Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Judge Rules that Really Stupid Vermont Law May Be Able to Force GMO-Labels on Food Companies
Source:
Reason Magazine
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/28/j ... es-that-vermont-may-be-able-to
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: Ronald Bailey
Post Date: 2015-04-29 04:03:28 by A Pole
Keywords: GMO, food, Monsanto
Views: 26630
Comments: 115
In 2013, the idiots, uh, distinguished solons of the Vermont legislature passed a law requiring food companies to label their products containing ingredients derived from modern biotech crops. The "findings" used to justify the legislation is simply the litany of scientific disinformation that has been peddled by anti-biotechnology extremists for years now. [...] The food manufacturers oppose the legislation arguing, among other things, that it violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to engage in speech. In point of fact, the anti-biotech activists are not consumer advocates at all. What they are really aiming at is to confuse consumers so that they will misunderstand and treat labels identifying products as containing ingredients from biotech crops as warning labels. [...] As I pointed out in my article, The Top 5 Lies About Biotech Crops, every independent scientific body that has evaluated biotech crops has found them safe for people and the environment. ... As I have already shown above, the real purpose of GMO-labels is to deceive consumers. ... Is picking and choosing between producers really what you want your government to do? ... Finally, folks seeking kosher and halal foods are already well accomodated in the market, but I suppose some folks treat organic foods as a kind of sacrament. Of course, consumers who are bamboozled by the activist disinformation campaign against biotech crops have the perfect way to avoid foods of which they disapprove: Buy anything labeled organic. [...] However, the fight is not over. The case will now go to trial, where, let us hope, scientific evidence not activist lies will prevail. Or better yet, as the Washington Post editorial board has suggested, why not adopt the bill introduced in the House of Representatives that would establish a voluntary labeling system and prevent states and localities from going any further to indulge the GM labeling crowd.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A Pole (#0)
There should be nothing to fear from the truth. But since the companies fear it, fear telling it, fear putting it on the label, therefore, there IS something to fear, something they are hiding. The USDA should impose a labelling requirement: if there is any GMO in a food product, it should be so labelled, so that people know. People have a right to know if their food has been genetically modified, so they can decide whether they want to buy that or not.
Genetically modified foods, are they safe? The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food
Any person who has background in life science and is not dumb or dishonest knows that GMO is very dangerous.
Only members of the Inner Party have right for good food.
Ronald Bailey spokes like a true big g0vt, big business, big pharma shill.
Do they also have a right to know if their food had been irradiated when packaged? Or microwaved before being served at a restaurant? I heard you could die from radiation poisoning. I want a label so I can boycott those companies based on my ignorance. And isn't it true that electrical power generated by a nuclear power plant can contaminate my home with radiation if I unplug something and the radioactive electrons dribble out on to the floor? And that we're all going to die from man-made global warming?
Sounds like something a retarded 6 year old would ask.
Sounds like something a retarded 6 year old would ask. " Yes, it certainly does!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Speaking of retarded 6-year-olds, you think GMO food will transform you into an ear of corn if you eat it? Kind of like "The Fly" but without the disintegrator-integrator?
EXACTLY !! Personally, I would like to see more information on food package labels. For example, I want to see more than "Distributed by XYZ Company". I would like to see where it was processed, manufactured, packaged, and where is the source of ingredients. If the product contains ingredients from, or was manufactured in China, I want to know !! I think that is only reasonable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
If there is a substantial portion of the public that fears something and wants to know, yes, of course.
Even if the fears are groundless and can affect entire industries? I fear insect fragments and larvae. Should we label those? Let's see. Canned corn can have up to 2 or more 3 mm or longer larvae, cast skins, larval or cast skin fragments. Peanut butter is allowed up to an average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams. Plus, I want a detailed list of what's in my sausages.
Iradiated food is bad. Not because of radiation but because of harmful destruction of the molecules
It is getting tedious, I can give you lessons but only if you pay for them
You are ignorant and clueless. Sorry.
Insects can be edible.
Yes. That's why we have all sorts of traffic rules and signs and stoplights. Fear of something happening. It's why we don't let people in some states buy raw milk. Fear of something happening (even though it doesn't happen in the states where people do buy raw milk). We do all sorts of things based on fear and perception. Cops are allowed to use force if they "fear for their safety", even when that fear isn't really reasonable. If a substantial number of people want a label on food to give them information, then if you want to enter the stream of commerce to make money selling your product, you will conform to the regulations that the community has placed upon your product. Otherwise, you cannot make money selling it. Simple. Sane.
