80% of Americans...

[ClimbnSink]

Sounds like the many valid reasons not to label you mentioned, are that you are a large near monopoly and don't want to?

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?

 

[James_Dean]

Sounds like the many valid reasons not to label you mentioned, are that you are a large near monopoly and don't want to?

Still haven't been to the office. Doing this on farm visits riding around. Want to get back to the data to give a coherent response.

 

[James_Dean]

Sounds like the many valid reasons not to label you mentioned, are that you are a large near monopoly and don't want to?

We are a family farm operation. A larger one, but family owned and operated by families who have been in the business for generations.

 

[Henning]

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?

I agree with you James, no worries, to me the labeling is no issue, as we have both realized, I can make a default selection on that criteria.

What I am having trouble with is the attitude of industry. It is counter productive and counter economic interest for industry to take this position rather than resolve the issue with education. Education campaigns are heavily used, so it's not like it's an unknown or questionable effect process, IF you are telling the truth.

The attitude of industry causes me more suspicion than the science of gene splicing. If the industry hired me to do the PR for GMO, I could put together one that would eliminate the issue for less cost than stonewalling information will cost.

These people know that as well, if the claims are true, selling GMO to the public would be an easy sell, the benefits to be gained are huge. Why are they not taking this approach? That question is what gives "food babe" or whatever her name is leverage over those as stupid as she. If the stupid see the problem, you have problems.

 

[steingar]

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?.

Because people only believe what they want to believe. Same goes for vaccines, MMGW, Evolution, and a number of other scientific issues. There is an anti-science bias that pervades our civilization. You are a shining example. You've been told time and time again by folks in the biz that you could not easily discriminate food made from a GMO and food made from non-GMO source. Yet you still insist on labeling.

What evidence would actually get you to change your mind?

Think about the anti vaccine folks. The autism link was disproven, and yet persists. Not only that, but the chances of suffering serious complications from the diseases being vaccinated against are far higher than the phony chance of autism. Yet people continue to withhold vaccinations from their children.

I once started a thread asking what evidence would convince skeptics of the validity of MMGW. Not even one person cited a piece of evidence that would convince them.

What evidence would convince you that GMOs aren't inherently harmful?

 

[Everskyward]

What I am having trouble with is the attitude of industry. It is counter productive and counter economic interest for industry to take this position rather than resolve the issue with education. Education campaigns are heavily used, so it's not like it's an unknown or questionable effect process, IF you are telling the truth.

Education coming from the industry would be seen by many as propaganda. But education does work. I don't care one way or another about GMO foods but I thought what's the harm in labeling it? That was until I educated myself before the vote and decided on a 'no'.

 

[ClimbnSink]

It isn't a people problem it is a scientist problem. Scientists have sold out too many times. They have become hacks not heroes.

 

[steingar]

It isn't a people problem it is a scientist problem. Scientists have sold out too many times. They have become hacks not heroes.

Do you even know a single scientist?

 

[Henning]

Because people only believe what they want to believe. Same goes for vaccines, MMGW, Evolution, and a number of other scientific issues. There is an anti-science bias that pervades our civilization. You are a shining example. You've been told time and time again by folks in the biz that you could not easily discriminate food made from a GMO and food made from non-GMO source. Yet you still insist on labeling.

What evidence would actually get you to change your mind?

Think about the anti vaccine folks. The autism link was disproven, and yet persists. Not only that, but the chances of suffering serious complications from the diseases being vaccinated against are far higher than the phony chance of autism. Yet people continue to withhold vaccinations from their children.

I once started a thread asking what evidence would convince skeptics of the validity of MMGW. Not even one person cited a piece of evidence that would convince them.

What evidence would convince you that GMOs aren't inherently harmful?

People will accept any evidence over no evidence. The science isn't what scares people, it's the attitude because the attitude is the same that has always come with evil acts. Have you never heard the phrase "Lie to me?" People need to be reassured, and there is no ammunition provided to those in society who would provide that reassurance. I have no personal problem with GMO, however I am given no real evidence to prove my position is correct; I just don't personally care if I grow an eyeball in my forehead, or gills, actually gills would be good if Monsanto could get on that.

Stonewalling = trouble ahead, end of story. Education=lubrication, unless the education proves you are lying or other nefarious intent. What is it we always say about criminal law issues, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." Selling us out to an alien species would be something to hide, and something already in pop culture. Actually it's not particularly difficult to make the case for it.

 

[nddons]

Yes, you should have a valid reason to deny the consumer information.

What makes you think this demand is coming from the consumer? If FedGov is responding to the consumer, that may be a first.

Was the consumer demanding that pregnant women be protected from drinking beer, so that even when I buy a foreign-brewed Dos Equis, it has to have a US label cautioning pregnant women not to consume alcoholic beverages?

