Genetically Modified Foods, nothing to fear

Bearfootfarm · #21 05/31/13, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secuono

There's a pig farmer who switched to gmo corn and suddenly his pigs went sterile.
If that isn't a negative thing for all of us, I don't know what is.

Please show your links to that one case
There are thousands of "pig farmers" who have NOT had those results

tinknal · #22 05/31/13, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highlands

Walmart required this due to consumer demand and GMO milk (rBGH/rBST) died off as a result. Consumers didn't want it.

I'm sure you know that rBGH/rBST have no relationship to GMOs. There is no GMO milk in the marketplace.

haypoint · #23 05/31/13, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJsLady

Honestly if I wanted organic, I would grow my own.
If folks want organic, cool, they should have that option.
If folks want gmo, cool they should have that option.
If others like me, see no issue with traditional methods, IE if it isn't broke don't fix it, we should also have that option.

since those who buy organic have to pay through the nose for it, and gmo will cost more to produce, then those who want gmo should bear that cost as well.

GMO does not cost more to produce. In fact, because of all the fuel and soil it saves, coupled with record yields, it is cheaper to grow. The extra cost that I'm unwilling to pay for is keeping the 80% of the corn crop that is GMO separated, and documented, from the 20% of the corn crop that isn't GMO.
If you don't know the issues involved and the differences between soil robbing conventional corn production and the no-till, soil saving, insecticide eliminating methods made possible through RR and Bt corn.
The cost of documented non-GMO may run as much as organic. Would you still want three choices? Organic, non-organic non-GMO and GMO?
Just because you want more choices, doesn't mean the market will provide it. In my earlier examples, I might want all sorts of options. But since you can be assured that organic is non-GMO, I'd suggest you take it.

MDKatie · #24 05/31/13, 06:43 PM

Yes, and hydrogenated oils are not harmful, they're better for you than animal fats! Oh crap, hydrogenated oils are killing you, eat butter instead! Red meat is bad for you, no it's good. Wine is bad for you. Wait, wine is good for you! Eggs are harmful! Wait, eggs are good for you! Sugar is bad, eat these artificial sweeteners instead. Wait, don't eat the artificial sweeteners!

emdeengee · #25 05/31/13, 06:50 PM

As far as I am concerned the health consequences (animal and human) and the environmental consequences of GMO foods have yet to be determined. If there is nothing to fear then label the products. Let the market decide.

The thing that I fear about GMO products is the fact that our food supply will be under the control of corporations - they hold the patents and they have the legal teams to enforce them. People are paranoid about the threat of government control and yet we don't take the control by corporations seriously.

Think it can't happen? - Bolivia came near to civil war to regain control over their water when the Bechtel Corporation became the owners of the water.

haypoint · #26 05/31/13, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highlands

If there is nothing wrong with GMOs then the makers and farmers using GMOs should not fear their products being labeled as GMO. Label the GMO products and let the market place decide.

Walmart required this due to consumer demand and GMO milk (rBGH/rBST) died off as a result. Consumers didn't want it.

Walmart is now moving to labeling of all GMO foods. This gives information to the consumer. Labeling advocates for nutrition, ingredients and allergens all claim that the consumer has the right to know and that it helps consumers make better health and food buying choices. Same goes for GMO. Label it. Let the buyer decide what they want.

The fact that the GMO companies oppose labeling demonstrates they're trying to hide something.

You know we have a majority of low information consumers. Label something some way and they imagine that it is good, labeled another way and it seems bad.
"Pasture Raised Beef" sounds good, but nearly every beef cow in the nation is raised on pasture and finished on grain. "Amish Raised Chicken", raised just like the rest of the commercial chickens still sounds better. "Hormone-free Beef" sounds good, but since all beef naturally has hormones (humans do, too) is a lie. Milk advertised to be "No BGH "when dairies stopped using it years ago.
It might fit your version of the world, with WalMart controlling the dairy industry, but the fact is that BGH had no effect on average cows and the increase on the good producers created health issues associated with high producing cows. Farmers tried it, it was safe, it wasn't an economically viable tool and was mostly stopped.

If there was a difference in nutrition or allergens, then you could make your case. But there is no difference.

If you think labeling is such a good idea, try marketing non-GMO corn. Label it all you want. Take advantage of the groundswell of low information consumer. You could even boost sales by listing www.naturalnews.com. Get an endorsement from Jeff Smith and Dr. Mercola.

Rick · #27 05/31/13, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

There's a pig farmer who switched to organic corn and suddenly his pigs went sterile.
If that isn't a negative thing for all of us, I don't know what is.

Please supply a link to back this up.

BobbyB · #28 05/31/13, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

Do you want the option to buy non-GMO corn chips or GMO corn chips, without a great increase in price? Sorry, someone has to pay for the documentation. I don't care if it is GMO corn or not. So, I don't think I should have to pay for the required paper trail such separation would require.
Just like organic, you pay extra for the documentation. Getting non-GMO, separated from the field all through the storage and transportation processes will result in similar cost increases. 80% of the US corn crop is GMO corn. So, in a very real sense, what corn products you buy in the store is totally or at least partially GMO. Most people do not care. Let's start with those truths.
You should be the one deciding on if and when you want to use them.
Not the gov, not monsanto, not the press.
You and only you should be in charge of what you eat or buy.
If you are not really an organic only gal, I don't see why a third choice is needed.
If You choose not to use gmo, pick Organic and don't interfere with the rest of the population that doesn't care.
If I want catsup made from heirloom tomatoes, I should be the one deciding, I should be able to choose. I want a label on all tomato products that says, "made from non-heirloom tomatoes". It is my right. I demand it.
Then I want to know what breed of pig supplied my bacon. What variety of apple is in my applesauce? What breed of chicken supplied my free range brown organic eggs? Then I expect someone else to foot the extra cost of keeping track of all that information, so the labels can be verified.