Let's see. Canned corn can have up to 2 or more 3 mm or longer larvae, cast skins, larval or cast skin fragments. Peanut butter is allowed up to an average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams. Plus, I want a detailed list of what's in my sausages. If enough people feel as you do, then yes, of course we can pass regulations that require these specific disclosures if you're going to sell your food into the stream of commerce. People care a great deal about GMO, for reasons beyond simply safe eating. They do not want the food produced at all, for fear of what is being released into the biosphere. One of the pressures on the bee populations has been the roundup-ready corn, which is turned into high fructose corn syrup, which in turn is part of the sugar water fed to bees. They eat pesticide in the sugar, and they weaken. I don't want to eat GMO food because it wasn't designed by God for me. And I REALLY don't want to eat precisely BECAUSE manufacturers want to hide it. Because they want to hide it, I intend to use the law to force full disclosure. Europe, led by the French, have put the kebosh on wholesale GMO planting and hormone-tainted meat in Europe. This blocks American produce. Americans scream, and the Americans can go fuck off. Want to sell meat and products in Europe? Want access to that market? Then certify it, on pain of crippling lawsuits and massive punitive damage and criminal prosecution if you lie, that your products have NO GMO in them, and your meat has NO Hormones. Otherwise, you have no right to make money entering the European stream of commerce. Americans should have the similar choice that Europeans do. We should be able to look at our food products and know if GMO has been used, or if the meat has hormones in it. And if a company lies, we should be able to bring multi-billion dollar class action lawsuits against the companies that lie to us, redistributing their illegally gained profits - PLUS punitive damages - to ourselves AND throw their executives' asses in prison for good measure. It's my food. I have the right to known what is in it. Since companies want to hide that, then good old democracy and the rule of law needs to jam criminal regulations with civil penalties right up their asses to force them to disclose. For awhile, the businesses who want to conceal have been able to. Unforunately, all sorts of allergies are EXPLODING in America (and not in Europe), and all sorts of pancreatic cancer is breaking out here (and not in France). So it's only a matter of time, because these hidden ingredients that politically connected Ag business has put in American food but hasn't been able to get into European food, has created a clear health differential between genetically similar populations in Europe and in the USA. The tobacco industry was able to hold the line on disclosures and warnings for a long time, but eventually they were brought to heel. And the difference between tobacco or soda pop, and things like corn and bread and milk and meat, is that the former things are luxuries, products that we always knew were bad for us, but the latter things are FOOD, and people know that Mark 1 Mod 0 God-made FOOD is safe. So if companies are tinkering with the God-crafted food and doing stuff to it, people have the right to know. And if Americans are getting a lot sicker, in weird ways, than Europeans, these hidden things in the food may well be to blame. People have the right to know what's in their food. And food purveyors who do not want to provide that information have the right to go sell insurance, but not to sell food into the stream of commerce. Now it is simply a matter of time until more and more and more people decide that they want to know what's in the food. It'll start in "liberal" states, and then be imposed federally. And people like you will scream and bellyache against it, and scream that the country is being lost to "socialists" or "crazies", as you lose yet another battle that you shouldn't have fought in the first place. There are battles worth fighting. The battle to allow huge companies to HIDE what they are putting in the food is not a battle that anybody should be fighting. THEY are fighting because it's big money to them. But the rest of US should want disclosure.
Is that a "selfie"?, LOL
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The fact that GMO companies are so desperate to avoid any GMO labeling tends to make me think we should have GMO labeling. Beyond that, I see no compelling reason at all (other than silencing anti-GMO opposition) for the courts to intervene against a lawfully passed bill in a particular state. Their state, their laws. And no compelling reason to override that just to pander to Monsanto and the Frankenfoods complex.
If the state's legislature or Congress or the FDA says so, yes.
Conversely, I've read that all the best brie cheeses from France cannot be imported to America because USDA demands all imported cheeses be pasteurized. And a real brie cheese in France by definition is not pasteurized. So all the American yuppies who love their brie are eating a Velveeta-type brie, not the real thing. Good for the goose, good for the gander. If we restrict brie based on food processing standards despite a long record of safety in Europe, how is it unfair for Europe to take a dismal view of Frankenfoods that have been around less than 2 decades and that constantly change in their makeup, seemingly a deliberate attempt by seed developers to obfuscate their actual content?
Given that the truth is that GMO food is safe and, according to you, there should be nothing to fear from the truth, why would labeling make any difference?
Farmers have been known to illegally make their own seeds from GMO crops, thereby bypassing the manufacturer. Slightly changing the genetic makeup allows the manufacturer to catch the cheaters.
They're desperate to avoid any GMO labeling because of the ignorant and unsubstantiated fear being generated around this product. They don't want another Alar scare.
So you're against grafting fruit trees to get a more nutritious product? That's the original GMO.
So for a 40 ounce jar (1120 grams), the label would say "Contains 330 Insect Parts -- But They're Edible." OK with you?
Yep.
That's right. Or rather, Europe is right: Frankefoods: bad. Unpasteurized cheese: good. The Americans, unfortunately, have to live with both Frankenfoods AND bad cheese, because of the power of lobbies. In short, we end up eating shit because it's profitable for Kraft and Monsanto, and they own Congress. Meanwhile people keel over from pancreatic cancer, and allergies and autism are exploding, here. The French get to eat better beef, good cheese, good food, and get to not die of pancreatic cancer and diabetes and peanut allergies and have autistic kids. So they win and we lose, across the board. We're idiots for putting up with it.
Nope. That's traditional. GMO is done in a lab, fiddling directly with the genes, inserting alleles. There's a fundamental difference that everybody sees. You sound like a lobbyist for Monsanto. Traditional agriculture is not the issue. Frankenfood is the issue, and it should be fully disclosed...if we're going to allow it at all. I like the French solution: don't LABEL it - BAN IT OUTRIGHT. That's better. Lower yields, healthier food, more farmers, more employment. Good all around.
The foods are not safe and not necessary. We don't need them and they should be banned outright. Since they won't be, they should be fully disclosed, so that people know, so they won't buy the products, so the companies that produce that shit will go bankrupt, fail and stop producing it.
Is that "the truth" you were referring to earlier?
Yep. And with the same results as grafting. "Lower yields, healthier food, more farmers, more employment. Good all around." Yeah, you know how we strive for those lower yields coupled with lower productivity. Oh, you left out higher prices. Just an oversight, I'm sure.
