80% of Americans...

Labeling is cheap but documenting and cataloging every ingredient from a variety of vendors is not. Imagine the field day a lawyer could have if a company didn't have proof of origin and composition for every ingredient.

Simple, similar to this, "May contain one or more of the following GMO Products:..." Same way they handle nuts.

The problem is that the industry has not educated the public with facts and evidence, so now they have to deal with the backlash of that failing. This is what you get when you save money in all the wrong ways, then come off arrogant and diffident when questioned.
 
I suspect what they're worried about are GMO's, or genetically modified organisms. Lots of anti-science in the rhetoric against them as well.







Also true. Practically every plant or animal in which you come in frequent contact has been genetically manipulated by humans to the point of unrecognizability, far mores than the most heavily manipulated GMO.



Just another aspect of the anti-scientific sentiments that pervade our culture. Just heard about a measles outbreak somewhere. Yeesh.


My sister is on both the anti-GMO bandwagon and also on the anti-vaccination bandwagon.

Luckily for the former, she's just a fool thinking she's not eating genetically modified stuff when the gardens she ate from as kids were all GMO and she doesn't even realize it. Because you know, watermelons are all seedless in nature. LOL. Grandpa fed her GMO! Oh no! ROFLMAO. The cherry tree wasn't exactly kosher for her newfound beliefs either, and I don't know how much of grandma's jams and preserves I watched her pound down when we were kids. I haven't had the heart to point this out to her.

The second, thankfully, she has no children or elderly to care for. My wife the nurse wants to slap her for the second one. She also generally stays home when sick and already had her vaccinations a long-assed time ago other than the flu.

(Speaking of the flu, the news has generally been pretty poor about this year's vaccine. That ain't helping much with tha anti-vaccine crowd. Sigh.)

I suspect living with the honest to goodness chemtrail believer and bud head, doesn't have her hearing much that makes any rational sense, as a daily thing.

Being family, I can't decide if I want to slap her myself or just feel bad for her. She's had a lot of other rough stuff in life and seems truly happy most of the time with chemtrail man. I got into it once with him over it and haven't brought it up since. He's embarrassingly adamant about it.

Even pointing out the weight of water alone would exceed the lifting capability of most of the jets he thinks are chemtrail photos, let alone with passengers and bags on board, didn't get through. I'm just a dumb naive poor pilot who doesn't know dick about airplanes, and the secret plan, apparently.

I sent him photos of a Formula One race car leaving vapor trails. Because I'm a dick. The friendly kind, but still a dick.

Ignorance is bliss and they're quite blissful. Sigh.
 
Lets clarify what GMO means in general context: An organism that has been modified at the genetic level by selectively removing certain gene sequences and replacing them with others by manipulating DNA directly at the gene level.

Seedless watermelons and grapes and such from previous eras are not GMO, they are what is known as hybridized natural organisms. However they are grown through cloning.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you should have a valid reason to deny the consumer information.



I need er said there should be a law. I posted asking fir examples after James said there were many valid reasons. Silence so far. Nevermind it being law why shouldn't they label? Smart companies would have voluntarily labeled and set up their own labeling standards org with their own standards of what GMO is so they could weasel out of labeling more things. On its face the food industry looks super dumb or super evil. So those many valid reasons are?



Hilarious they are just afraid of the label. No way in heck any food in a can or box isn't GMO.


No way most of the stuff grown in a backyard garden isn't. Mmm. Seedless watermelons.

Sure. The consumer decided they do or don't want to risk feeding their family or themselves a product they are uninformed about that may have unknown effects coming from an industry that has no great history of caring about health, only profit. Industry is at fault for this, they bought it with the karma they have created over the last couple of centuries. This is in evidence all the way back to The Jungle's expose on meat packing.



The food industry has no right whatsoever to expect any trust from the consumer. They have done nothing to earn that trust especially when you look at the track record of contaminated food and vegetables.


