS easier to become "prominent".
I think that we are agreed that there are many "moderate" anti-GMO people, like those who just want it labelled in the grocery store, or who know that their queasiness with the idea doesn't come from a body count or Men In Black falsifying data.
>> Better stop your medicines if you oppose Monsanto.
Dupont is another major player in the GMO / GE field. The original "better living through chemistry" people.
GMOs - Continued
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lp-clBQsRac
Go to about 3:20 in the video to hear the song...lyrics below....
Those Polar Bears now, who really cares now?
- They're breedin gender bendin babies who won't be breedin none
Cos PCBs, yeah! are in the seas, yeah!
We like to think that there's a little piece of us in everyone
Cos we're Monsanto! - That's right, Monsanto!
We're turning Satan into Santa by givin kiddies cancer
Comin thru now - we're changin YOU now,
The mother- nature terminators of Food 'n Health 'n Hope
That DDT ban - don't lay it on me man!
Cos we had all these creepie-crawlies fallin on the food we grew
Was a revolution-ary solution,
It's just a shame that what we sprayed on made the turnips toxic too!
Let me remind ya 'bout Indo-china
- Them commie dominos were fallin, so they sprayed 'em into Hell!
Gave peasant farmers Orange pajamas
We made their jungle-cover wither, then we withered them as well!
Cos we're Monsanto! - That's right, Monsanto!
We're turning Satan into Santa by givin kiddies cancer
Comin thru now - we're changin YOU now,
The mother- nature terminators of Food 'n Health 'n Hope
It's not our fault there's Chemical warfare,
But if there's dollars in dioxin it's our duty to supply
That rain of poisin they washed our boys in,
A Cancer Agent from the C.I---Hey! - I cannot tell a lie!
From Pentagon came that drug Aspartame,
Our Pepsi-Cola with no calories was every kiddies' treat!
When there were rumours it gave 'em tumours
Somebody falsified the data - and we called it NutraSweet!
And you get more juice now from a Dairy Moo-Cow,
Monsanta's daily dose of hormones, them udders gonna swell!
Don't blame the cream though, if you're in chemo
- There may be B.S.T masectomies, but nobody can tell!
Cos we're Monsanto! - That's right, Monsanto!
We're turning Satan into Santa by givin kiddies cancer
Comin thru now - we're changin YOU now,
The mother- nature terminators of Food 'n Health 'n Hope
Robert Shapiro! Well he's our hero!
He's on a mission with a vision of Sustain-ability
Which means we're goin to keep on growin
-till we're the biggest corporation in the 21st Century
Seein no future for the big polluters
He spun an eco-friendly line in re-designin DNA
Genetic eyes on that far horizon
Where every thing alive is privatised and every seed'll pay!
We've got the Soya, we've got the Lawyers,
The politicians in our pockets all the way to President!
The press and TV, to guarantee the
Co-operation of your nation in our new experiment!
You did not choose it, but you'll have to use it,
We'll get our Round-up Ready fingerprint in every pie you eat,
With every patent, be a bit more blatant,
Till our Corporation's domination of your Globe'll be complete!
Mister Monsanto! Monster Mutanto!
We're turning Satan into Santa - Give Everybody cancer!
Comin thru now, we're changin YOU now,
The Mother-Nature Terminators,
Hell-on-earth creators,
Gene- manipulators,
Biotech dictators,
The future's gonna hate us
Food 'n' Health 'n' Hope!
This message was edited Mar 15, 2014 12:56 PM
Heres a better recording... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl_2ugkvG8E
drobarr--that song sums up the anti-GM position pretty well.
"hive of bees..."--Firesign Theater!!
I see that Kevin Trudeau was sent to prison for ten years today. He was a huckster of the first order, preying on people's fears and hopes regarding weight loss and natural cures. He was believed by many who think the "system" is out to deceive. He tried to sell "easy" weight loss and "easy" cures that the system was keeping from public knowledge. I think his story is an exact analogy to people like Jeffrey Smith who see an opportunity to rake in the bucks by taking advantage of ordinary people with limited scientific knowledge, but whom are concerned about doing the "right" thing. I am glad to see Trudeau sent away and I hope he rots--and has other "interesting" experiences--in prison.