If most Americans could pull their attention away from the likes of Bruce Jenner or their iPhones made with slave labor long enough to look around the world they might be surprised that they know less about what they stuff into their pie holes than people in Kazakhstan, for example. Below is a full list of countries that require labeling of GMO foods (courtesy of The Center for Food Safety) And a thank you to all of those who are guinea pigging this brand new tech that hasn't been tested for long term effects. Oh- and if something goes wrong one day and you start losing your guts or something, don't bother asking for help. Ok? Thanks.
Exactlty! You stole my thunder. Let us label it.
A lie!
In other words, all of Europe, the entire industrialized world EXCEPT America and Canada, and most of the population of the world in general - even the hinterlands. Khazahkstan. Chad. People in Chad have the right to know if the food they're buying has GMOs in it. But Americans (and Canadians and Mexicans - the people in our local imperial orbit) don't. It's quite and indictment of us, really.
And other results too, that are unforseeable, and risky, and uneccessary. Ban GMOs. If you don't ban them outright, make their presence a label requirement.
See, I'm looking at that list of countries, and I'm noticing something. In a great many of those countries, people have average life spans longer than ours. And they have less incidence of all sorts of illnesses. There is something particularly toxic about the way we do things.
I don't care. If people want it let it be labelled. Either way, bugs are not GMO and we inhale living beings with every breath and have trillions of them in our bodies. Just keep GMO and Monsanto away from me.
Yeah, but they're uglier.
People in Chad have the right to know if the food they're buying has GMOs in it. But Americans (and Canadians and Mexicans - the people in our local imperial orbit) don't. It's quite and indictment of us, really. Indeed it is. And it's happened on our watch. How? Here's an observation from Vinny Eastwood in New Zealand: Greed, arrogance and a bit of lazy = the decline of the American Empire. Tick Tock
No they're not. I used an analogy. Placing a label on a jar of peanut butter saying that it contains 330 insect parts -- which are not harmful -- would result in fewer peanut butter sales. Placing a label on food saying that it has been genetically modified -- which is not harmful -- would also result in fewer sales. See the analogy?
Vinny Eastwood can ESAD.
So many fear monger groups out there... they could give Mother Theresa a bad name. Do you blame them? Hell, fear mongering works so well, if Stone did a study of 100 random people to just view this forum a minimum of 4 hours a day for 6 months, at least 15 of the Guinea pigs would shoot a cop or bomb a government building by the end of the study.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
The question is the public's right to know. The public has a right to know what is in the food being sold to them. It is difficult to see any purported competing right of purveyors of food to keep the contents of their product secret from the public, such that it outweighs the right of the public to know. The public has a right to choose whether or not to put Frankenfood in their body. Labeling of food products is a matter of the public's right to know. Considering the list of things that have been provided for years, it is difficult to see any justification for secrecy regarding whether a product contains something that does not occur in nature but which has been artificially created. Just because one or more studies hold something is safe to eat does not justify inserting it into the food stream in a manner to make it's presence unidentifiable to the public.
People have a right to organize and use the democratic process to inflict their will on the gooberment, on Frankenfood or Big Pharma corporate entities, or on themselves. If the only issue is accurate labeling, we already have food labeling and grading of foods by FDA and we disclose nutritional content and calories and food origin by label. So this is nothing new in any way. It's merely the vast pushback from Monsanto and its army of lobbyists and lawyers that make this a controversy at all. Bosh. Members of this forum aren't exactly spring chickens. You and redleghunter are the youngest judging by your posts. You're pushing or just past fifty, I think red is early fortyish. Average age of LF forum posters is > 70, IMO.
Like 330 insect parts in a jar of Skippy peanut butter?
Whatever they are selling, the buying public's right to know outweighs their lust for secrecy.
By "the public" you mean those opposed to GMO food. Well, they can kiss my ass. They give a FF about the buying public's right to know. It's their intent to force food producers to label the food in the hopes of scaring an ignorant and uninformed public away from GMO food in order to stop the practice of gene modification. It has nothing to do with the buying public's right to know and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell. Both they and you are hiding behind that phrase because misinformation is your only hope at stopping this practice. You're no different than Algore.
Let's just forget labeling food altogether. How does that sound? Allergies? Too bad, Mr. misterwhite doesn't care. You're lugging around 2 tons of BS in a one ton sack along with that bridge. I won't be eating Monsanto's freak corn crossed with glowing eels or whatever they are peddling next. NO SALE- NO WAY.
Truth cuts like a knife. Any idea who's going to fix the infrastructure that has been let go so the New Kings can continue their wars? Just the other day a chunk of concrete fell off a bridge in WA and squashed some poor useless eater. It's falling apart in front of you. Keep looking towards Ukraine though- we're told that's important.
No they're not. I used an analogy. Placing a label on a jar of peanut butter saying that it contains 330 insect parts -- which are not harmful -- would result in fewer peanut butter sales. Placing a label on food saying that it has been genetically modified -- which is not harmful -- would also result in fewer sales. See the analogy? I do, but you missed the point. You care what would result in fewer sales. I care what people eat. You put corporate profits before people's lives. Do you have vested interests in this or is it simply a severe case limbaughitis and rush syndrome?
Like 330 insect parts in a jar of Skippy peanut butter? We have a right to know what you put in our food. Speaking about wishes as opposed to rights - I want to know if GMO is served on my plate, but I do not want to know how many remain of smaller living creatures are in it (bigger living creature is the centerpiece). I want to be warned how much arsenic is in my hotdog, but I do not want to know what body parts are in it.