What a crock. Seen any Coke bottles in your travels around the world? Anyone dying from drinking it? (Sugary crap aside...) Most countries don't make Coke label the stuff much, apparently they have citizens that aren't total ignoramuses. They can taste it and think, "wow, that's a metric butt load of sugar or something similar to sugar that's sickly sweet... this must be candy water".

One restaurant I go to has "Mexican Coke" with the non-corn syrup sugar in the bottles. Every bottle has virtually zero labeling on it. Mexicans apparently drink the stuff and don't die.

And as soon as it's imported back into the States for sale here, Coke has to slap a sticky label (it's really obvious since the bottles are painted or whatever for all the other labeling) on it with "Nutrition Facts". Seriously?

Here's a clue the numb nut people... If you're stupid enough to think there's much in the way in good nutritional value in a bottle of Coke, you're far too much of a moron to read that extra label, for sure.

The problem isn't lack of information in the slightest. It's lack of brainpower. Let's see. Should food in a box be able to last three years? Because that's what the expiration date says on this box. Does any other food last that long?

If I bake a cake will it last as long as a Twinkie?

People aren't really this dumb. They just want to holler that things should be labeled that they already know they shouldn't be eating. And the very few too uneducated or even downright dumb aren't even immune to hearing how bad our fast food is on TV regularly so it's really not an excuse or a problem either. There's little way one could escape those messages. Not that they'd read a label anyway.

There's stuff that smart people should be concerned about in the food supply. Overuse of antibiotics is one. Note I said OVERuse. Pesticides are probably another, depending on the toxicity of the crap. Those are more of a problem than GMO.

And as someone has already pointed out, improper handling of food is the real dangerous one. USDA claims they have that all under control but they don't, and never will.

Rinse thoroughly. Cook properly. Avoid cross contamination in the kitchen. Those three things would do more to promote public health than any label ever devised.
 
I suspect what they're worried about are GMO's, or genetically modified organisms. Lots of anti-science in the rhetoric against them as well.



Also true. Practically every plant or animal in which you come in frequent contact has been genetically manipulated by humans to the point of unrecognizability, far mores than the most heavily manipulated GMO.

Just another aspect of the anti-scientific sentiments that pervade our culture. Just heard about a measles outbreak somewhere. Yeesh.

That was in the North Bay Area and Napa. Three of the twenty seven were vaccinated, and that area is known to be a hotbed for the anti-vaccine crowd. They cause autism, you know.:rolleyes:
 
A coke bottle is labeled accurately, HFCS or Sugar, labeled depending on which is used, even though the are basically the same.

I really am curious as to why the industry is so resistant. It reminds me of the Tobacco industry in the 60s and 70s, and they all had scientific proof that smoking was good for you.
 
Last edited:
My sister is on both the anti-GMO bandwagon and also on the anti-vaccination bandwagon.

Ignorance is bliss and they're quite blissful. Sigh.

My brother and sister in law live in Lafayette. 'Nuff said. Every item in their house has 'natural' or 'organic' in the title, but there's nothing on the label that confirms this. It just costs more.

I can't stay there when I visit. The house is just a little too 'natural'. It's disgusting.
 
A coke bottle is labeled accurately, HFCS or Sugar, labeled depending on which is used, even though the are basically the same.

I really am curious as to why the industry is so resistant. It reminds me of the Tobacco industry in the 60s and 70s, and they all had scientific proof that smoking was good for you.

That's not true. They had scientific proof it was harmful, and that's why they were found culpable and had to pay into a multibillion dollar settlement fund.
 
That's not true. They had scientific proof it was harmful, and that's why they were found culpable and had to pay into a multibillion dollar settlement fund.

True, let me rephrase that, they claimed they had had proof that smoking was good when they actually had proof it was bad. Do you see why the corollary people draw between Phillip Morris and Monsanto yet?

Monsanto has played it all wrong, now the whole food industry has to deal with the consequences.
 