A Nice Story:
Norman Borlaug* and Vandana Shiva were walking along a beach when they came upon a bottle. Borlaug reached down, picked it up and opened it.
A genie appeared and thanked them for releasing him. He was so grateful that he offered to grant the two any wish they wanted.
He turned to Borlaug and asked him what he wanted. Borlaug didn’t miss a beat and said, “I wish there was a new solution to help agriculture advance and help feed the poor of the world and increase nutrition in areas that lack it.”
The genie winced and said, “Well, I don’t have the power to create the solution, but I can give you a scientific tool that will help. It’s called genetically modified organisms.” Borlaug was thrilled, thanked the genie and walked away smiling.
He then turned to Shiva and asked what she wanted. Shiva furrowed her brow and then perked up and said excitedly, ”My neighbors get better yields with gmos than my organic farm. I want you to destroy my neighbor’s farm.”
And Another Nice Story:
She (Vandana Shiva) should know about this stuff. She’s an expert in organic farming and agriculture. Consider this incident as told in the Houston Press from 2000:
Before leaving Alvin to prepare for a 7 p.m. lecture in Houston titled “WTO, Basmati Rice & the Stolen Harvest,” Shiva walked across the road and looked out into a shaggy field. “They look unhappy,” she said. “The rice plants. Ours at home look very happy.” “That,” RiceTec reports, “is because it’s not rice. That’s our test field, it was harvested in August. That’s weeds.”
And one more just for the laughs:
After SCOTUS victory, Monsanto calls it quits
May 13, 2013
Hours after their victory in the Supreme Court, seed and chemical giant Monsanto filed for bankruptcy citing the enormous cost of “buying everybody off.”
At a hastily called press conference, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant told assembled reporters the company never really thought through their ”buying everybody off, scheme .”
“I mean, do you know how many people are in the Nation Academy of Sciences? Something like 2,000. So, a few million to a scientific body here and a few million to every independent scientist in the world there, and it begins to add up.” That’s not even including having to pay those thousands of keyboard jockeys who defend us on internet comment boards.
The final straws were the members of the Supreme Court. “Those bastards didn’t come cheap,” Grant sighed.
Anti-gmo activists were left slack jawed. “We just lost our boogeyman,” one activist lamented. “It’s not fair.”
Asked what was next for the bankrupt Monsanto, Grant explained that it was too early to tell, but excitedly suggested they were thinking of getting into the organic farming business. ”Man, do you know what a cash cow that racket is? I was in Whole Foods the other day and they get like 4 bucks for a freakin’ tomato. Sweet. We’ve gotta get in on that action.”
Hours after the announcement, Organic Consumer’s Association honcho Ronnie Cummins and alt-health freak Mike Adams had to be talked down off a Maharishi University rooftop after Jeffrey Smith pleaded with them saying, “Cmon guys. We can still make stuff up about gmos.”
In a related story, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she planned to retire from the Court and buy the Bronx.
From here: http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/2013/05/13/after-scotus-victory-monsanto-calls-it-quits/
Sri Lanka has just banned glyphosate
http://www.news.lk/news/sri-lanka/8708-sri-lanka-bans-weedicide-glyphosate
due to a recent study suggesting that glyphosate in combination with hard water and nephrotoxic metals is causing an unprecedented epidemic of kidney disease in its population
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1084784-jayasumana-glyphosate-study.html
Nice that the government isn't deciding to wait until studies are conducted to prove the relationship.
I saw an article on that before- see the document with a graphic of the cup of drinking water coming right out of the ditch , well that may be just a graphic, but I think too true. So many people could be better off with safe water supplies.
While i think Glyphosate is relatively harmless when used properly, it is terrible that some people have to drink out of drainage ditches filled with chemical laden runoff from the fields.
But this is a typical Government solution as it is easier and cheaper to ban glyphosate than to provide clean water,
Interesting that you think the government should be providing the clean water. In other comments you seemed to feel we depend far too much on the gov't to fix things. If the water is basically potable without glyphosate, though, and has been for decades or centuries, why not just remove the glyphosate. Makes sense to me.
Sri Lanka. Let's see. Glyphosate was indeed outlawed by a unilateral decree of Sri Lanka's president Rajapaksa. Rajapaksa has been honored by Russian and Chinese universities. He is suspected of murdering Sri Lankan civilians belonging to opposing political groups. The UN claims 40,000 killed. There are claims that voting was suppressed when he was elected. After his reelection in 2010, the Sri Lankan constitution was amended to permit the president to be reelected indefinitely (it was formerly two terms max).
