Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[Wilber]

Then buy organic brands. You get what you want.

Maybe. Even organic suppliers are finding it increasingly difficult to guaranty their sources haven't been contaminated by GMO stocks. In 50 years there will probably not be a large enough source of non GMO seed stock to go back anyway so we will be stuck with whatever Monsanto has created.

[Boges]

What's the definition of GMO?

Wouldn't a Clemintine be GMO because it's a cross breed of different Citrus fruits. God or natural evolution didn't produce that did it?

[carepov]

Shouldn't we also worry about irradiated foods? Shouldn't they be labelled?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation

We should also ban microwave ovens. I heard that eating nuked foods will cause cancer in your great-grandchildren.

[TimG]

WHY are there a growing number of people allergic to peanuts.

The world that we live in is superclean - this means our immune systems are not getting properly primed when we are young. The net result is an increase in allergies and asthma.

[TimG]

And you don't hear them complaining about adhering to the organic label guidelines or the cost of it.

That is because they charge a premium for their product.

[TimG]

Maybe. Even organic suppliers are finding it increasingly difficult to guaranty their sources haven't been contaminated by GMO stocks.

And how would labeling change this trend?

[DFCaper]

And you don't hear them complaining about adhering to the organic label guidelines or the cost of it.

I hear them complaining about the cost. It is not the reason Organics can cost far more? I hear people complaining all the time about how expensive it is for an organic farmer to be certified. Now we are proposing that we put this added burden to other food suppliers.

I think a big part of the problem is that to be certified is too difficult.

What is stopping someone from being non-organic but advertising that they are non GMOs? Maybe we need a 3rd catagory. I know there are a lot of people scared of GMOs, so why hasn't industry moved to satisfy the this demand? Is it because it would be expensive, or is there a conspiricy against it.

On the other side of the coin, Monsanto does appear to have too much influence on our governments. It is an other example of how we need to reduce the power of Lobbying. If Monsanto's unethical behavoirs we punished, instead of rewarded by governments, then we would likely have less paranoia and fear mongering about GMOs.

[TimG]

On the other side of the coin, Monsanto does appear to have too much influence on our governments.

I would say that "big green" (Green Peace, WWF, etc) has too much influence on government. Why is politically motivated lobbying by some corporations acceptable but not others?

Monsanto would not have influence you claim if there was not some fundamental truth to their arguments.

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

And how would labeling change this trend?

Public awareness if nothing else. If you make people aware of what they are eating, they pay more attention. Like checking the fat and sodium content in foods.

[GostHacked]

What's the definition of GMO?

Wouldn't a Clemintine be GMO because it's a cross breed of different Citrus fruits. God or natural evolution didn't produce that did it?

Cross breeding plants one thing. Selective breeding is another, GMO is manipulation on the genetic level, the DNA of things.

[TimG]

--

Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[DFCaper]

I would say that "big green" (Green Peace, WWF, etc) has too much influence on government. Why is politically motivated lobbying by some corporations acceptable but not others?

Monsanto would not have influence you claim if there was not some fundamental truth to their arguments.

I wouldn't limit my belief that outside special interest groups to one issue or side of an issue. Besides large multi-nationals having too much power, I would also say unions and other groups have too much influence as well.

Monsanto's lobbying power being too large is shown in how they are not liable for poisoning others and the power they have in the US over farms and there patents. Forgive my laziness and not getting "facts" and links, but I don't feel the need to dumb things down by going to Naturalnews.com or equivilent.

[GostHacked]

DFCaper, on 27 May 2013 - 2:59 PM, said:

On the other side of the coin, Monsanto does appear to have too much influence on our governments. It is an other example of how we need to reduce the power of Lobbying. If Monsanto's unethical behavoirs we punished, instead of rewarded by governments, then we would likely have less paranoia and fear mongering about GMOs.

If a Monsanto product was all it was said to be, then people would gladly welcome the GMO label. But since we have resistance to that, and Monsanto spending millions to kill that proposal. Do you think Monsanto really gives a damn about the cost of labeling for GMOs? In my view they pushed back because they don't want you to know what is GMO. If there was the GMO label on it, people might be looking for the non-gmo stuff. It's called making an informed decision about what you put into your body, and without proper labeling, you have no clue.