By the public I mean the general public. They have the right to know what is in the food offered for sale. They have a right to know if it contains pink slime, they have a right to know if it contains GMO, and they have right to be provided enough information to make an informed choice about what they choose to purchase and consume. The public has a right to know if smoking tobacco may endanger their health. They then have the right to smoke 'em if they've got 'em. Those opposed to GMO food have a right to know if the food offered to their purchase contains GMO. They have a right to choose whether to purchase it. Congress has the power to pass laws requiring such labeling of food for sale to the public, and to enforce the law with criminal statutes.
You missed the point again. GMO label will work impartially - It will reduce sales to the health freaks and INCREASE sales to the sober business minded people like you who love progress, inventions and modern things. People who love the bomb, bikinis, hula hoop and Thalidomide.
The ignorant health freaks are already shopping in the natural foods section of the market. You simply want to scare people into your way of thinking since you couldn't do it scientifically.
If GMO food is dangerous it should be taken off the market. Do you agree? Why f**k around with labels? The answer is that it's NOT dangerous, so you can't go that route. Your only hope is to scare the public into thinking it's dangerous by putting a label on food similar to that found on cigarettes. "Gosh", the public would say, "If it's safe, why are they labeling it?" I've had it with you fearmongers and your "scare of the week" -- be it red meat, egg yolks, alar, fluoride, arsenic in water, chlorine, carcinogenic bacon, hot dogs, or well-done hamburgers on the grill. Go ahead. Keep crying "wolf".
Oh really? So tell what GMO is scientifically about? I will not hold by breath, bwahaha.
Only because you know the FDA has determined the food safe. But you won't accept the FDA approval of GMO foods as safe. I'd ask you to explain your f**ked up logic, but I don't want your head to explode.
We are not for the prohibition. If you want to eat GMO and hormones, do not restrain yourself. Labels will help you to pick your favored crap.
Only because you know the FDA has determined the food safe. I do not eat hotdogs, unless the content is listed and acceptable.
Right - fed.gov says it is safe so by golly it must be. The Revolving Door: FDA and the Monsanto Company Monsanto Controls both the White House and the US Congress Studies, testing, and trials showed it to be safe. Where are your studies, testing, and trials showing that it's not? Don't bother looking. There aren't any.
Best man for the job? A better question is why is Obama running the country?
Plenty of studies have shown the dangers associated with GMO foods. 10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health Are they safe? The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) Myth: Independent studies confirm that GM foods and crops are safe A review of scientific studies on the health risks of GM crops and foods that did investigate funding sources found that either financial or professional conflict of interest (author affiliation to industry) was strongly associated with study outcomes that cast GM products in a favourable light. Conclusions of safety were also found to be associated with studies in which source of funding was not declared. Furthermore, there was a strong connection between undeclared funding and author affiliation to industry.2 Genuinely independent studies on GM foods and crops are rare, for two reasons: because independent research on GM crop risks is not supported financially; and because industry uses its patent-based control of GM crops to restrict independent research. Research that has been suppressed includes assessments of health and environmental safety and agronomic performance of GM crops. Permission to study GM crops is withheld or made so difficult to obtain that research is effectively blocked. For example, researchers are often denied access to commercialized GM seed and the non-GM isogenic seed.3,4 Even if permission to carry out research is given, GM companies typically retain the right to block publication.3,4An editorial in Scientific American reported, “Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.”5 So your claims of GMOs being "safe" is a bunch of typical misterwhite bullshit.
Best man for the job? Nah - no conflict of interest there, right whitey?
Get back to me when you change that question mark to an exclamation point ... with proof.
Great chart on how Monsanto has taken over the FDA as a private subsidiary.
Good god man - how much more proof do you need? Of course there is a conflict of interest there you simple-minded prick. How much is Monsanto paying you?
Yet we are supposed to believe that any FDA studies are unbiased according to whitey?
Let's just look at the first "scientific study" -- Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood. A) The authors of the study claim to have detected the Cry1Ab protein in the blood of pregnant and nonpregnant Canadian women, and in umbilical cord blood of fetuses. B) The Cry1Ab protein is produced by some Bt corn (e.g., MON810). C) Therefore, GM food is bad. HOWEVER, "no information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study, so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.” Secondly, "the authors do not consider that the origin of Cry1Ab could be food from organic farming (which sprays Cry1Ab, or bacteria producing it, on fruit or vegetable crops) or from its use in gardening (CryA1b is part of available “natural insecticide” formulations). Third, given that the level of Cry1Ab in Bt corn is so low, the women would have to eat 10 pounds of Bt corn every day to arrive at the blood concentration levels shown in the study. I see no need to go any farther. Buncha bullshit "scientific" studies.
And the FDA is the fountain of truth and has no conflict of interest concerning Monsanto. Fucking shill. You bet. And you can thank Occupy Sonoma County for it. "Occupy Sonoma County embraces the egalitarian, deep democracy principles of the Occupy Movement with a regional strategy for effectively organizing county-wide social justice campaigns that are globally relevant." You going to the rally?
You bet. And you can thank Occupy Sonoma County for it. Gosh, you mean none of the FACTS presented on the chart were true? Give me a frigging break!
Like you, I consider the source. And this source has a big, fat hard-on for Monsanto. Which make YOU the simple-minded prick and a shill for the Occupy movement. F**king retard.
Got it - fuck the facts, right? Concern for human health is not a partisan issue.