I'm sure he's a good scientist who makes rational decisions and all around good guy..
Pardon my sarcasm, but I just see another sketchy character in the anti-GMO, anti-glyphosate war.
I read that or a very similar article before, also. Note that the "nephrotoxic metals" are heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium and strontium.
"There is some consensus that
this is a multifactorial disease. The main factors include chronic exposure to arsenic (As) [1],
cadmium (Cd) [11] and pesticides [2,12]. Consumption of hard water, low water intake and exposure
to high temperatures resulting in significant dehydration, are among the other factors. "
Ouch. Dehydration, plus heavy metals. That certainly is a formula for kidney damage!
I'm still scanning the paper for what I seem to recall somewhere: that RoundUp has some chelating power, which of course makes heavy metals more soluble and hence more toxic. Maybe the very hard water also interacts badly with RounUp runoff, if RU really is a chelating agent. After all, they put EDTA in the iron phosphate kind of slug bait, to make the iron more toxic to the slugs.
Yes, page 5. In fact,
"The former Stauffer Chemical Company (Westport, CT, USA)
initially obtained a patent for aminophosphonic acid {glyphosphate = RU} as a chelating agent, wetting agent and
biologically active compound [19]. Glyphosate was initially used as a descaling agent to clean out
calcium and other mineral deposits in pipes and boilers of residential and commercial hot water
systems. Descaling agents are effective metal binders, which grab on to Ca, Mg, etc. ions and make the
metal water soluble and easily removable. Later, the Monsanto Company has acquired the chemical
from Stauffer and obtained a patent for aminophosphonate for its herbicidal properties [20]."
I went to high school in Westport and the Stauffer company gave me a $300 scholarship when I graduated, to help with college expenses! It's a small world. But that's not why I defend glyphosphat/RU agianst some of its criticisms.
So, it SHOULD already be in the label instructions for RU: "contraindicated for use in areas contaminated with arsenic and other toxic heavy metals, low rainfall, and shallow water tables."
Maybe when it is imported into impoversihed and arid regions, the warning labels should also caution against drinking from ag runoff ditches while contaminated with RU runoff.
I realize that the villagers in Sri Lanks had no choice, but whoever is importing and selling the RU there should have read the label ... or Monsanto should have pointed the problem out to importers in arid regions.
And :
"... demonstrated that there is a link
between hardness and arsenic toxicity. They have identified toxic levels of arsenic in urine,
hair and nail samples of CKDu patients as well as in apparently healthy individuals living in the
CKDu endemic region. They proposed that arsenic, derived mainly from tainted agrochemicals
(chemical fertilizers and pesticides), when combined with calcium and/or magnesium in the ground
water can ultimately damage the kidney tissues. Even though there is considerable evidence to suggest
that the agricultural workers in the CKDu endemic areas are exposed to arsenic, the exact source and
mode of entry of arsenic remains controversial"
also:
"The low concentration of a cumulative nephrotoxin and its bioaccumulation could have taken
12–15 years to cause damage to the kidneys leading up to the level of clinically identifiable CKD."
In other words, it's a chronic problem, perhaps pre-existing if the the arsenic did NOT come from fertilizer, perhaps made worse by the chelating nature of glyphosphate.
I read in one place that Sri Lanka used to ban certain fertilizers (maybe ammonium nitrate?) because they were being used by insurgents to make IEDs.
It seemed a little odd in that paper to speculate that "fertilizer or pesticides" might be tainted with arsenic. I could understand fertilizer, if processed from local ores. But how would a heavy metal get into organic synthesis? It could be RU-bashing, but sounded like the researchers were too in love with statistics: kidney damage correlated with (among other things) increased use of herbicides. "After it, therefore because of it."
I hope their statistics controlled for the effect of increased crop yields. Less starvation -> longer life -> increased chronic disease.
I wonder if they irrigated productive fields more than they did earlier, less productive fields. More irrigation -> more runoff -> more heavy metals -> more kidney damage.
Anything involving human beings is even more complicated than the underlying crop science.
