Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This should be the end of the discussion.

It doesn't matter if you don't like their reasons. People have a right to know what they're eating.

Unless it affects the bottom line of some corporations who have a lot of money to convince some people that it is in our interest to be blind on the matter.

Let's just take ingredient labels off all products. The consumer does not deserve this information without effort. Anyone who cares can contact the company to find out what's in it.

[TimG]

It doesn't matter if you don't like their reasons. People have a right to know what they're eating.

You *claim* is it about a right to know. But your arguments make it clear your real desire is psychological manipulation. You don't have a right to that.

They want to know if this is a product created in a lab (with a patent on it).

Every modern plant strain was created in the 'lab' even if they are non-GMO hybrids and many have patents on them.

http://www.europabio.org/why-do-seeds-have-patents-are-gm-seeds-only-patented-seeds

Contrary to what some say, GM seeds are not the only seeds with Intellectual Property Rights. Almost all conventional (non-GM) and organic hybrid seeds are patented and cannot be saved for use in the next planting season.

This provides even more evidence that your fixation with the word "GMO" is not based on a rational desire for information. Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[Bryan]

EuropaBio is the voice for the biotech industry at the EU level

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

[TimG]

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

Then provide evidence that the claim is wrong.

This source should be more to your liking:

http://www.alt.no-patents-on-seeds.org/

However, there is an alarming new trend for patents not only to be claimed on GMOs (such as Round-up ready soybeans), but also on conventional plants. For example, patent claims have been made for soy beans with a better oil quality3 covering parts of the plant genome when used in conventional breeding and technologies to improve conventional breeding (such as marker assisted breeding).

Like I said, your fixation on the word "GMO" is not based on a rational desire for information. Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[Bryan]

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.

[Ender Miggit]

They are trying to stop GMO for our health, and our children, and our children's children safety.

[bush_cheney2004]

It doesn't matter if you don't like their reasons. People have a right to know what they're eating.

No they don't...people only have the right to choose what they wish to eat. Most have no idea or ability to understand differences to such a level. For instance, people don't realize how many/much insect parts, rodent hairs, eggs, fecal matter, or "filth" are permitted in food items.

Edited May 29, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

What's irrational, is arguing in favour of restricting that information from consumers.

I am not arguing for restricting information. I am simply arguing about how to present the information.

Lets say a group demanded that all products containing meat products had labels saying 'contains the remains of murdered animals'. Would you argue that this demand was reasonable and that people have a 'right to know' that they are eating the 'remains of murdered animals'?

I may be wrong, but I am guessing that you would argue that it is a psychologically manipulative label created to promote a particular agenda and it does not serve to inform consumers.

Anti-GMO activists have put so much misinformation out there that putting a contains GMO label on food is no different from putting a label like 'contains the remains of murdered animals'.

Consumers have a right to be informed. Buy lobby groups like the anti-GMO orgs don't have a right to manipulate consumers with the government's help. A 'contains GMOs' label is manipulation. There are different ways to provide the information you claim is necessary.

Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[Bryan]

Lets say a group demanded that all products containing meat products had labels saying 'contains the remains of murdered animals'. Would you argue that this demand was reasonable and that people have a 'right to know' that they are eating the 'remains of murdered animals'?

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.

A 'contains GMOs' label is manipulation.

No it's not. Withholding that label is.

[TimG]

That's not what's happening at all.

Yes it is exactly what is happening since GMOs now have a pejorative meaning because of the misinformation spread by various anti-GMO activists. Using that term on a label today is exactly the same as using the term 'murdered animals'. If you think 'murdered animals' is inappropriate then you should understand why 'contains GMOs' is inappropriate.

Withholding that label is.

Only if you think that withholding the label 'contains murdered animals' from meat products is manipulation. Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[Bryan]

Yes it is exactly what is happening since GMOs now have a pejorative meaning because of the misinformation spread by various anti-GMO activists. Using that term on a label today is exactly the same as using the term 'murdered animals'. If you think 'murdered animals' is inappropriate then you should understand why 'contains GMOs' is inappropriate.

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:

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.

[carepov]

The people of California voted against Prop 37:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_37_(2012)

Proponents claimed labelling would cost consumers nothing.

Oponents claimed it would cost several hundreds of dollars per household per year.

Hurray for democracy!

Edited May 29, 2013 by carepov

[TimG]

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:

The difference has absolutely nothing to do my point. My point is the phrase "contains GMOs" has been turned into an emotion laden pejorative by anti-GMO activists and putting it on labels would elicit irrational emotional reactions. Just like describing meat as 'murdered animals' would elicit emotional reactions. The means the word is NOT a neutral description of the contents but rather a propaganda exercise on the part of anti-GMO activists. For that reason the government has no business mandating that label on food. If knowing what goes into food is important then the strains of food should be on the label. It provides the same information but without the emotion laden pejorative. Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep, just like "dolphin safe tuna" labels:

[BC_chick]

Lets say a group demanded that all products containing meat products had labels saying 'contains the remains of murdered animals'. Would you argue that this demand was reasonable and that people have a 'right to know' that they are eating the 'remains of murdered animals'?