True, let me rephrase that, they claimed they had had proof that smoking was good when they actually had proof it was bad. Do you see why the corollary people draw between Phillip Morris and Monsanto yet?

Monsanto has played it all wrong, now the whole food industry has to deal with the consequences.

But that corollary is incorrect. This isn't the 70's. Monsanto is a publicly traded company. If they were withholding information that GMO products are harmful and it was discovered later the SEC and the Justice Department would put them out of business and prosecute the officers.

No one is going to take that kind of risk for corn seed. It goes back to the fact 80% of the public are misinformed boobs.
 
A coke bottle is labeled accurately, HFCS or Sugar, labeled depending on which is used, even though the are basically the same.


Have you looked? I couldn't find any such labeling on the Mexican bottle without the little mandatory US label. Perhaps I missed it.

Mexican coke also has more sodium content than American Coke. Also nowhere on the original packaging.

Does it matter? Do Mexicans need more information about their Coke?

Here's some photos of the bottles.

bb751a7b26d7e2851ff0e31c268f9702.jpg


6b7f46ca23e58ec2046e741e693eeb36.jpg


0b720d9ed6b4a6dc841b867d491dd541.jpg


d6e0f47cc2454a039f7f4582e456b1ca.jpg


c54b652a244d3f7358704c5fcacd62d2.jpg


Mexicans are dropping like flies from the stuff. Lack of information and all. It's terrible.

Oh wait. They can just grab a can. It says, "carbonated water, sugars, and Coke concentrate". LOL.

ec4b59e6019bf0bd1e55a4304ba77946.jpg


But they did throw a little nutritional info down below there.

You know who really has good info on Mexican Coke? This guy.

146f873bb64a7bd585c2573f96987fa7.jpg


But what's even funnier? The Mexican Coke bottles sold in the U.S. Do match the labeling and printing on the bottle and have the little US mandated silly sticker on them. But...

They're not the same bottle size. The smaller ones are made specifically to ship to the U.S. from Mexico as Mexican Coke.

I don't have a photo of that one, but they're out there.

All these years and no Mexicans dead of a lack of information stickers on their Coke bottles. It's so amazing.

I bet they don't have those warning tags on their mattresses either. More information not shared. More deaths. Worldwide epidemic, even.
 
But that corollary is incorrect. This isn't the 70's. Monsanto is a publicly traded company. If they were withholding information that GMO products are harmful and it was discovered later the SEC and the Justice Department would put them out of business and prosecute the officers.

No one is going to take that kind of risk for corn seed. It goes back to the fact 80% of the public are misinformed boobs.

in previous lives I've (unfortunately) been in senior mgmt at three large corporations and trust me when I say...

...yes, yes they will.

As Henning so oft states "follow the money."
 
So the anti label argument is people are too stupid to understand it and will buy it anyway? Well there is no cost then, graphic artist is already on staff to add a couple of words to the label. Cost zero. Unless they are afraid of something? How about labeling saying X countries in Europe have determined this food to be unsafe and have outlawed it?:lol: No one understands those CA compliant MEK stickers and they don't stop anyone from bathing in the stuff.;)
 
You see two cans of corn on the store shelf. One says the corn in it is genetically modified. Based only on that, can you discern which is objectively safer or more nutritious? Did the label provide you with anything objectively useful?

All corn, 100%, is genetically modified.

No such thing as non-GMO corn. Corn itself is a creation of genetic modification.
 
Lets clarify what GMO means in general context: An organism that has been modified at the genetic level by selectively removing certain gene sequences and replacing them with others by manipulating DNA directly at the gene level.

Seedless watermelons and grapes and such from previous eras are not GMO, they are what is known as hybridized natural organisms. However they are grown through cloning.

Why not?

Human beings have genetically modified these organisms too. It's just that more recent tools are far more precise and selective, doesn't mean that previous things were not genetic modification.

Every apple you've ever eaten is a product of cloning. Every bit of beef comes from a cow that has been subject to thousands of generations of artificial selection. Every grain of wheat was sculpted and modified by the hand of man into the food we eat today.
 