Rick,
When i read the article and saw the info about Arsenic, I started to dissect it like you did, but got bored with it, and stopped. I am glad i did, as you did a much better job on it than i could have done.
But, with Roundup banned, What will they kill the weeds with? Maybe use more Arsenic like i had to use 60 years ago to kill weeds.
Ernie
I forgot that! Good point.
I read old gardening books when I can find, and usually I'm impressed that most of what we have changed is language. Like "compost" instead of "well-rotted manure".
I mean the stuff they apply to fields! Not our discussion! Besides, if I remember correctly, in this thread we agree, right?
Then I stumble on a phrase like "then spray liberally with arsenic sulphate or nicotine sulphate".
I think the new "second generation" GE tools like CRISPR will make it practical to create triple-stacked, quadruple-stacked and quintuple-stacked GM crops, resistant to enough different herbicides that the farmers can rotate the herbicide they use and reduce the weeds' resistance.
After all, often or usually, a resistance mechanism "costs" the weed something. Once there is little selective pressure for the resistance, weeds WITH it die out and the genes are (mostly) lost.
But, as we create more-highly-modified crop genomes, I hope we remain careful and test what we create, in on-going ways. Just because CRISPR inserts same-species genes into know locations, and even makes "clean edits" easy, that doesn't make us smarter or immune to unintended consequences.
Even if the future is not as grim as I think in regards to long-term climate change, we still have great ability to step on our wienie as we deploy square miles of "experimental" plants.
For example, ones more resistant to heat, drought, salinity or flooding.
Rick,
I think we agree on everything, even if it is to agree to disagree.
Arsenic was scary, nasty stuff to work with, and i am not easily scared. Nicotine, the way we used to get it to control tomato worms was nasty, but not scary. We would soak cigarette buts in a can of water and sprinkle that on the vines.
Ernie
>> Arsenic was scary, nasty stuff to work with, and i am not easily scared.
Dust, right? The only scarier form of a toxin is gas or vapor.
Aflatoxin is not as cumulative as heavy metals, but I think it takes fewer micrograms to give you nasty, fast-growing tumors. Now that I look it up, the LD50 is large, so arsenic IS much worse for immediate toxicity.
I've worked with a few radioisotopes, but only radio-Iodine really scared me, in the very small quantities we used.
I interviewed for a job with New England Nuclear once, and when I heard I would be producing and handling a few CURIES per week, I kept on looking elsewhere!
Glyphosate is very tightly bound to the organic matter and clay portion of the soil and does not move with water. So the only way glyphosate is in water is if it is dumped into or sprayed on top of water which is contrary to its label.
Willy...you mention Dr Borlaug. The nobel peace prize winning father of the green revolution credited with saving a billion lives with genetic dwarf varieties of wheat and rice that could be fertilized boosting yields and finding disease resistant cultivars. While doing my doctorate at Texas A&M Borlaug was a distinguished professor there and was able to hear him talk and was able visit with him a few times. Borlaug has since passed away. But he was an ardent supporter of GMO crops and their future potential. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
drobarr--Borlaug is probably the most under appreciated person of the late 20th century. I'm jealous that you were able to hear him and talk with him.
I recently read that he estimated that the green revolution saved roughly 20 million square miles of wilderness from being turned into agricultural lands. For reference, California has an area of 156,000 square miles. I don't think most people appreciate what we're up against in the coming years as the world's population grows.
My sister is an Aggie--vet school.
>> Arsenic was scary, nasty stuff to work with, and i am not easily scared.
rrr " Dust, right? The only scarier form of a toxin is gas or vapor"
Rick, No, this was back in 1954/55, and it was an evil looking, nasty smelling dark green syrup in fifty gallon metal barrels. We would tip the barrel into buckets and pour it in small towed type sprayers,dilute with water, and then spray grade with a wand and hose to keep weeds from growing up through the new asphalt.paving.
No protective gear, and we would get a splash once in a while.
Ernie
Ernie,
I can see why you're not quivering with anxiety about GMOs or glyphosphate. Surviving arsenic mist and splashes makes those sound like very small beer.
>> Glyphosate is very tightly bound to the organic matter and clay portion of the soil and does not move with water. So the only way glyphosate is in water is if it is dumped into or sprayed on top of water which is contrary to its label.