Much of the labeling is insanely stupid, and is purely the result of the bloated bureaucracy of the nanny state needing something new to control.

 

[Henning]

What makes you think this demand is coming from the consumer? If FedGov is responding to the consumer, that may be a first.

Was the consumer demanding that pregnant women be protected from drinking beer, so that even when I buy a foreign-brewed Dos Equis, it has to have a US label cautioning pregnant women not to consume alcoholic beverages?

Much of the labeling is insanely stupid, and is purely the result of the bloated bureaucracy of the nanny state needing something new to control.

Try looking at Facebook. I know many consumers it is coming from, it is why Urban Agriculture will succeed. It will be able to produce GMO quantities at GMO costs while using heirloom stock and growing organically. This gets subsidized with the sale of electricity and local coop labor.

 

[nddons]

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.

My daughter the vet student is all over this organic fraud, particularly with dairy products. In an organic dairy farm, sick animals can't be treated for illnesses with antibiotics, which would leave the body after a short period of time. So instead, these organic farmers continue to milk a sick cow until she gets better on her own, she is no longer productive, or she dies. If she's no longer productive, they will try to get her to market before she dies. In the mean time, milk from a sick cow has entered the food processing chain. Remember that the next time you pay 100% more for organic milk or cheese.

 

[Henning]

Oh, the local "organic" producer provider is horrible for this crap, and they have been caught repackaging and relabeling non compliant stuff. It's all become such a racket.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Do you even know a single scientist?

I beat up kids in grade school that later became scientists. Aren't you a vegetarian? Bet there is a bunch of real proper science sponsored by the Beef Council proving plants would be better for you processed through becoming a cow and then a steak.

 

[EdFred]

I once started a thread asking what evidence would convince skeptics of the validity of MMGW. Not even one person cited a piece of evidence that would convince them.

A control Earth at L4 or L5, with no humans on it that shows that Earth is significantly cooler than ours. I'll wait.

 

[nddons]

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

That's the naïveté that happens when the regulatory environment is being shaped by the public policy of politicians who listen to the loudest subset of the Outrage of the Day.

 

[ClimbnSink]

That's the naïveté that happens when the regulatory environment is being shaped by the public policy of politicians who listen to the loudest subset of the Outrage of the Day.

Or the loudest lobbyists.

 

[Henning]

Or the lobbyists that hand them the most compensation.

FTFY...

 

[ClimbnSink]

The loud sound of money hitting the table.

 

[James_Dean]

Or the loudest lobbyists.

I'm on the PAC committee for our national trade organization. Anyone care to guess at our annual budget for giving?

 

[Henning]

I'm on the PAC committee for our national trade organization. Anyone care to guess at our annual budget for giving?

The Egg Counsel or what organization? I would guess your total lobbying budget of a top tier egg producer organization would be budgeting $250-$500k depending on the issues faced. It's surprising how cheap a politician can be had. At the end of all the investigations where people get 3-9 months at Club Fed the numbers are just stupid small, the hookers and blow probably cost more. There is no greater Bro Bond than high fiveing over a hooker. You can buy a lot of hookers and blow for a quarter mil.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I'm on the PAC committee for our national trade organization. Anyone care to guess at our annual budget for giving?

Probably not enough cause the organafarmers are going to spend the money to make you put labels on your food. Problem is everybody is paying rent instead of delivering value.

 

[denverpilot]

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.

Not really. The public needs to eat. The companies know this. Labeling stuff to educate or manage the customer's low trust levels driven by propaganda, isn't high on their priority list because the customer's empty stomachs will fix whatever personal problems they have.

 

[Henning]

Not really. The public needs to eat. The companies know this. Labeling stuff to educate or manage the customer's low trust levels driven by propaganda, isn't high on their priority list because the customer's empty stomachs will fix whatever personal problems they have.

It hinders their effort in those regards though. It makes no sense, they waste more time, money, and energy, on the present course, plus their seed product is being banned continent wide around the world.

 

[Skyscraper]

The human species has existed for at least five thousand years without mandatory labeling. Why start now? Oh, yeah--it's a first world thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We are also living healthier and longer lives with a direct correlation to knowing what we ingest and put into contact with our bodies.

With your line of thinking there's no reason we shouldn't still be using lead paint.

Edit: I had to add on because I become nauseous the more I read what I quoted. We didn't wash our hands 5 thousand years ago either, now we know about germs (thanks French scientists!). When I had some minor surgery yesterday, I was damn thankful the doc used sterile equipment.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[James_Dean]

It hinders their effort in those regards though. It makes no sense, they waste more time, money, and energy, on the present course, plus their seed product is being banned continent wide around the world.

So are the nuke plants that could be used to produce your precious hydrogen. Very same phenomon- except GMO's have a better safety record so far.