Were there any push backs on 'low-sodium' labeling? How about transfats? Why not? Was the cost of that too much for them? Not at all, because they are proud to put the low sodium or no transfats on the label.

[carepov]

Public awareness if nothing else. If you make people aware of what they are eating, they pay more attention. Like checking the fat and sodium content in foods.

This is a great argument against GMO labelling. GMO foods are as safe and nutritious as non-GMO foods, therefore we consumers should pay no attention to them and instead pay attention to to the things that matter:

-fat (especially trans fats)

-sugar

-salt

-allergens

[Hudson Jones]

since there is absolutely no chemical difference between GMO and non-GMO ingredients.

Timm-eh!

Let's take corn for example:

GMO Corn has 14 ppm of Calcium and NON GMO corn has 6130 ppm. 437 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Magnesium and NON GMO corn has 113ppm. 56 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Manganese and NON GMO corn has 14ppm. 7X more.

Source

Edited May 27, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[Bryan]

WHY are there a growing number of people allergic to peanuts.

The ban on peanut butter at schools and daycares is biggest culprit.

[bush_cheney2004]

I love all the hype over feel good food labeling, because it exposes the underlying economic interests involved. On another food labeling front, Canada is fighting country-of-origin labels for meat products:

The federal government is threatening "retaliatory measures" against the United States in a dispute over meat-labelling rules that Ottawa and the World Trade Organization consider discriminatory.

The U.S. government has announced new regulations on so-called country-of-origin labelling that would track beef and pork through the meat processing and distribution systems.

Canada objects to the labelling system on the grounds that it is costly, burdensome and will lead to the "disintegration" of the North American supply chain.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/05/24/business-meat-labelling.html

Some people don't even have enough food to eat, while others have time to bitch about how it is labeled.

[GostHacked]

The ban on peanut butter at schools and daycares is biggest culprit.

So banning stuff makes people allergic to it?

I am still missing an answer to WHY there are so many with peanut allergies.

[carepov]

Timm-eh!

Let's take corn for example:

GMO Corn has 14 ppm of Calcium and NON GMO corn has 6130 ppm. 437 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Magnesium and NON GMO corn has 113ppm. 56 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Manganese and NON GMO corn has 14ppm. 7X more.

Source

My corn is on sale 5 for $2.00. How much is the non-GMO?

[GostHacked]

My corn is on sale 5 for $2.00. How much is the non-GMO?

What seeds did you use to grow the corn?

[BubberMiley]

So banning stuff makes people allergic to it?

I am still missing an answer to WHY there are so many with peanut allergies.

Not to mention the epidemic diagnoses of celiac disease as suddenly people cannot digest the new strains of wheat.

[carepov]

What seeds did you use to grow the corn?

Sorry, I was not clear. It is not "my" corn. It's the corn that I bought at the supermarket yesterday.

It tastes great and cost me $2 for 5 - that's all I know. I was wondering what I would have to pay for the non-GMO corn?

[GostHacked]

Sorry, I was not clear. It is not "my" corn. It's the corn that I bought at the supermarket yesterday.

It tastes great and cost me $2 for 5 - that's all I know. I was wondering what I would have to pay for the non-GMO corn?

There might be a reason GMO stuff is so cheap, as Hudson eludes to, nutritional content of GMOs may not be as good as organic naturally growing.

Hybridizing plants through selective breeding and grafting can produce some great results, and is something we have been doing for centuries. This genetic manipulation has only been widely used for about the last 20-30 years. So we simply don't know enough about it.

Could be a reason we are seeing all sorts of food allergies and diseases from lack of nutrition. If the body is not getting enough nutrients you are starving yourself and will be at higher risk for many ailments.

[Moonlight Graham]

In any case, even if the cost was small it makes no sense to pass government regulations to pander to the religious objections of a minority. i.e. people demanding GMO labelling are making demands based on their eco-religion and are no different than people who demand Kosher or Halal labelling.

What's religious about wanting to know if a food product contains GMO's, and what those GMO's are? There are many reasons one might not want to buy certain GMO's, be it health, ethical, economic, environmental reasons etc. or a combo. Consumers should have the right to know what they're buying, especially when they're eating it, and especially if what they're eating hasn't been tested for long-term health effects on humans. Consumers deserve informed consent.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Consumers deserve informed consent.

Then those consumers can pay for it without forcing ALL consumers to pay.