Thanks, Drobarr. That seems to argue against the Sri Lanka / arsenic / hard water / glyphosphate connection. Unless, indeed, they are also spraying the ditches.
Or maybe (pure and 100% speculation), if glyphosphate binds tightly to soil and clay, maybe it displaced some of the toxic metals that had previously been bound ionically to the clay, and then those flowed into the ditches.
[HYPERLINK@www.documentcloud.org]
(I couldn't find the earlier link)
I've heard "The Green Revolution" called "The Second Green Revolution", considering the invention of agriculture itself to be the first Green Revolution.
That author considered genetic engineering to be the third Green Revolution, but I don't think we're there yet.
Rick,
Working conditions prior to OSHA would seem inconceivable to people now, and there were many dangerous situations in both Heavy Construction and the Oilfields where i had personal experience, and undoubtedly also in other jobs. But accidents were no more common then than now, simply because we all knew our personal safety was up to us.
But now, everyone is aware of all the regulations, and think that makes the work safer so they do not care and do not need to pay attention to protect themselves. There are a few small improvements, like Diesel Motors were not required to have mufflers, so my hearing was ruined at an early age, while now inspectors measure the decibles the equipment produces to be sure that is safe, and the employees get in their cars to go home, and ruin their hearing with loud music.
So the best of intentions and lots of regulations are not the total solution. We can spend large amounts of taxpayer money to label GMO products, and people will still ruin their health and shorten their lives eating and drinking junk food.
Ernie
My two cents: Given the nature of things in Sri Lanka (see March 21 post), I don't think we should place much faith in their actions.
Sri Lanka ahead of Europe and the US in terms of protecting citizens?
My cynicism grows daily.
>> people will still ruin their health and shorten their lives eating and drinking junk food.
For sure.
Regulations not perfect? Totally.
Some ineffectual? Sure.
Many are very expensive? I have to admit that, too.
But having seen what one small chemical company used to dump before they were regulated, and still dumped as long as they could get away with it, I accept a lot of costs to keep the carcinogens, toxins and heavy metals out of that river! Mostly I think of it as the cost being borne by the company and customers that derive the benefit: that river was not theirs to pollute, and they rightly should pay what it costs to make those products without polluting that river.
The inefficiencies of the regulations are regrettable, but not as bad as everyone living in a toxic dump.
Sort of like democracy: many drawbacks, but better than any known alternative.
In the case of labeling, I challenge the "large amounts of taxpayer money" argument. The tiny cost of re-labeling packages vanishes into the cost of frequently re-labeling them anyway, so they can shrink the size slightly to hide price increases, and to change the advertising verbiage.
The idea that inspecting would be expensive certainly need not be so. Allow people to sue if the labels are falsified, and make some of the shipping records public-access, and it might even be made self-policing. Competitors might rat each other out, if the fines included a "whistle-blower" fee to the informants.
Cost of separate supply chains for non-GMO ingredients? Paid for by those who will pay extra to see a label that says "contains no ingredients from GMOs".
Rick, just two points need to be addressed. The small Chemical company you referred to should be fined for any transgressions made after the dumping was forbidden. But as long as he was obeying the law while he was dumping, both he and his customers, as you said, should bear the cost. But I do not know of any cases, and we had lots of them in CA, where the customers, that shared in the reduced price of the chemicals, also shared in the cost of the Cleanups.
What the Government did to many law abiding companies was very similar to the situation if your City allowed you to legally park your car in the street for 20 years and then changed the law, forbidding you to park there, and posting a fine of 100 dollars a night for violators. Then they made the law retroactive and sent you a bill for $730,000.00. That put a lot of companies out of business, but that is what they did when they made companies clean up what had been legal operations.
Rrr In the case of labeling, I challenge the "large amounts of taxpayer money" argument. The tiny cost of re-labeling packages vanishes into the cost of frequently re-labeling them anyway, so they can shrink the size slightly to hide price increases, and to change the advertising verbiage.
Rick, Many people that want labeling make the same mistake you are making here. Of course the cost of the paper and ink are negligible. But without a huge organization to inspect and track every load of soybeans, from farm to table, the labels would be worthless. So millions of dollars would be spent organizing the huge bureaucracy to inspect it. Then to keep from making any costly mistakes and paying huge fines the producers would have to develop an entire new department to be sure every bean was non GMO. Then inspite of both huge expensive staffs, the Government would have to create a third bureaucracy to enforce and prosecute any violators. Without all producers duplicating these efforts for every state that required labeling the labels would be totally worthless.