But that corollary is incorrect. This isn't the 70's. Monsanto is a publicly traded company. If they were withholding information that GMO products are harmful and it was discovered later the SEC and the Justice Department would put them out of business and prosecute the officers.

No one is going to take that kind of risk for corn seed. It goes back to the fact 80% of the public are misinformed boobs.

Correct or incorrect is irrelevant, in large populations perception is reality, and that is the perception they are creating by saying "**** you, we'll get a law passed that says we don't have to tell you."
 
Correct or incorrect is irrelevant, in large populations perception is reality, and that is the perception they are creating by saying "**** you, we'll get a law passed that says we don't have to tell you."

It has been proven that you can't distinguish animal proteins from animals that have been fed GMO vs those that haven't. What should I put on my label?
 
It has been proven that you can't distinguish animal proteins from animals that have been fed GMO vs those that haven't. What should I put on my label?

Whatever you want! Create the label that people want to see. The main issue in this entire matter is not science, the key issue is TRUST, and people don't trust people who tell them "You don't need to know."

The reality is we don't know any of the long term results, nor do we necessarily have the ability to measure the differences, we can't measure Dark Matter or Dark Energy either.

The way Monsanto is handling the issue makes it an easy sell for some politician to win office by declaring Monsanto an Alien Organization and telling the people that Round Up Ready genes are the genes that turn humans into aliens.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and if Monsanto leaves an information vacuum, it will get filled by someone seeking to leverage power from that vacuum, or at best idiots filling it for themselves. Either way, unless there is an actual nefarious intent, Monsanto and the entire industry are stupid for playing this the way they have. Only problem with that is, the people at Monsanto aren't stupid, so why are they doing this?

Spend some money and effort and educate people.
 
Last edited:
It has been proven that you can't distinguish animal proteins from animals that have been fed GMO vs those that haven't. What should I put on my label?
Yet still banned/restricted in Australia, Japan, and the EU, more then 60 countries have rules against the stuff. So what were all those reasons for not labeling GMO food?
 
What have you eaten that's non-GMO? Name one thing.

I don't care about GMO foods, I eat Ding Dongs and Funnyuns for breakfast and chase it with a cup of coffee with three tablespoons of sugar and a cigarette. I hope to die before the species does. Heck, if they asked me to be a subject in a long range study on the effects of GMOs, I would participate.

The GMO issue is not one that concerns me. It's the social consequences of the way industry is handling the issue, and the implications that can be derived therefrom that concerns me. When someone asks you what you are trying to sell them to eat, "**** off you don't need to know" is not an acceptable position IMO.
 
Whatever you want! Create the label that people want to see. The main issue in this entire matter is not science, the key issue is TRUST, and people don't trust people who tell them "You don't need to know."

The reality is we don't know any of the long term results, nor do we necessarily have the ability to measure the differences, we can't measure Dark Matter or Dark Energy either.

The way Monsanto is handling the issue makes it an easy sell for some politician to win office by declaring Monsanto an Alien Organization and telling the people that Round Up Ready genes are the genes that turn humans into aliens.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and if Monsanto leaves an information vacuum, it will get filled by someone seeking to leverage power from that vacuum, or at best idiots filling it for themselves. Either way, unless there is an actual nefarious intent, Monsanto and the entire industry are stupid for playing this the way they have. Only problem with that is, the people at Monsanto aren't stupid, so why are they doing this?

Spend some money and effort and educate people.

Whatever I want? USDA and FDA might disagree with you there.
 
Whatever I want? USDA and FDA might disagree with you there.

You were talking about explaining extra things. Yes, there is required labeling, this is due to prior breaches of consumer trust BTW, but you can label beyond that. Look at a bottle of Dr Bohner's soaps. Have a novel printed on it, stick a 4 or 6 page flier to them communicating facts and information to people, that's all they really want, some truthful information.

