Bryan

Monsanto doesn't think it's an arbitrary distinction. They spend a lot of money suing people to prove that there is a substantive difference. You keep repeating this empty line. All meat is from a "murdered animal". Nobody is asking for such an inflamatory label, they just want a matter-of-fact easy to understand declaration. We are talking about being informed about what kind of product is in the food, not what blanket label you use for the whole category. A closer analogy might be if people were asking for grass-fed vs. grain-fed to be mandatory labelling.

You keep undermining your own point. The Dihydrogen Monoxide game is a deliberate trick to see if you can obfuscate what you're really talking about by not using a term people are familiar with. You can catch people with it, because they don't know what it means. If you use the term they know (water), you can't fool anyone. Nobody knows which strains are GMO and which are not just by their name. Using the names of the strains is a deliberate trick to see if you can obfuscate what you're really talking about by not using a term people are familiar with. You can catch people with it, because they don't know what it means. If you use the term they know (GMO), you can't fool anyone.

That might be an area where a compromise might be possible; using a different phrase. It doesn't have to be exactly those three letters. As long as it clearly distinguishes whether or not the ingredients used have been genetically engineered, what words they use to convey that is of far less importance. I do disagree with your assertion that GMO is pejorative though. It's a succinct matter-of-fact description of what the product is. Inflammatory and/or pejorative would be if they were required to label them "frankenfood" or something of that nature.

You're absolutely wrong, there's no connection. We are not talking about the methods of "harvest", we're talking about altering the organism on a genetic level. There's huge difference. And I already explained it:

That's not what's happening at all. A closer example, if you wanted to use meat, is if was in-vitro meat, or if it came from cloned animals. People would want to know that too, and again, it's completely irrelevant if studies show it to be safe -- you still have to tell people what they're getting. No it's not. Withholding that label is.

Actually it is. Like the quote you provided, there's an alarming trend. A trend people want to be made aware of. It's a very rational desire for people to want to be informed of these things. What's irrational, is arguing in favour of restricting that information from consumers.

LOL! The biotech industry is where you're getting your info from?

It doesn't matter if you don't like their reasons. People have a right to know what they're eating. Listing those things are nice too, but you know darn well, that's not what people want to know. They want to know if this is a product created in a lab (with a patent on it). Durham wheat was developed thousands of years ago through selective picking and growing, not through gene manipulation.

No you didn't. You offered a way to bury the info in such a way that no one could parse it. If you write that a product contains 500mg of CH3CH2CH=CHCH2CH=CHCH2CH=CHCH2CH=CHCH2CH=CHCH2CH=CH(CH2)2COOH, it might be accurate, but no one would know what it means. If you wrote Docosahexaenoic acid, hardly anyone would know either. DHA, maybe now a few people would get it, but it still would not be meaningful info for most people. Now just put Omega 3's, and now people understand what you mean. When it comes to food, you can't assume anyone has a science background, and you can't make any assumption as to why people want to know.

Meaningless TO YOU. It clearly means something to a lot of other people.

Good lawyers, yes. Ones that tell them what weasel words to use, and when to hide behind "anonymous sources".

You did not propose a compromise. You proposed a smoke-screen deliberately intended so that most people would have no idea what it meant. That's the same thing as not labelling it at all.

You're a very dishonest debater. I clearly said the information is what I want to see. I never claimed to be part of any anti-GMO campaign. You're the one who is trying to force artificial conditions on what people are or are not allowed to care about.

Yes, slander is a good word for most of the reporting the Star does.

No, that it contains patented organisms that are not found in nature.

That would be unacceptable. It would be deliberate obfuscation by burying the basic part of the information inside a barrage of information that most people couldn't parse. Not unlike our labelling of basic macro-nutrients. We dumb-down that all carbs are 4 calories (even though they range), we don't list every sort of fatty-acid profile, every single vitamin, mineral and phytochemical, we list the main things that consumers are actually looking for. If a consumer is looking for "GMO", then that is what it should say. The details should be left to the website or a monograph that people could ask for.

I'm not clear what you're saying. Do you mean the full info would be on their website rather than on the box? If so, they would be a good start. The bottom of the ingredient list could say "contains genetically modified organisms, see our website for details". As long as there's no "may contain" weaselling that would probably satisfy most people. If you don't know for sure, you should not be selling food to the public.

That's not what's happening. A better analogy would be, your doctor is giving you a shot, but refuses to tell you what is in it. When you get a flu shot, they tell you what strain it's inoculating you against, and the manufacturers keep meticulous records of where, when, and how the vaccine was developed. If you ask for it, you can have the full monograph. People have a right to make an informed decision.

Wrong. I'm not anti-GMO. I already said in this thread that I'd probably eat it anyway, and that I fully realize they've done a lot of good. Millions of lives have been saved by GMO foods. The point is, if it's been modified to the point that they can PATENT it, that means it is a substantially different product than the natural food (for better, worse, or neutral effect). If it wasn't different, they would not be allowed to patent it. If it's not the same thing, then people have a right to at least that basic information. What I'm opposed to, is any food manufacturer telling me I don't need to know what's in my food. That's for me to decide. What Monsanto doesn't understand is, the more strenuously they oppose that labelling, the more people want to see it, and the more onerous those requirements are going to be once they get passed. If they don't smarten up, they WILL have to keep a public database of every little strain.

Correct. What they're worried about is losing customers.

Actually you're the only one here who is acting emotional. Others just want the information. Your defense of attempts to keep information from the public is irrational. I imagine you'd have fit right in with the Catholics during the reformation. "I just want to read the book for myself" "Why would you want to do that? There is no reason for you to read this book. I've read it, I'll tell you what it says, that's all you need to know"

So it's accusing them of the kinds of things they do on an almost daily basis. Not much of a stretch.

I accept the words of the Prime Minister on the video. I like what he had to say, and I'd venture most conservatives would too. I reject the doctoring of the video by Mr. Kinsella to add words that were never spoken.

Which is exactly why we give them different kinds of help. Instead of giving money to their parents that the kids may never see, we institute meal programs at schools, and clothing drives, and equipment drives so they can play sports, and grants to cover the registration for those sports, and increased policing so that their neighborhoods are safe, and training programs so that those parents who are motivated can qualify for better paying jobs to get out from that bottom, and grants to employers if they hire those people.

I do, as do most Canadians. That's why we already have that here by a pretty wide margin. Even someone on welfare in Canada is absolutely wealthy compared to most people in other parts of the world. For the most part, the problem is not access, it's people's choices. It's their patterns of action that leave most people poor. Giving those people more money won't solve that problem, they need other kinds of help.