"A scientific journal has formally retracted a controversial study linking genetically modified corn to tumor growth and death risk in rats." "The study had appeared in the Sept. 19, 2012 issue of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and made headlines around the world with its stark images of rats who purportedly were more likely to develop large tumors and die early after eating Monsanto’s genetically modified maize, whether or not it was treated with a weed killer." "But now the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, says the study led by biologist Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France is being retracted due to concerns with the research methodology." You're an idiot. An absolute, f**king idiot. Stop wasting my time.
You got some? I haven't seen any.
Hey sport, I don't give a rat's as what you eat. You have done nothing here but shill for the FDA, Monsanto and the assholes who don't want GMO products labeled. Typical day for you.
I'm done with you on this thread. You got nothin' but lies and innuendo. Your "scientific studies" are garbage. You can't support any of your claims. The best you can do is hurl insults, and you're real good at that. Screw that and screw you.
If GMO food is dangerous, it should be taken off the market. Agreed. Labels should continue so the public can decide for itself what it chooses to eat. Pink slime in ground beef may be safe. People may choose not to accept it. GMO may, or may not, be safe. People should not be forced to eat it by making its presence undetectable. Not all people will choose to accept the misterwhite standard of blindly accepting corporate sponsored studies declaring something safe. Let the market decide. Let the people choose.
Well, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this despite the fact that I have FDA studies saying it's safe and you have diddley-squat. Let's try a different tack. Is GMO safer than the alternative (ie., pre-GMO)? Before GMO, farmers used significantly more insecticides and more toxic (and less effective) herbicides. This is like the old DDT argument. Get rid of that nasty DDT in Africa because of "health risks". But doing so resulted in tens of thousands of deaths from malaria. (Note: They're using DDT again.)
Tobacco was safe to smoke until it wasn't. Thalidomide was safe until it wasn't. This list could go on and on. It matters not whether the product is food, smokes, or drugs, the public has a right to know what something is before they put it in their body. A declaration by some agency that is safe so the public has no need to know is not sufficient. Whether some agency pronounces GMO more safe or as safe as natural or organic food does not negate the public's right to know what they are being sold for the purpose of putting into their body. You may choose to ingest products based on blind acceptance. This does not negate the public's right to use their own judgment in whether to put something in their body. I would not advise eating the old DDT. It is still under a worldwide ban except for limited use as a disease vector control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle (the national bird of the United States) and the peregrine falcon from near-extirpation in the contiguous United States. http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx Status on Ratifications of the Stockholm Convention Text:
Some, not all, smokers got lung cancer, so a warning was put on the cigarettes. If GMO foods caused cancer in some people, yeah, I'd want a similar label. Does it? "Thalidomide was safe until it wasn't." Thalidomide IS safe and is still being prescribed today for treating cancer. It is not safe for pregnant women. The FDA did not approve it when it came out (although some doctors did pass out samples). "Whether some agency pronounces GMO more safe or as safe as natural or organic food does not negate the public's right to know what they are being sold for the purpose of putting into their body." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where were you when the Cry1Ab protein was (and still is) being sprayed on fruit or vegetable crops as a “natural insecticide” and transferred to humans? But when Cry1Ab is claimed to be transferred to humans via GM foods, all of a sudden it's important? I smell an agenda, sir, and you are being dishonest with me. You want a label? What would it say? "This food may cause _______?" "Studies have shown this food ________ ?" No. You don't know. You just want a big, fat red label reading "GMO FOOD! EAT IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!"
Monsanto and Others Caught Paying Internet ‘Trolls’ to Attack Activists
Through the decades when the public was assured that cigarettes were safe, were they safe or not? - - - - - - Used as prescribed, thalidomide caused birth defects. You consider that safe? Considering where your head is stuck, that's not an agenda you smell. I want a label that tells the consumer whether a product contains GMO. If people want to eat it, that is their choice. You want to deprive the people of a right to know what is in the product they buy.
What agenda that could be, sir?
Back in the 50's we called them "cancer sticks". Who said they were safe? The FDA? "Used as prescribed, thalidomide caused birth defects." Thalidomide was never approved by the FDA. Now I'm repeating myself. "I want a label that tells the consumer whether a product contains GMO." Because GM food is known to cause __________. Fill in the blank. Second request. "You want to deprive the people of a right to know what is in the product they buy." Nope. I want to deprive you of the ability to run a fear campaign. Booga-Booga! GMO bad! Tell me why you want it labeled.
Tho I agree with you, I feel that the scientist that develop and use GM technology, should be spending billions selling its safety... try and squash the professional fear monger groups. However on the other hand, people deserve to know what they are eating.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Labeling GMO food in order to instill fear and distrust in the public so they don't buy it. No different than the phony campaigns against red meat, egg yolks, alar, fluoride, arsenic in water, chemtrails, chlorine, carcinogenic bacon, hot dogs, or well-done hamburgers on the grill. Plus 100 more. Bunch of f**king do-gooder busybodies who think they know better and that they're saving the world by getting people to give up everything and live in their basement in fear.
People like nolu chan couldn't give a FF about the people's right to know. He wants GMO labeling to scare people away from that food. Why? He can't tell you. He certainly won't tell me. He's on a quest to "save the world" from themselves. People deserve to know what they are eating? Sure. Just like when the federal government forced manufacturers to spend millions of dollars researching and listing nutritional information because people were getting fat not knowing what was in the food. People are fatter today than they ever were. Money well spent!