An industry that resists doing that alienates their customer base. Sadly the way agribusiness is run now, the consumer has little choice.
 
You were talking about explaining extra things. Yes, there is required labeling, this is due to prior breaches of consumer trust BTW, but you can label beyond that. Look at a bottle of Dr Bohner's soaps. Have a novel printed on it, stick a 4 or 6 page flier to them communicating facts and information to people, that's all they really want, some truthful information.

An industry that resists doing that alienates their customer base. Sadly the way agribusiness is run now, the consumer has little choice.

Bull Feces. I have to have each and every label approved. I refer you to the Food Drug and Cosmetic act and the Egg Products Inspection Act.

Secondly, go to Whole Foods and buy whatever eggs you want. I assure you that there are non-GMO labeled eggs there for about $7.00 per dozen.

My beef is with zealots pushing a non science driven agenda to make it mandatory. If the market demands it - I will do it. White, Brown, cage-free, California Prop2 compliant, American Humane Certified, UEP certified, Omega 3 enhanced, vitamin enhanced, dark yolk, enriched colony, the list goes on and we produce them all. However, I won't do non-GMO for many reasons, some if which I've already discussed.
 
Last edited:
Information should be mandatory. People have the right to make their choices on whatever criteria they please. If they want to buy $7 a dozen eggs at Whole Foods or drive out to the country and buy them from an old lady with a chicken coop, that should be a choice as well.

I don't care if you go with GMO feeds, I do care that you think people don't have the right to know. That is what labeling is about, the right to information.

Yes, you need to get your label approved to make sure it isn't a lie and contains the required info in the required format. That isn't particularly restrictive.
 
Last edited:
How about if the information you want isn't there you just don't buy it? You are inverting the logical choice.

There is already a method in place...it's called the organic section at the grocery store. If you want to pay $3.00 for a pound of carrots (complete with a label) then have at it.

If the freaks that demand full disclosure for the growth chain of broccoli win, all it will do is increase the cost of food, which is a regressive imposition on those who can least afford it.
 
Information should be mandatory. People have the right to make their choices on whatever criteria they please. If they want to buy $7 a dozen eggs at Whole Foods or drive out to the country and buy them from an old lady with a chicken coop, that should be a choice as well.

I don't care if you go with GMO feeds, I do care that you think people don't have the right to know. That is what labeling is about, the right to information.

Yes, you need to get your label approved to make sure it isn't a lie and contains the required info in the required format. That isn't particularly restrictive.

You have the right to petition your government and your fellow citizens to make that label mandatory. Until that law gets enacted I have the option to produce what I believe the market will find acceptable with a lawful label.

I believe that science says GMO's are GRAS so I have no reason to believe I am doing one iota of harm to the public so I feel ethically secure in my position.

The market is currently supplying the product you seek.

You and a team of scientists wouldn't be able to discern a GMO steak or egg from a non-GMO fed item.

So.... We're just going to do this because you don't like Monsanto?
 
How about if the information you want isn't there you just don't buy it? You are inverting the logical choice.

There is already a method in place...it's called the organic section at the grocery store. If you want to pay $3.00 for a pound of carrots (complete with a label) then have at it.

If the freaks that demand full disclosure for the growth chain of broccoli win, all it will do is increase the cost of food, which is a regressive imposition on those who can least afford it.

No, I'm not missing that a bit, that is what is in reality happening, and is what makes the whole 'non labeling' issue moot to the consumer choice issue. Many people pay the price to the people who do provide a label voluntarily, it is a growing industry.

That is really my main issue, "Why is industry fighting a fight that they obviously have no chance of winning on an economic sense?" There is no 'good' answer, only bad ones.
 
When GMO labeling was put on the ballot in Colorado my initial reaction was to be for it. But after doing some research I decided there would be too many unintended consequences.

Did anyone read the link I posted earlier in the thread? Here is a portion.

What is the economic impact of mandatory labeling?

