GMO labels now!

[Audacious]

Oh great, a conspiracy theory based off of a dude with absolutely no qualifications and who is totally unheard of. That's believable.

Edit: You'll notice the only other places carrying this 'news' include two conspiracy theory sites trying to scare the paranoid and gullible (CounterCurrents.org and GlobalResearch.ca.). This is because it's bull.

 

[loveofourlord]

Oh great, a conspiracy theory based off of a dude with absolutely no qualifications and who is totally unheard of. That's believable.

I like how people will believe any crackpot conspiracy theorist that claims to be speaking out against the "man" yet you have majority of scientists from multiple countries, cultures, backgrounds accepting soemthing and well that one lone wolf is the savior.

 

[ananda]

Got nothing else but ad hominem attacks left, eh?

If anything, the true "conspiracy theorists" in this discussion are the pro-GMO advocates who claim that their frankenfoods are safe.

 

[loveofourlord]

Got nothing else but ad hominem attacks left, eh?

If anything, the true "conspiracy theorists" in this discussion are the pro-GMO advocates who claim that their frankenfoods are safe.

Give me one method that realisticly could cause GMO's as a whole to be dangerous, not some types, not some groups, but something that could make something like golden rice that could save the lives of many people. Problem with the quacks, and not talking about you, I'm talking about the guys you follow is, they have this all or nothing mentality. X is always good, Y is always bad, this will cure everything, this will cause all bad things.

Life and nature and reality arn't black and white, and the fact that no distinctions are made shows the biasness involved. People rather believe that all vaccines are bad despite lives they save, people rather believe that vitamins are good, so more of them are better even though overdosing on vitamins is dangerous. People like to think that because something is organic it's good, but it's just as bad as many of the pharma stuff, except it's not regulated, tested for efficacy, dosage or even if it's plausible.

Are maybe some GMO's bad? Yes of course, but so are many of the very things people want to sell as alternatives. I can't take anything the people you link to seriously because all they come off is crackpots, people feeding off the fear and naiveity of people that don't understand the nuiances or the science behind the very stuff they attack.

People that have 0 education in a subject deam themselves more worthy of those that have studied these things for years. Just like with evolution, some one with a highschool dropout level education deams himself smarter then the entire scientific comunity because he some how noticed somethng they ALL missed. It's arrogance, it's hubris, and it's disgusting.

Funny how every one of these groups, alternative medicine, nutritionists, creationism, anti climate change, anti GMO all have the same methodology wich is why no one takes them seriously. It's all quote mining, bad testing, frauds and many more. They take a badly done study like feeding potatoes that are deadly to rats, then act surprised when rats do badly, then lie claiming that those fed GMO potatoes are worse off despite it's a outright lie and not in the data, just made up because they want to portray GMO's as bad. t hey don't care about the truth, the data, the information, who dies or who is hurt, as long as the agenda of killing progress and science is achieved.

 

[loveofourlord]

Got nothing else but ad hominem attacks left, eh?

If anything, the true "conspiracy theorists" in this discussion are the pro-GMO advocates who claim that their frankenfoods are safe.

Oh and learn what a ad hominem is before you make yourself look silly.

 

[bill5]

Too late.

Oh and pass the tinfoil

 

[Vylo]

Actually, no. It has been scientifically proven that non-GMO organic farming techniques produce as much ford as, or more food than, "conventional" and GMO crops. In addition, it has also been proven that organic production sequesters carbon in the soil. Global warming could be stopped in its tracks if organic farming were to be widely used.

See here: rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FSTbooklet.pdf

Some quick facts from the paper at the above link:

FST Facts:

Organic yields match conventional yields.

Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought.

Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.

Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient.

Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases.

Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

So, in point of fact, continuing with the current conventional and GMO agriculture is what will cause mass starvation. Is that what YOU really want?

What kind of crackpot site is this to make these claims?

My company has a GMO-free plant, and the organics cost a ton more than the GMO. We have organic farms just down the street, and they look absolutely pathetic compared to the conventional ones.

GMO typically increases yields and definitively stabilizes them by protecting against losses.

Virtually all arguments against GMO have been hyperbolic junk. If you want a valid argument, look at what GMO foods do to genetic diversity and the damage they can cause if they encroach into the wild.