People are fatter today than they ever were. Money well spent! Well we both know the government feels they can solve all problems with their solutions... but in reality they are just selling votes because the average sheep that votes believes the government should help the sheep survive. Still, people do deserve to know what they are eating... because companies will add dog shit for cheap fillers if they could get away with it.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
People deserve to eat safe food. That's why we have the FDA. Label a bottle of water, "This product contains 500 milliliters of "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO), also used as an industrial solvent and coolant, in nuclear power plants, and in the distribution of pesticides." Watch the sales drop and a movement begun to ban the chemical. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax)
You did not answer me. You pretended that you did. Not nice. So who would finance anti-GMO lobby? Where is the profit?
The evidence suggest stupidity.
I think the public has a right to know what is in the food products being sold to them. misterwhite thinks corporate america should not have to bother telling them.
What? You asked for the agenda. I gave you the agenda. Don't say I didn't answer you. Now you want to know who's financing it? How the f**k should I know? Who finances any of the public scares I listed? Given that 90% of the corn and soybeans are GMO, my guess would be the suppliers of the other 10%.
What makes you different than the garden variety troll? You post outrageous claims you refuse to/can't back up in the hopes of generating controversy.
Not if it's safe for consumption. Are you saying it's not safe? What happens when you eat GMO food? Lordy, if you know something we don't, you need to tell us! All you want to do is scare ignorant people, just like the dihydrogen monoxide hoax. Why? Because you think you're "making a difference" and saving people from themselves. You want to matter. I say get a f**king life.
Do you want the FDA to label peanut butter safe for consumption, or would you prefer that manufacturers label the jar "Contains less than 330 insect parts"? Both statements are 100% factual, but you'd prefer the latter? Please tell me why. Your answer has gotta be that you don't want people eating peanut butter.
Monsanto should spend billions of dollars selling the safety of GMO food? You'd believe that -- the manufacturer telling you the product is safe? You don't think that would be a waste of billions of dollars of shareholders money? Or is that your intent?
Exactly - you know nothing.
Because you suffer from acute case of Limbaughitis!
They pay you peanuts?
If a manufacturer is gonna reap the benefits of a GMO... then if should be up to them to prove its safe before they line their pockets with a genetic mutation that grows faster, bigger, more resilient to bugs, weather and drought... not the FDA.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I would prefer a third party telling me it's safe or not safe.
Nothing wrong with a third party... but LIABILTY lawsuits should be enough insensitive to have some kind if responsibility. Look, if you sell cream corn... and you have developed GMO's to produce bigger, more resilient crops... and you start selling Mr. whites Creamy Corn in the can (you dirty perv)... and I buy that shit and eat it, and start growing man-boobs or my skin starts to rot off because YOU sold me some F'ed up cream corn... I'll sue your cream corn business into bankruptcy.... so yes, you do have some kind of incentive to test your own greed.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Monsanto has tested their GMO products. And the FDA approved those tests and certified the product as safe. Geez Louise. I wish you were as safety conscious about cannabis oil for children as you are about GMO corn. Legalize it! Give it to kids! Testing? Pshaw! FDA approval? Double pshaw!
Legalize it! Give it It won't be my kids that are getting high. I'm a huge fan of natural selection... where the little potheads that jump off a roof on a skateboard and smash there heads open, don't grow up to spawn future Deckards... as long as I don't have to pay for their stupidity, or their juvenile weed.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Not that. For medical use. I thought you supported Charlotte's Web, a cannabis oil taken by kids to control their seizures. No?
I thought you supported Charlotte's Web, a cannabis oil taken by kids to control their seizures. No? I'd support it if there was real medical research behind it where that research shows it to be a better alternative than more conventional methods. I'm talking about REAL unbiased science testing... not the word of a Free Thought Project pothead writer that tested a few doob's on his granddaughter, in his basement, between Breaking Bad episodes.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Cowardly bozo sniper shit stain.
#2. To: A Pole (#0)
...every independent scientific body that has evaluated biotech crops has found them safe for people and the environment. ...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
Genetically modified foods, are they safe?
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
People have a right to know if their food has been genetically modified, so they can decide whether they want to buy that or not.
#5. To: A Pole (#0)
What they are really aiming at is to confuse consumers so that they will misunderstand and treat labels identifying products as containing ingredients from biotech crops as warning labels.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
"People have a right to know if their food has been genetically modified, so they can decide whether they want to buy that or not."
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
And isn't it true that electrical power generated by a nuclear power plant can contaminate my home with radiation if I unplug something and the radioactive electrons dribble out on to the floor?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#8. To: Deckard (#7)
" And isn't it true that electrical power generated by a nuclear power plant can contaminate my home with radiation if I unplug something and the radioactive electrons dribble out on to the floor?
#9. To: Deckard (#7)
(Edited)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
" There should be nothing to fear from the truth. "
#11. To: misterwhite (#6)
Do they also have a right to know if their food had been irradiated when packaged? Or microwaved before being served at a restaurant?
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
"If there is a substantial portion of the public that fears something and wants to know, yes, of course."
#13. To: misterwhite (#6)
Do they also have a right to know if their food had been irradiated when packaged?
#14. To: misterwhite (#9)
Kind of like "The Fly" but without the disintegrator-integrator?
#15. To: misterwhite (#12)
Even if the fears are groundless and can affect entire industries?
#16. To: misterwhite (#12)
Peanut butter is allowed up to an average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams.
#17. To: misterwhite (#12)
Even if the fears are groundless and can affect entire industries?
#18. To: misterwhite (#12)
I fear insect fragments and larvae. Should we label those?
#19. To: misterwhite (#9)
#20. To: A Pole (#0)
#21. To: misterwhite (#6)
Do they also have a right to know if their food had been irradiated when packaged? Or microwaved before being served at a restaurant?