The cost of labeling involves more than the paper and ink to print an actual label. Costs arise from establishing and maintaining a system to track ingredients, from monitoring and enforcement or compliance with the law, from trade impacts, and from other factors. However, the impacts on producers, retailers, and consumers are likely to be varied, resulting in a net benefit to some while imposing a net cost on others.

Impacts along the value chain: Full and accurate labeling of specific ingredients may require an extensive identity preservation (IP) system from farmer, to elevator, to grain processor, to food manufacturer, to retailer (Maltsbarger and Kalaitzandonakes, 2000; Auer, 2003). Either testing or detailed record-keeping needs to be done at steps all along the value chain, or it would not be possible to know what specific ingredients are contained in a final food product. Other options could be less costly, such as using more general labeling language that does not require an extensive IP system.

In addition to these direct costs, there are also indirect costs. Food manufacturers and retailers may choose to avoid foods containing GM ingredients, requiring new formulations and sourcing arrangements. With a significant shift in demand away from GM crops, farmers would have to shift to potentially higher cost production and pest control methods.

Public costs for monitoring and enforcement: Costs would be borne by taxpayers to pay for agricultural and food authorities to monitor and enforce compliance with labeling requirements. These could vary significantly depending upon the terms and conditions of the requirements that are imposed.

Trade impacts: Another form of impact would be on trade in agricultural products. Imported products would have to comply with labeling requirements. This might effectively prevent some products from being imported and sold if the supplier of the product is unable to verify the origin of all of their contents. On the other hand, producers with verifiable labeled non-GM food products might find new export options to those countries that have comparable requirements.

Impacts on consumers: It is almost certain that food prices would increase to some extent as costs increase due to a labeling requirement. Estimates of the costs of mandatory labeling vary from a few dollars per person per year up to $400 per year or 10 percent of a consumer’s food bill (Gruere and Rao, 2007; Alston and Sumner, 2012; Lesser, 2014). These higher prices would be borne by all consumers, but especially by lower-income consumers, who devote a higher share of household income to food purchases.

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html
 
Is the consumer demanding that level of labeling? Not particularly, the level of labeling is up for negotiation, but that isn't in the picture. No, we go straight to court to "win", our society does not negotiate, that is evidenced from Ferguson Mo, to Capital Hill, to Wall Street.

As for the cost of educating the public, it would be a lot cheaper than keeping them ignorant... Unless there is nefarious intent.
 
Last edited:
Yet still banned/restricted in Australia, Japan, and the EU, more then 60 countries have rules against the stuff. So what were all those reasons for not labeling GMO food?

Unfortunately, there are nations where the greens have powerful political parties. and politicians are far from immune to the stupidity disease that seems to pervade their populations.

Can someone actually tell me the difference between selectively breeding an organism to enhance a desired trait and using genetic modification? I can, which is why I barely understand what all the fuss is about.

Sad to see this level of scientific illiteracy in an erudite population.
 
If they mandate GMO labelling, I would suggest a strategy suggested by Pres. Lincoln:

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.
--Abraham Lincoln

Demand that all food with even the slightest taint of genetic modification, whether it be by gene splicing to selective breeding of crops or livestock, be labelled as genetically modified.

I also think "Certified Organic" food should be labelled as having been "Grown in Pig ****" for full disclosure. And of course, that pig **** comes from a genetically modified pig.
 
If they mandate GMO labelling, I would suggest a strategy suggested by Pres. Lincoln:



Demand that all food with even the slightest taint of genetic modification, whether it be by gene splicing to selective breeding of crops or livestock, be labelled as genetically modified.

I also think "Certified Organic" food should be labelled as having been "Grown in Pig ****" for full disclosure. And of course, that pig **** comes from a genetically modified pig.

...that ate genetically modified food, which was grown...
 
Is the consumer demanding that level of labeling? Not particularly, the level of labeling is up for negotiation, but that isn't in the picture.