 

[Henning]

So are the nuke plants that could be used to produce your precious hydrogen. Very same phenomon- except GMO's have a better safety record so far.

Both affects are of the same cause! You would think industry would learn.

The "so far" is what has people concerned, because way to many mistakes are found out only after major damage has been done. Look at daytime TV and you see the concern, it's full of ads from lawyers over mesothelioma and drugs that did more harm than good. People have a valid reason for concern and industry does nothing except make the concern into fear.

 

[EdFred]

Both affects are of the same cause! You would think industry would learn.

The "so far" is what has people concerned, because way to many mistakes are found out only after major damage has been done. Look at daytime TV and you see the concern, it's full of ads from lawyers over mesothelioma and drugs that did more harm than good. People have a valid reason for concern want a quick way to get rich and industry does nothing except make the concern into fear is a good target because all corporations are evil to lazy slugs.

Fixed your post for accuracy.

 

[Henning]

Fixed your post for accuracy.

It's a lie though. People do have a right to be concerned. Industry does not have the best interests of the consumer in their corporate mandate. There s no history of benevolence that industry can point to that earns them any trust, quite the opposite in fact.

This is not about the science, this is about trust.

 

[steingar]

I beat up kids in grade school that later became scientists.

Good to see you're still proud of yourself.

Aren't you a vegetarian?

Yes, and far better preserved than those who attempted to assault me in my youth. Actually a number of them are dead.

Bet there is a bunch of real proper science sponsored by the Beef Council proving plants would be better for you processed through becoming a cow and then a steak.

Very difficult to generate repeatable and statistically relevant data proving a falsehood.

 

[EdFred]

It's a lie though. People do have a right to be concerned. Industry does not have the best interests of the consumer in their corporate mandate. There s no history of benevolence that industry can point to that earns them any trust, quite the opposite in fact.

This is not about the science, this is about trust.

Your opinion. When I see the scam lawyers and they 'did someone you might have met on a bus die, call us' ads. It's just a get money from some evil corporation scam.

 

[Henning]

Your opinion. When I see the scam lawyers and they 'did someone you might have met on a bus die, call us' ads. It's just a get money from some evil corporation scam.

Scam lawyers don't show up where there is no cause. Industry grew a cause rather than prevent one. It's their own fault. They played it like hardball *******s, and now they are dealing with the consequences. Monsanto went to court first to block people's right to know. That was idiotic.

 

[EdFred]

Good to see you're still proud of yourself.



Yes, and far better preserved than those who attempted to assault me in my youth. Actually a number of them are dead.



Very difficult to generate repeatable and statistically relevant data proving a falsehood.

So how come we don't have a 35 mile long digestive tract if we are only supposed to eat plants? And why is there corn in my ****?

 

[Henning]

The lack of ability to digest cellulose goes a long way to showing we weren't designed as herbivores, so do our teeth. We are omnivores and can survive on damn near anything.

 

[EdFred]

Scam lawyers don't show up where there is no cause. Industry grew a cause rather than prevent one. It's their own fault. They played it like hardball *******s, and now they are dealing with the consequences. Monsanto went to court first to block people's right to know. That was idiotic.

Really? You're going to go there knowing all the crap that goes on in the aviation sector with bull**** lawsuits? You just lost all credibility with your stance.

 

[Henning]

Really? You're going to go there knowing all the crap that goes on in the aviation sector with bull**** lawsuits? You just lost all credibility with your stance.

Bull**** lawsuits cannot exist in the absence of bull****. Industry is just letting the bull**** stack up rather than doing the work and cleaning the paddock, so this is what they get for it. They brought it all on themselves with their attitude and actions.

Oh, and please don't try to tell me that all this GMO research and development has been done out of benevolence to the world, it is all about profits and controlling market share, about creating a closed loop market that you have exclusive rights to provide to.

Intent is why the industry has such problems, their intent on profit is what made them take the wrong course of action, and now they are dealing with it.

 

[write-stuff]

We've become a society that thinks Food Babe and Dr. Oz are reputable sources of information. Given the choice to watch "Long Island Medium" or "NOVA", I'm pretty sure the former would win by a landslide.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Very difficult to generate repeatable and statistically relevant data proving a falsehood.

Like MMGW. For an allegedly open minded scientist you sure are prejudiced in what you choose to believe.

 

[steingar]

So how come we don't have a 35 mile long digestive tract if we are only supposed to eat plants? And why is there corn in my ****?

Actually, we have a very long digestive tract. Purely carnivorous animals like cats have one far shorter. We are indeed "designed" to subsist on a variety of foodstuffs.

 

[EdFred]

Actually, we have a very long digestive tract. Purely carnivorous animals like cats have one far shorter. We are indeed "designed" to subsist on a variety of foodstuffs.

But if we are to ONLY eat vegetables, it would be much longer, and I wouldn't have corn in my stool, yes?