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
Europe, led by the French, have put the kebosh on wholesale GMO planting and hormone-tainted meat in Europe. This blocks American produce. Americans scream, and the Americans can go fuck off. Want to sell meat and products in Europe? Want access to that market? Then certify it, on pain of crippling lawsuits and massive punitive damage and criminal prosecution if you lie, that your products have NO GMO in them, and your meat has NO Hormones. Otherwise, you have no right to make money entering the European stream of commerce.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
"People have a right to know if their food has been genetically modified, so they can decide whether they want to buy that or not."
#24. To: TooConservative (#22)
"and that constantly change in their makeup, seemingly a deliberate attempt by seed developers to obfuscate their actual content?"
#25. To: TooConservative (#20)
"The fact that GMO companies are so desperate to avoid any GMO labeling tends to make me think we should have GMO labeling."
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
"I don't want to eat GMO food because it wasn't designed by God for me."
#27. To: A Pole (#16)
Peanut butter is allowed up to an average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams.
Insects can be edible.
#28. To: TooConservative (#20)
The fact that GMO companies are so desperate to avoid any GMO labeling tends to make me think we should have GMO labeling.
#29. To: TooConservative (#22)
Conversely, I've read that all the best brie cheeses from France cannot be imported to America because USDA demands all imported cheeses be pasteurized. And a real brie cheese in France by definition is not pasteurized. So all the American yuppies who love their brie are eating a Velveeta-type brie, not the real thing.
#30. To: misterwhite (#26)
So you're against grafting fruit trees to get a more nutritious product? That's the original GMO.
#31. To: misterwhite (#23)
Given that the truth is that GMO food is safe and, according to you, there should be nothing to fear from the truth, why would labeling make any difference?
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
"The foods are not safe ..."
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
"GMO is done in a lab, fiddling directly with the genes"
#34. To: A Pole (#0)
Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritius
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vietnam
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-around-the-world/
#35. To: misterwhite (#23)
(Edited)
Given that the truth is that GMO food is safe and, according to you, there should be nothing to fear from the truth, why would labeling make any difference?
#36. To: misterwhite (#26)
So you're against grafting fruit trees to get a more nutritious product? That's the original GMO
#37. To: Operation 40 (#34)
#38. To: misterwhite (#33)
Yep. And with the same results as grafting.
#39. To: misterwhite (#33)
#40. To: misterwhite (#27)
(Edited)
So for a 40 ounce jar (1120 grams), the label would say "Contains 330 Insect Parts -- But They're Edible."
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
"In a great many of those countries, people have average life spans longer than ours."
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
In other words, all of Europe, the entire industrialized world EXCEPT America and Canada, and most of the population of the world in general - even the hinterlands. Khazahkstan. Chad.
"You've gone from being the most intelligent, literate, morally back-boned citizenry in the history of the world to the laziest, dumbest, most capitulating human trash that has ever existed"- Vinny Eastwood, New Zealand
#43. To: A Pole (#40)
"Either way, bugs are not GMO"
#44. To: Operation 40 (#42)
#45. To: TooConservative (#20)
The fact that GMO companies are so desperate to avoid any GMO labeling...
#46. To: Deckard, A Pole (#2)
Genetically modified foods, are they safe?
#47. To: GrandIsland (#45)
So many fear monger groups out there... they could give Mother Theresa a bad name. Do you blame them?
Hell, fear mongering works so well, if Stone did a study of 100 random people to just view this forum a minimum of 4 hours a day for 6 months, at least 15 of the Guinea pigs would shoot a cop or bomb a government building by the end of the study.
#48. To: nolu chan (#46)
"The public has a right to know what is in the food being sold to them."
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
Like 330 insect parts in a jar of Skippy peanut butter?
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
(Edited)
"Whatever they are selling, the buying public's right to know outweighs their lust for secrecy."
#51. To: misterwhite (#50)
It has nothing to do with the buying public's right to know and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell.
#52. To: misterwhite (#44)
Vinny Eastwood can ESAD.
#53. To: misterwhite (#43)
"Either way, bugs are not GMO"
#54. To: misterwhite (#48)
"The public has a right to know what is in the food being sold to them."
#55. To: misterwhite (#50)
By "the public" you mean those opposed to GMO food.
#56. To: misterwhite (#50)
(Edited)
By "the public" you mean those opposed to GMO food.
#57. To: A Pole (#56)
"It will reduce sales to the health freaks"
#58. To: nolu chan (#55)
(Edited)
"They have the right to know what is in the food offered for sale."
#59. To: misterwhite (#57)
(Edited)
You simply want to scare people into your way of thinking since you couldn't do it scientifically.
#60. To: A Pole (#54)
"but I do not want to know what body parts are in it."
#61. To: misterwhite (#58)
If GMO food is dangerous it should be taken off the market. Do you agree? Why f**k around with labels?
#62. To: misterwhite (#60)
(Edited)
"but I do not want to know what body parts are in it."
#63. To: misterwhite (#58)
The answer is that it's NOT dangerous, so you can't go that route.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#64. To: misterwhite, A Pole, Operation 40, nolu chan, GrandIsland, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#60)
But you won't accept the FDA approval of GMO foods as safe.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#65. To: Deckard (#63)
"Right - fed.gov says it is safe so by golly it must be."
#66. To: Deckard (#64)
"Why Is A Former Monsanto Vice President Running the FDA?"
#67. To: misterwhite (#65)
Where are your studies, testing, and trials showing that it's not?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#68. To: misterwhite (#66)
"Why Is A Former Monsanto Vice President Running the FDA?"