The Colorado label would have said, "Produced with genetic engineering" which is not that complicated. But it's not just a matter of sticking the label on. One of the problems is determining what has actually gone into a product with many ingredients. This would all need to be tracked.
 
Unfortunately, there are nations where the greens have powerful political parties. and politicians are far from immune to the stupidity disease that seems to pervade their populations.

Can someone actually tell me the difference between selectively breeding an organism to enhance a desired trait and using genetic modification? I can, which is why I barely understand what all the fuss is about.

Sad to see this level of scientific illiteracy in an erudite population.

It is, so the question is, why is there no effort on the part of industry to educate people? Why instead do they get the courts to get people off their backs when simply educating them would have the same effect? It can't be cheaper to go to court, so why?:dunno:

People will always react with fear by default. If nothing is provided to alleviate and remove those fears, the results are always predictable. People will succumb to them.

Right now I could sell 80% of the people, "Monsanto is an Alien lead company here to terraform the Earth for their occupation, and GMO is about turning our food source into theirs." The really creepy thing is, everything Monsanto does feeds that view.
 
Last edited:
It is, so the question is, why is there no effort on the part of industry to educate people? Why instead do they get the courts to get people off their backs when simply educating them would have the same effect? It can't be cheaper to go to court, so why?:dunno:

People will always react with fear by default. If nothing is provided to alleviate and remove those fears, the results are always predictable. People will succumb to them.

Right now I could sell 80% of the people, "Monsanto is an Alien lead company here to terraform the Earth for their occupation, and GMO is about turning our food source into theirs." The really creepy thing is, everything Monsanto does feeds that view.
I googled "Monsanto" and I found this on the first page. Monsanto is in trouble now! :rofl:

Chuck Norris Calls Out Monsanto For Killing Food Supply

Chuck Norris has a special roundhouse kick with Monsanto’s name on it. Today, he has released a detailed article speaking out against Monsanto’s complete decimation of the food supply, from their health-crushing Roundup herbicide to their rampant genetically modified seeds that have infiltrated staple crops like corn, soy, and beets.

In the piece entitled ‘Chuck Norris raises red flag over Monsanto‘ and featured on World Net Daily, Norris speaks out plainly against the destructive force of Monsanto. Specifically, Norris highlights Monsanto’s use of glyphosate (used in Roundup) and its effects:
 
If consumer will actually controlled markets, Monsanto would have disappeared already. Globally the resistance to Monsanto is huge. Entire countries are banning their seeds.

If the stuff is as safe as they claim, why aren't they just educating the public with their evidence?:dunno:
 
Information should be mandatory. People have the right to make their choices on whatever criteria they please. If they want to buy $7 a dozen eggs at Whole Foods or drive out to the country and buy them from an old lady with a chicken coop, that should be a choice as well.

I don't care if you go with GMO feeds, I do care that you think people don't have the right to know. That is what labeling is about, the right to information.

Yes, you need to get your label approved to make sure it isn't a lie and contains the required info in the required format. That isn't particularly restrictive.

Information should be mandatory. People have the right to make their choices on whatever criteria they please. If they want to buy $7 a dozen eggs at Whole Foods or drive out to the country and buy them from an old lady with a chicken coop, that should be a choice as well.

I don't care if you go with GMO feeds, I do care that you think people don't have the right to know. That is what labeling is about, the right to information.

Yes, you need to get your label approved to make sure it isn't a lie and contains the required info in the required format. That isn't particularly restrictive.

You have the right to petition your government and your fellow citizens to make that label mandatory. Until that law gets enacted I have the option to produce what I believe the market will find acceptable with a lawful label.

I believe that science says GMO's are GRAS so I have no reason to believe I am doing one iota of harm to the public so I feel ethically secure in my position.

The market is currently supplying the product you seek.

You and a team of scientists wouldn't be able to discern a GMO steak or egg from a non-GMO fed item.

So.... We're just going to do this because you don't like Monsanto?
 
Back
Top