I still maintain this is bull splatters. All food is labeled , such as it is and adding " contains GMO products " is not going to ad one red cent to that label.

And in about 99.8% of the time, that would make the we want it labeled people happy

unregistered353870 · #29 05/31/13, 10:04 PM

It isnt the actual labeling that would be expensive. It's making sure the labeling is true. Sure they could just slap "may contain GMO" on everything but that wouldnt tell us much more than we already know.

Bearfootfarm · #30 05/31/13, 10:05 PM

Quote:

I still maintain this is bull splatters. All food is labeled , such as it is and adding " contains GMO products " is not going to ad one red cent to that label.

They can't put something on a label unless they can PROVE it's true.
ANY "GMO" type labeling will lead to mandatory testing, which will add to everyone's costs

But that isn't the topic of THIS thread.
This is about HEALTH SAFETY, and the lack of credible evidence showing it's "harmful"

arabian knight · #31 05/31/13, 10:18 PM

And so far none, nada, zero, no scientific evidence of harm is or ever has been done harm to anything, or anybody, from this gmo which has been going on now for may years. But sure has been a plethora or misinformation, and way over blown and hyped up stories all presented by the anti folks.

haypoint · #32 05/31/13, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyB

I still maintain this is bull splatters. All food is labeled , such as it is and adding " contains GMO products " is not going to ad one red cent to that label.

And in about 99.8% of the time, that would make the we want it labeled people happy

Sure all food has labels. You buy corn muffins, it tells you it has corn in it. You buy applesauce, it tells you it has apples in it. That is easy.
But when you want them to keep two identical products separate from field to grocery store, it costs. It really wouldn't be different from requiring that a jar of applesauce either list what kind of apples are in it or what varieties are not in it.
We have been over this whole thing many times. The label is cheap, the separation and documentation is costly.
But you have solutions if you want to avoid GMO. I've mentioned buying Organic, that is not GMO. Also, since 80% of the US corn crop is GMO, you might as well say it all is, because of the way it is stored, transported, stored and re-transported. So, if GMO is to be avoided, there must be a growing market that you can support. Feel free to push for "contains no GMO" and take it where you will.

But if you are following the Anti-Monsanto web sites, you won't be happy until every product with GMO has a skull and cross bones on the label. Somehow I think this is more about a hate for big business, focused on Monsanto, more than an unfounded fear of GMO.

rambler · #33 05/31/13, 10:49 PM

A little different gmo possibility.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...orests/276356/

"In the 20th century, a blight killed of four billion of these towering trees. Now, new research shows that a gene, taken from wheat, provides resistance."

Paul

Kstornado11 · #34 06/01/13, 01:19 AM

The problem is, many,many people want & deserve the option to KNOW what is in the food they buy, cost be darned. We do not know with any kind of certainty at all if these foods are harmful, these are living organisms created by MAN, not nature, and looking at the state of health in the US as of late, pretty safe to say that something is up. As a mother & grandmother I demand to KNOW what is in the food I purchase, it is my JOB to provide for my children,that is as old as mankind itself. For those foods I can't personally create/acquire for my family in my garden or on a trusted farmer's land, I deserve the freedom to know exactly what I am paying for. The fact that MONEY is the reason consumers are in the dark is a disgusting travesty for this country.

MDKatie · #35 06/01/13, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

Somehow I think this is more about a hate for big business, focused on Monsanto, more than an unfounded fear of GMO.

That's part of it, but why not? What has big business done to show us they even care to provide quality products or that they care one bit about the consumer? Just like the dairy industry lobbying to include aspartame and other ingredients in milk products without labeling....big corporate industries and conglomerates need to STOP thinking they don't have to be honest with food products.

unregistered168043 · #36 06/01/13, 09:56 AM

Suggested advertisements for GMO foods;

"MMM...its the chemicals that make it good!"

"GMO food....its worth the cancer!"

"A little wipe and the chemicals come right off!"

salmonslayer · #37 06/01/13, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darntootin

Suggested advertisements for GMO foods;

"MMM...its the chemicals that make it good!"

"GMO food....its worth the cancer!"

"A little wipe and the chemicals come right off!"

Chemicals? I am not sure if your confused about what GMO means or you are conflating RR Crops with all GMOs and dont understand the amount of chemicals used on even conventional crops.

I support labeling efforts and am mostly against GMOs but man some of the stuff that gets slung around sure doesnt help the effort.

arabian knight · #38 06/01/13, 10:11 AM

Ya for sure talk about not knowing the truth in matters and talking way over the line in what is what and what is in certain things. Talk about misinformation on the net for the misinformed and that sums up 99.9% of anti gmo posts.

farmerDale · #39 06/01/13, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darntootin

Suggested advertisements for GMO foods;

"MMM...its the chemicals that make it good!"

"GMO food....its worth the cancer!"

"A little wipe and the chemicals come right off!"

Or alternatively they could be:

The need to use chemicals is reduced by several hundred grams an acre.

Soil is improving because of fewer herbicides being used, less tillage, and increasing organic matter.

If you can find either a gene, or herbicide in the canola oil I produce, I will give you my farm for nothing. The fact is, there is no herbicide, and no rr or ll, or any other gm material in my canola oil.

Misinformation is a shame. Gm crops lead to LESS chemical use, not more. They lead to healthier soil, because farmers do not have to till the living beep out of it. They lead to expanding wildlife populations, because there is way more feed for them, more habitat, and constant cover on the land. Soil life becomes phenomenal without beating the soil to death to kill weeds with tillage.

There are two sides, my friend....

Cheers,

Dale

AngieM2 · #40 06/01/13, 10:13 AM

both sides, cut the snitty.