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#69. To: Deckard (#68)
"Nah - no conflict of interest there, right whitey?"
#70. To: Deckard (#63)
#71. To: misterwhite (#69)
(Edited)
Get back to me when you change that question mark to an exclamation point ... with proof.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#72. To: TooConservative (#70)
Great chart on how Monsanto has taken over the FDA as a private subsidiary.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#73. To: Deckard (#67)
"Plenty of studies have shown the dangers associated with GMO foods."
"10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health"
#74. To: misterwhite (#73)
(Edited)
Buncha bullshit "scientific" studies.
The study has been deemed "the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GMO food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats." News of the horrifying findings is spreading fast, with even the mainstream media in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors; tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.
"Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GMO maize implicated in 'shocking' new cancer study" wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication.
It reported, "Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females."
The Daily Mail reported, "Fresh row over GMO foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors."
It goes on to say: "The animals on the GMO diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."The Study
The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs.
You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GMO corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.Findings From The Study
Here are some of the shocking findings from the study: “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#75. To: TooConservative (#70)
"Great chart on how Monsanto has taken over the FDA as a private subsidiary."
#76. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#75)
"Great chart on how Monsanto has taken over the FDA as a private subsidiary."
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#77. To: Deckard (#76)
(Edited)
"Gosh, you mean none of the FACTS presented on the chart were true?"
#78. To: misterwhite (#77)
(Edited)
Like you, I consider the source.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#79. To: Deckard (#74)
#80. To: Deckard (#78)
"Got it - fuck the facts, right?"
#81. To: misterwhite (#80)
(Edited)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#82. To: Deckard (#81)
#83. To: A Pole (#0)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#84. To: misterwhite (#58)
If GMO food is dangerous it should be taken off the market. Do you agree? Why f**k around with labels?
#85. To: nolu chan (#84)
"GMO may, or may not, be safe."
#86. To: misterwhite (#85)
Well, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this despite the fact that I have FDA studies saying it's safe and you have diddley-squat.
Let's try a different tack. Is GMO safer than the alternative (ie., pre-GMO)? Before GMO, farmers used significantly more insecticides and more toxic (and less effective) herbicides.
This is like the old DDT argument. Get rid of that nasty DDT in Africa because of "health risks". But doing so resulted in tens of thousands of deaths from malaria.
A worldwide ban on its agricultural use was later formalized under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day and remains controversial, because of its effectiveness in reducing deaths due to malaria, countered by environmental and health concerns.
#87. To: nolu chan (#86)
"Tobacco was safe to smoke until it wasn't."
#88. To: misterwhite, A Pole, Operation 40, nolu chan, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#87)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#89. To: misterwhite (#87)
Some, not all, smokers got lung cancer, so a warning was put on the cigarettes.
Thalidomide IS safe and is still being prescribed today for treating cancer.
I smell an agenda, sir, and you are being dishonest with me.
#90. To: misterwhite (#87)
I smell an agenda, sir, and you are being dishonest with me.
#91. To: nolu chan (#89)
"Through the decades when the public was assured that cigarettes were safe, were they safe or not?'
#92. To: misterwhite (#91)
Nope. I want to deprive you of the ability to run a fear campaign. Booga-Booga! GMO bad!
#93. To: A Pole (#90)
"What agenda that could be, sir?"
#94. To: GrandIsland (#92)
"However on the other hand, people deserve to know what they are eating."
#95. To: misterwhite (#94)
People deserve to know what they are eating? Sure. Just like when the federal government forced manufacturers to spend millions of dollars researching and listing nutritional information because people were getting fat not knowing what was in the food.
#96. To: GrandIsland (#95)
"Still, people do deserve to know what they are eating... because companies will add dog shit for cheap fillers if they could get away with it."
#97. To: misterwhite (#93)
(Edited)
#98. To: misterwhite (#91)
Because GM food is known to cause __________. Fill in the blank. Second request.
#99. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#94)
People like nolu chan couldn't give a FF about the people's right to know.
#100. To: A Pole (#97)
You did not answer me. You pretended that you did.
Not nice.
So who would finance anti-GMO lobby? Where is the profit?
#101. To: nolu chan (#98)
"The evidence suggest stupidity."
#102. To: nolu chan (#99)
"misterwhite thinks corporate america should not have to bother telling them."
#103. To: GrandIsland (#95)
"Still, people do deserve to know what they are eating... because companies will add dog shit for cheap fillers if they could get away with it."
#104. To: GrandIsland (#92)
"should be spending billions selling its safety"
#105. To: misterwhite (#100)
How the f**k should I know?
#106. To: misterwhite (#102)
All you want to do is scare ignorant people, just like the dihydrogen monoxide hoax. Why?
#107. To: misterwhite (#104)
Monsanto should spend billions of dollars selling the safety of GMO food?
#108. To: misterwhite (#104)
Monsanto should spend billions of dollars selling the safety of GMO food? You'd believe that -- the manufacturer telling you the product is safe?
#109. To: GrandIsland (#108)
"then if should be up to them to prove its safe"
#110. To: misterwhite (#109)
#111. To: GrandIsland (#110)
#112. To: misterwhite (#111)
(Edited)
Geez Louise. I wish you were as safety conscious about cannabis oil for children as you are about GMO corn.
#113. To: GrandIsland (#112)
"It won't be my kids that are getting high."
#114. To: misterwhite (#113)
(Edited)
Not that. For medical use.
#115. To: GrandIsland (#112)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]