I may be wrong, but I am guessing that you would argue that it is a psychologically manipulative label created to promote a particular agenda and it does not serve to inform consumers.

Wait a second. Where you and I left off yesterday you were saying that labelling GMO's would be a "lie" because there is nothing unsafe about them (quoted below). Here you're comparing the labelling to a truth about murdered animals.

A better comparison would be labelling that said "contains ingredients that may cause your nose and ears to get bigger"... (I mean, really, it could, right?)

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Especially if the majority of the country wanted it.

Not sure why you're so upset if you're this certain GMO's are safe.

Spare me your transparent duplicity. Labeling is a nothing but a cheap attempt to manipulate human psychology because the fact that that the label is there implies that there is a concern. There is absolutely no evidence that it is a concern which means putting it on labels means the government is promoting a lie.

If you want GMO-free organic products then you pay for them.

[Bryan]

The difference has absolutely nothing to do my point. My point is the phrase "contains GMOs" has been turned into an emotion laden pejorative by anti-GMO activists and putting it on labels would elicit irrational emotional reactions. Just like describing meat as 'murdered animals' would elicit emotional reactions. The means the word is NOT a neutral description of the contents but rather a propaganda exercise on the part of anti-GMO activists. For that reason the government has no business mandating that label on food. If knowing what goes into food is important then the strains of food should be on the label. It provides the same information but without the emotion laden pejorative.

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.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Bryan

[GostHacked]

Yes Monsanto is concerned about loosing profits and customers.

Why don't you and Bryan answer some recent questions posed to you:

1. Why is "Organic" or "GMO Free" not suffice to inform customers? As I stated before, I assume all others are likely GMOs

Because many people still think McDonald's is a healthy food choice. Even the guidelines for Organic leave something to be desired as it may contain some non-organic pesticides ect.

Also there are items that are not GMO but not organic. It was stated in the thread that a third option would be needed.

Organic

Non organic non GMO

GMO

2. What negative impacts have GMOs proven to have in humans over the last 40 years?

You are actually looking at a shorter time frame of 20 years on the scale we are growing GMO foods.

3. What criteria should regulatory systems have in order to decide what information is required on food labels?

I'd even argue with 'contains GMO ingredients' while stating on the ingredients which ones are GMO. We have labels for EVERYTHING we buy, why not another one?

We have labels to promote healthy heart, low sodium, low fat, ect ect, but yet people don't think labeling GMO is something that needs to be done?

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.

It's patented because Monsanto grafts the pesticide to be part of the plants DNA, it's engineered in the plant. This allows farmers to use more pesticides, and you cannot wash off the pesticides because it is built into the plant itself.

[GostHacked]

No they don't...people only have the right to choose what they wish to eat. Most have no idea or ability to understand differences to such a level. For instance, people don't realize how many/much insect parts, rodent hairs, eggs, fecal matter, or "filth" are permitted in food items.

Must be something in the water keeping people stupid ... fluoride maybe?

[TimG]

I do disagree with your assertion that GMO is pejorative though. It's a succinct matter-of-fact description of what the product is.

"Frankenfood" is obviously worse but GMO still has negative connotations associated with it because of misinformation spread by anti-bio tech activists. This damage cannot be undone with another phrasing that lumps many unrelated foods under a single umbrella - especially since this umbrella does not include all of the strains that bio-tech fear mongers complain about (i.e. organic strains with patents). The best solution is to list all strains because that is nothing but information. If bio-tech activists have problems with specific strains then they will have to mount educational fear campaigns against those strains. It is fair, accurate and allows people to come up with customized lists of foods they think are problematic. It is wrong to assume that all people concerned about GMOs would be equally concerned about all strains. Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

TimG, on 29 May 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

"Frankenfood" is obviously worse but GMO still has negative connotations associated with it because of misinformation spread by anti-bio tech activists.

GMO stands for 'gentically modified organism'. If people have an aversion towards it, it's not the label of GMO, it's knowing that the DNA of the animal/plant you are eating has been modified.

Quote

This damage cannot be undone with another phrasing that lumps many unrelated foods under a single umbrella - especially since this umbrella does not include all of the strains that bio-tech fear mongers complain about (i.e. organic strains with patents). The best solution is to list all strains because that is nothing but information. If bio-tech activists have problems with specific strains then they will have to mount educational fear campaigns against those strains. It is fair, accurate and allows people to come up with customized lists of foods they think are problematic. It is wrong to assume that all people concerned about GMOs would be equally concerned about all strains.

I would not know half as much about this as I do if I had not looked up the codes of the GMO strains in that test field that day. All codes were available online and from what I read on the Dekalb PDFs I did not like what I read.