 

[RelativeBearing]

sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/04/jane-goodall-steven-druker-expose-us-government-fraud-gmos#.VP36hi6LWOo

"In an acclaimed new book being launched Wednesday in London, American public interest attorney Steven Druker reveals how the US government and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs and the scientific research that casts doubt on their safety ... The book is the result of more than 15 years of intensive research and investigation by Druker, who came to prominence for initiating a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods. Those files revealed that GM foods first achieved commercialisation in 1992 only because the FDA:

• Covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their dangers.
• Lied about the facts.
• And then violated federal food safety law by permitting these foods to be marketed without having been proven safe through standard testing.
​

... Steven Druker’s investigation into the history of fraud and deceit that ushered in the era of GMOs deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply”. -- Netzarim.

Thanks, Netzarim, for bringing this thread back on track!

I've got to admit I'm a bit disappointed at the preponderance of off-base "opinions" in many of these posts. To me discussion boards are a place where people can share and learn. That requires thoughtful posts backed up by links from reputable sites.

I'm disappointed that some posters did not even take the time to do some research about some of the organizations behind the sites before they posted very uninformed criticisms. Criticizing organic farming pioneer and widely respected research institute Rodale, for instance, as a "crackpot site" indicates a breathtaking state of ignorance.

 

[loveofourlord]

sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/04/jane-goodall-steven-druker-expose-us-government-fraud-gmos#.VP36hi6LWOo

"In an acclaimed new book being launched Wednesday in London, American public interest attorney Steven Druker reveals how the US government and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs and the scientific research that casts doubt on their safety ... The book is the result of more than 15 years of intensive research and investigation by Druker, who came to prominence for initiating a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods. Those files revealed that GM foods first achieved commercialisation in 1992 only because the FDA:

• Covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their dangers.
• Lied about the facts.
• And then violated federal food safety law by permitting these foods to be marketed without having been proven safe through standard testing.
​

... Steven Druker’s investigation into the history of fraud and deceit that ushered in the era of GMOs deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply”. -- Netzarim.

Thanks, Netzarim, for bringing this thread back on track!

I've got to admit I'm a bit disappointed at the preponderance of off-base "opinions" in many of these posts. To me discussion boards are a place where people can share and learn. That requires thoughtful posts backed up by links from reputable sites.

I'm disappointed that some posters did not even take the time to do some research about some of the organizations behind the sites before they posted very uninformed criticisms. Criticizing organic farming pioneer and widely respected research institute Rodale, for instance, as a "crackpot site" indicates a breathtaking state of ignorance.

Being a expert in organic farming doesn't make them a expert of anyone to speak out on GMO, also gives them a vested interest in attacking GMO's. Considering many of the claims about how good and healthy and better for you are made by organic farmers I'm a bit leery about it.

 

[bill5]

This thread is just dripping with irony.

 

[ananda]

Thanks, Netzarim, for bringing this thread back on track!

GMOs should be labeled. GMO proponents can flock to them, GMO opponents can avoid them, and their success or failure will be judged by the free-trade market.

I wonder why GMO proponents are so eager to prevent labeling. If they're so great, they should be proud to press for such labels.

 

[bill5]

Amazingly, I agree with you. When people see how many things are "GMO," most will go ah nuts to this silliness and just buy what they'd buy anyway.

 

[ananda]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

GMOs should be labeled. GMO proponents can flock to them, GMO opponents can avoid them, and their success or failure will be judged by the free-trade market.

I wonder why GMO proponents are so eager to prevent labeling. If they're so great, they should be proud to press for such labels.

Sugar is basically a single chemical. Should sugar derived from a GMO enabled sugar cane be required to be labeled?

Should there be any exemptions at all?

 

[bill5]

No! GMOs bad, non-GMOs good! Who needs facts n reasons n stuff?

 

[pgp_protector]

That Reminds me, need to go downstairs & eat some chemicals mixed with dihydro-monoxide.

 

[loveofourlord]

Sugar is basically a single chemical. Should sugar derived from a GMO enabled sugar cane be required to be labeled?

Should there be any exemptions at all?

Considering some people think there is a difference between natural vitamin C and created vitamin C I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[ananda]

Sugar is basically a single chemical. Should sugar derived from a GMO enabled sugar cane be required to be labeled?

Should there be any exemptions at all?

If it's identical to the non-GMO substance, then it's not genetically modified.

If it's not 100% identical, then why not label it?

 

[loveofourlord]

If it's identical to the non-GMO substance, then it's not genetically modified.

If it's not 100% identical, then why not label it?

because the plant would be GMO, but the sugar itself isn't, so the question is what matters? And I think it applies to many things. Some GMO's don't effect the corn you eat, but change the rest of the plant, just as sugar isn't effected by changes to the plant.

So you either want to lable sugar as GMO or not?

 

[bill5]

As long as it's gluten free I'm good with it. whoo hoooo