Washington says NO to gmo labeling

[pgardn]

If GMOs are OK, then Monsanto and the rest of the agriculture industrial complex would have no issue with labeling them, right? Why would they be pouring millions of dollars into stopping initiatives that would force them to label GMOs if GMOs are harmless?

Labeling has nothing to do with what I am writing about.
It is not necessary to reframe my statements.
If people want to know where there food comes from I have no argument.

Anything else you would like to skew? Grams of protein are labeled on food, is that bad?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Labeling has nothing to do with what I am writing about.
It is not necessary to reframe my statements.
If people want to know where there food comes from I have no argument.

Anything else you would like to skew?

The fact Monsanto is willing to pay millions so they don't have to label GMOs says plenty about your argument that GMOs are good.

[pgardn]

The fact Monsanto is willing to pay millions so they don't have to label GMOs says plenty about your argument that GMOs are good.

Do you understand that there are many different types of food could be modified in many different ways. From making a purple carrot, to adding an essential amino acid or vitamin to rice. Think there is a difference?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Do you understand that there are many different types of food could be modified in many different ways. From making a purple carrot, to adding an essential amino acid or vitamin to rice. Think there is a difference?

This thread is about the GMOs Monsanto doesn't want to label. I'm not sure why these allegedly magical GMOs you're referring to are relevant.

[pgardn]

This thread is about the GMOs Monsanto doesn't want to label. I'm not sure why these allegedly magical GMOs you're referring to are relevant.

If you would read all the posts you would realize topics wander.
If you are the stay on exact topic police I apologize.
What is the ST fine?

[pgardn]

GM rice could prevent a huge amount of suffering in other countries. There is the possibility a lot of good could come from this. A bit disappointing that some people will throw the baby out with the bath water.

But the topic was labeling, the bathwater, carry on...

This pointed out my wayward response.
Does this reduce my fine?

[pgardn]

Just like many other topics GM food is labeled with a broad brush. Since Monsanto, a company who has clearly violated some of the rules on producing GM crops has a stake, it's all bad. Not so. This technique has the possibility of producing crops with characteristics which could be highly desired.

I implore those interested to read the complexity, good and bad, associated with genetically modified rice done by NPR.

Its is fairly obvious that Monsanto knows this knee jerk response, as illustrated on this board, will lead to people staying away from GM food crops. Their reputation, based on some very shady business, is also understood. Together, they clearly have forecast that labeling will not allow them the profit they think they deserve from their cost in engineering foods.

It seems rather obvious.

The potential to create something desirable on the surface, yet dangerous, is clearly there. A case by case basis seems the pragmatic way to approach the issue. It's here to stay, so it seems we should do this the right way.

[SA210]

[boutons_deux]

This technique has the possibility of producing crops with characteristics which could be highly desired.

goddam you're naive.

The only characteristic "desired" by the GM companies is eternal profits, selling sterile seeds and Bs tons of x-icides to farmers dependent on their products.

Human health is simply not the list of desirables of the GM companies.

The reason GM companies and food sellers don't want labelling is that CLIENTS don't want, trust, buy GM (if they knew it was GM ).

[Wild Cobra]

[pgardn]

goddam you're naive.

The only characteristic "desired" by the GM companies is eternal profits, selling sterile seeds and Bs tons of x-icides to farmers dependent on their products.

Human health is simply not the list of desirables of the GM companies.

The reason GM companies and food sellers don't want labelling is that CLIENTS don't want, trust, buy GM (if they knew it was GM ).

So you are telling me genetically modified rice with vitamin A which is lacking in so many peoples diets and causes associated malnutrition is not desirable because?

Did you read about Golden rice? It has many subtle problems to be considered.
Or don't, and remain one of the most ignorant posters on this site.
And you pretend like you have some compassion for the downtrodden?
Hypocrite Maximus.

[pgardn]

So now that you can't take your 2x4 and stomp through wheat fields what's the plan?

[SA210]

So now that you can't take your 2x4 and stomp through wheat fields what's the plan?

Continue to make you angry with no effort at all? lol

[pgardn]

Continue to make you angry with no effort at all? lol

Yeah, just livid

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Continue to make you angry with no effort at all? lol

I don't understand why he feels the need to vehemently defend GMOs that are supposedly different than the GMOs Monsanto doesn't want to label , the fact people ITT want their food labeled properly has him melting down

[pgardn]

Labeling has nothing to do with what I am writing about.
It is not necessary to reframe my statements.
If people want to know where there food comes from I have no argument.

Anything else you would like to skew? Grams of protein are labeled on food, is that bad?

And again.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So who are you arguing with exactly?

[pgardn]

All GM is to capture agriculture. GM seeds have to be purchased every year. GM seeds are meant to be drenched with expensive corporate x-icides. GM is ing nightmare

As already explained in my other post...

[SA210]

[boutons_deux]

http://www.examiner.com/article/lead...fied-organisms

GMOs Solve No Real Problems Best: The Founding Fables of Industrialised Agriculture

In reality, GMOs do not consistently or even usually yield well under field conditions; they do not necessarily lead to reduction in chemical inputs, and have often led to increases; and contra Mark Lynas, there is no worldwide consensus of scientists vouching for their safety. Indeed, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) has drawn up a pe ion that specifically denies any such consensus and points out that “a list of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety”. Hundreds of scientists are expected to sign. Overall, after 30 years of concerted endeavour, ultimately at our expense and with the neglect of matters far more pressing, no GMO food crop has ever solved a problem that really needs solving that could not have been solved by conventional means in the same time and at less cost.

The real point behind GMOs is to achieve corporate/ big government control of all agriculture, the biggest by far of all human endeavours. And this agriculture will be geared not to general wellbeing but to the maximization of wealth. The last hundred years, in which agriculture has been industrialised, have laid the foundations. GMOs, for the agro-industrialists, can finish the job. The technology itself is esoteric so that only the specialist and well-endowed can embark on it – the bigger the better. All of the technology can be, and is, readily protected by patents. Crops that are not protected by patents are being made illegal. Only parts of the EU have so far been pro-GM but even so the list of crops that it allows farmers to grow – or any of us! – becomes more and more restricted. Those who dare to sell the seed of traditional varieties that have not been officially approved can go to prison. Your heritage allotment could soon land you in deep trouble.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/ite...ed-agriculture

[mouse]