If the inspection and enforcement regime is not necessary then why do we have the same setup fpr Meat, a different one for poultry, and several more different products? Or for that matter, if we turn the law enforcement over to the lawyers, why do we need any of the Government inspectors for anything?
Ernie
I admit I know little to nothing about crop or meat inspections.
But I assume that whatever safety inspections are required, are already being done.
The difference needed to create separate paths for GMO and non-GMO (it seems like to me) would be mainly to use different silos and warehouses for GMO and non-GMO.
And it's not like you need to sample and do genetic testing to determine what is or is not GMO: if they know what they planted, they know which it is.
Or maybe you are right, since someone has to PROVE what kind of seed was planted.
Are there "huge" expenses involved in certifying crops and ingredients as "organic"? I know that proving "organic" is more complicated than just "what did you plant".
Well, the key thing I should say is that "I don't know".
I guess eventually the consumer demand for non-GMO crops will drive someone to service that demand, presumably patterned after being certified "organic", but much easier to prove.
Strange, I have read in a few places that the 4-5 digit "Price Look-Up" code and barcode on stickers on fruit already provided for GMO, organic, or non-GMO, non-organic fruit:
Sigh, go not to the Internet for information, for you will read both fact and misleading BS.
(See the debunking sites listed below the bunking sites.
A good example of willfully fostering a mis-impression without QUITE lying.)
http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/produce.asp
http://www.drfranklipman.com/what-do-those-codes-on-stickers-of-fruits-and-some-veggies-mean/
http://blogs.kqed.org/bayareabites/2012/11/20/food-labeling-how-to-identify-conventional-organic-and-gmo-produce/
The next few paragraphs are misleading bunkum
"0 — Applies to all non-qualified produce (and is generally presented without the leading "zero" digit).
8 — Applies to genetically modified produce (GMOs)
9 — Applies to organic produce"
"If there are only four numbers in the PLU, this means that the produce was grown conventionally or “traditionally” with the use of pesticides."
"If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “8″, this tells you that the item is a genetically modified fruit or vegetable."
"If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “9″, this tells you that the produce was grown organically and is not genetically modified."
==============
Then I found the following in the Huff-Po, which debunks the first three sources with some plausible text. I see the by-line is "Jeffery Smith". I seem to recall someone distrusting him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/plu-codes-do-not-indicate_b_473088.html
"According to Kathy Means, {{ Produce Marketing }} Association Vice President of Public Relations and Government Affairs, this is an optional convention for retailers and their supplier..."
"Those that run PLU-universe figured that someday some retailer might want to distinguish between a GMO and a non-GMO for price or inventory purposes. So they created a convention of 5 digits starting with an 8, just in case it catches on. But it hasn't. No one uses that number 8 as far as we can tell. And why would they? Most Americans say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled."
"...l there are only 4 GMO veggies or fruits at this point: papaya, but only from Hawaii and no where else; some zucchini and yellow squash, and some corn on the cob. For these, unless it says organic or boasts a non-GMO sign in the store, eating them is a gamble. It could be GMO."
It sounds to me as if the Produce Marketing Association is a pro-organic-food association. I wonder if they see GMOs as future competition, if people realize that it means "fewer pesticide residues" and "no till".
My guess is that many (not all) organic-food-buyers would rather eat "organic" pesticide residues like rotenone and pyrethrin than see the words "GMO".
I wish we could tell from the labeling what we were getting, and thus make informed decisions. "Truth in advertising".
At least it would be a wake-up call for people who still don't realize that 99% of all processed food has ingredients from GMOs, like corn syrup, corn starch, and sugar-beet-sugar. And (I guess) 99% of all meat animals are fed a lot of GMO corn and alfalfa.
Would they say "I've been eating it for decades and feel fine, so it must be safe", or "OMIGOD, I'd better become an organic vegan right away"?
I imagine that 99% of the population will ignore the difference between eating Fritos fried in nearly-chemically-pure corn oil from Bt corn, and eating whole ears of GMO sweet corn!