If you want to prevent fear about GMOs, then they need to promote is as safe... but since they don't do that, you could assume it is not safe.

IF GMOs are all said to be as good as they are, then people would WILLINGLY promote the product. Not even Monsanto promotes their product that way, should be a red flag.

Here is another red flag.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/1999/12/22/gmfood991222.html

Quote

The fight to ban genetically modified foods has won more converts -- some employees of Monsanto the company that is doing the most to promote GM products.

The Independent newspaper reports that there is a notice in the cafeteria of the Monsanto pharmaceutical factory is High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, advising customers "as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."

The notice was posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group.

Monsanto confirms the authenticity of the notice, but company spokesman Tony Coombes says the only reason for the GM-free foods is because the company "believes in choice." Coombes says in other Monsanto locations employees are happy to eat GM foods because they are "sprayed with fewer chemicals."

Yup, there you have it folks.

Edited May 29, 2013 by GostHacked

[TimG]

GMO stands for 'gentically modified organism'. If people have an aversion towards it, it's not the label of GMO, it's knowing that the DNA of the animal/plant you are eating has been modified.

Do you know that dihydrogen monoxide is the cause of 300+ deaths per year in Canada? Don't you think it should be be banned from foodstuffs? Of course it sounds less scary if I remind you that dihydrogen monoxide is water. The fear of GMOs exists only because anti-bio tech activists have been spreading misinformation for decades. If people rationally looked at the evidence available there would be no fear. But the misinformation exists so any GMO label will provoke an irrational emotional reaction and therefore does not belong on labels.

Listing all strains will give people who want information all of the information they need but without the emotional reaction.

If you want to prevent fear about GMOs, then they need to promote is as safe... but since they don't do that, you could assume it is not safe.

This statement is complete nonsense. GMOs are extensively tested and are known to be safe to consume. But no matter how much testing is done it will never be enough for bio-tech fear mongers.

[Pliny]

.... no matter how much testing is done it will never be enough for bio-tech fear mongers.

Probably a true statement but Monsanto is not the most ethical corporation. It lobbies to destroy competition so I don't

trust any of its business practices and that, in my view, puts its science in question.

[TimG]

Probably a true statement but Monsanto is not the most ethical corporation. It lobbies to destroy competition so I don't trust any of its business practices and that, in my view, puts its science in question.

The onus is on the regulatory bodies to ensure that testing is sufficient. I also don't see much difference in business practices of Apple, Google and Facebook and Monsanto. They are all companies seeking to maximize profit by crushing competition.

[Bryan]

Do you know that dihydrogen monoxide is the cause of 300+ deaths per year in Canada? Don't you think it should be be banned from foodstuffs? Of course it sounds less scary if I remind you that dihydrogen monoxide is water. The fear of GMOs exists only because anti-bio tech activists have been spreading misinformation for decades. If people rationally looked at the evidence available there would be no fear. But the misinformation exists so any GMO label will provoke an irrational emotional reaction and therefore does not belong on labels.

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.

Listing all strains will give people who want information all of the information they need but without the emotional reaction.

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.

[GostHacked]

Do you know that dihydrogen monoxide is the cause of 300+ deaths per year in Canada? Don't you think it should be be banned from foodstuffs?

This is a horrible example of what we are talking about. Might was well throw sodium chloride under that. You would be better off talking about something like benzene that is in most soft drinks, and benzene is a known carcinogenic, and yet it is put into soft drinks ... why? What is the benefit of putting a known carcinogenic into a soft drink?

The fear of GMOs exists only because anti-bio tech activists have been spreading misinformation for decades. If people rationally looked at the evidence available there would be no fear. But the misinformation exists so any GMO label will provoke an irrational emotional reaction and therefore does not belong on labels.

Listing all strains will give people who want information all of the information they need but without the emotional reaction.

What is so emotional about wanting to know what is exactly in the food you are eating? The fact we are having this discussion at all should tell people that labeling is needed. How that labeling will look like and what it means would need to be worked out.

But if you want to talk emotional, look at the way advertising and packaging works. This exactly plays on emotional reaction. You do realize there is a whole psychology regarding advertising and packaging? 'NEW AND IMPROVED' !!! NOW WITH MORE FIBER !!!! DAILY DOSE OF OMEGA-3!!!!

But as soon as we talk GMO you bring in the emotional bit? Do you know how advertising work? Then tell me how lobbyists play into how things get labeled.

This statement is complete nonsense. GMOs are extensively tested and are known to be safe to consume. But no matter how much testing is done it will never be enough for bio-tech fear mongers.

Two rational and emotion-void questions for you.

1 - Why does Monsanto not serve GMO foods in their cafeteria?

2 - Why would Monsanto spend 45 million to kill the GMO labeling bill in California?

Edited May 29, 2013 by GostHacked