Rrr I admit I know little to nothing about crop or meat inspections.
rrr But I assume that whatever safety inspections are required, are already being done.
rrr The difference needed to create separate paths for GMO and non-GMO (it seems like to me) would be mainly to use different silos and warehouses for GMO and non-GMO.
Rick, It took me a page and a half too just describe all the expensive things like silos and such it would require to keep the grain separate as it entered the commodity market and I am not going to post several pages detailing why it would be so expensive. But believe me, it would be a nightmare keeping the products separated after they enter the conmodity handling process..
Ernie
rrr And it's not like you need to sample and do genetic testing to determine what is or is not GMO: if they know what they planted, they know which it is.
rrr Or maybe you are right, since someone has to PROVE what kind of seed was planted.
When I go through the checkout at my supermarket the cashier scans the products, and she commented to me the other day that something I selected under the impression that it was organic (it was in the organic part of the produce section) was not, because its number didn't begin with 9.
Interesting, GG. I'll start paying attention to the UPC now to see if it does categorize organic vs non-organic. I do assume that most organic produce will have a sticker saying so, but that may well not be true.
Once in a while they'll put non-organic produce in with the organic types, so it's good to have that method of checking, although really, you can see on the label if it's supposed to be.
If one wants to ensure they dont get GMO food they can buy organic. So it seems there is already a process in place for folks to get GMO free food without additional labeling.
Thus I do not see a huge need to label, though I am not necesarily against it. Since GMO's are safe I dont see what the benefit of labeling it would be. I guess we could also put on the label that the crop was irrigated with dihydrogen monoxide. Shouldnt people know that too?
Dihydrogen monoxide--I'm staying away from ANY chemical.
Willy...you better not breathe in any air then...or drink any water! In fact we are nothing but chemicals...
Who polices all the Organic produce to verify that none of it has never had any chemicals applied, even in the dark of night?
I am pretty sure the percentage of Crooks, thieves and other Evil doers is the same among profit hungry Organic Farmers as is true about profit hungry Corporation Employees.
I do think that percentage is very small, but as far as i have noticed, it is pretty evenly spread out anomgst all of us.
Ernie
Amen, Ernie. I once had a farmers market vendor tell me he used cotton defoliant to rid his plot of weeds. (I suspect that defoliant is not legally used except for cotton) He did not make a claim that he was organic, but most folks patronizing farmers markets do assume organic. I heard another vendor say she bought bell peppers at the supermarket (3 for a buck) to resell at the FM.
Willy,
When i lived on my boat, doing my own cooking and food shopping, i patronized a large Farmers Market that set up every Sunday in the Marina parking lot. Some of the small farmer Verdors would drive as much as 150 miles to sell their produce, but about half of them had nothing but commercial crates on their trucks that had been purchased at the large Wholesale Produce market in Downtown Los Angeles. Some claimed Organic and some did not, but like you say, most customers just seemed to assume it was healthier.
Samples of each product were put out, cut from unwashed fruit, with bare hands, and were just gobbled up by the public, I have never been nervous about things like that, but knowing how scared most people are of germs and chemicals, I always got a kick out of watching them grab and gobble the free samples.
Ernie
yup yet again people are irrational!
my nearby farm stand also has some wholesale items. AT least it is partly grown right here, and partly from a good orchard about forty miles away, and the wholesale stuff to fill out the stand and give people more options.
I get a newsletter from The Healthy Home Economist and the one I received today states - "With one fell swoop in 2005, Monsanto grabbed approximately 40% of the US vegetable seed market with its acquisition of Seminis". It also mentions the "Monsanto Protection Act" which I verified with Snopes actually exists. The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds — which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company — and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits. You can read more on this at Snopes.
I don't know about the rest of you but I don't want GMO's in the food chain and I don't want to be ingesting them. Europe has banned them and I believe they should be banned. Rather than assuming that they are harmless until being proven to be dangerous why can't we assume they are dangerous until being proven harmless. Can you imagine the repercussions if similar legislation had been passed by the tobacco companies 50 years ago? This is a giant mess being silently unleashed on the American public all in the name of financial profit. Monsanto now owns most of the heirloom seed available in the US and at some point we won't even be able to obtain seed that hasn't been modified so keep saving your heirlooms and keep trading seeds folks!