those products have GMO content? I want a list of those companies!

Last edited Sat Mar 19, 2016, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

And what is considered "GMO". All foods are genetically modified. Even horizontal gene transfer exists in nature.

This is a wild banana, for instance:


"Anti-GMO", like anti-VAX, is the science-hating left's answer to the right's creationism. And equally as moronic.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Seems fair enough. If the "science-hating left" as you call it is just a minority causing a nuisance, then give consumers a choice and let the market decide.

Isn't that what the market-worshipping corporatists always say?

influences of Monsanto, Bayer, Cargill, etc.. But, I bet you can get a nice paying job in the industry with your POV.

On Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

a nice corporatist shill position which ignores a great deal of science outside the corporate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7696900

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling a poster a "corporatist shill" is certainly an over the top personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:38 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Attacks the position/message rather than the poster
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The way I read it they said it was a corporatist shill POSITION. They did not come out and say you are a corporatist shill. Leave it and debate.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He didn't call the poster a corporate shill. He said that the poster's position is that of a corporate shill, which is true.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

There are 600+ scientific studies, most of which come from publicly funded universities and European institutes, not your "corporate shill" boogie man, all verifying the safety of crops derived from more advanced techniques for altering alleles.

But, just as global warming deniers do, go ahead and ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject, and keep pushing the "the science is unclear" meme, simply because you'd rather ignore reality. That's what you're going to do anyway.

However, just to quote Wikipedia on the subject:

http://agriculture.vermont.gov/feed_seed_fert_lime/seed/gmo_seeds

Because there is absolutely nothing affecting an organism's growth and development that is "not possible under natural conditions or processes".

Furthermore, there is absolutely no way for anyone to be able to tell whether they are obeying the labeling law or not. The safe thing to do therefore is to put in a disclaimer that says, "This product may or may not have been produced using what the Vermont legislature defines as a GMO", and stick it on basically everything. Somewhat akin to the way Planned Parenthood clinics have to work around the unscientific restrictions fundamentalist Christian influenced state legislatures, and their adding of non-scientific preconditions.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

With that list we could make them pull out all over the country if enough people were interested enough in knowing what is in their food.

Some companies and products, yes.

The issue is with what we'll call the Big-10. These 10 food companies produce something like 94% of all the prepared foods sold in the US...basically everything that comes in a cardboard box and isn't raw ingredient (raw ingredients being eggs, milk, some dairy, raw produce, flour, grain, etc.); they also produce more than 50% of the raw ingredient product in US supermarkets.



These companies are likely to pull all their products, those containing GMOs and not. That basically means all the cereals, all the frozen food, all the shredded cheese, all the pasta, all the pasta sauces, all the candy; virtually all the milk, juice, bread, flour; about half the fruit and vegetables, cold cuts, prepared meat...remove all the big-10 food-producer food and your grocery store looks like this:



Now, I don't eat their crap either. I grew up in the restaurant business, have run restaurant kitchens and have been a chef d' cuisine...I can cook. My point is that GMO laws of this type are doomed to failure from the outset if food producers don't buy-in on complying with them because most people cannot cook...if you take away all the prepared foods from a supermarket, most people would cease to be able to feed themselves. At that point, the PR campaign begins and by the end of the month, you have 10,000 Vermonters demanding the repeal of the law so they can have their Sunkist oranges, Starkist tuna, and Cheerios back.

Good Job, Vermont. Lead the way for all of us! If any one knows which corporations a re rubbing products from Vermont, please please post. Thank you lots.

renewable energy being one of them. I'd imagine part of that has to do with their excellent leadership, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the corporate-funded media to give them any credit.

Its a precise and safe breeding method. The label tells you nothing.

the food is derived from a genetically modified organism. Whether or not you trust the science and believe the food safe ( I do), we still have a right to know exactly what's in it or from where it's derived.

and then I will decide. If there is nothing wrong, why hide it?

For example, mutagenic breeding methods(using radiation and chemical mutation) predate modern genetic engineering by decades, and is still practiced, yet I see no movement to have those organisms labeled.

Its all irrelevant information to me, but it seems there is a gap in the logic if only one breeding method is singled out.

I'm not anti-labeling per se. I did say its useless information to me, true. But I think that it should apply fairly and evenly across the board. I would be more willing to support a federal regulation as opposed to a state by state labeling.

http://agriculture.vermont.gov/feed_seed_fert_lime/seed/gmo_seeds

Isn't that the whole idea? Drown it in pesticides and the food doesn't die.

I'd rather GMOs be labeled because of that aspect of it, too.

The problem is, a law that simply labels all GMOs doesn't provide any meaningful way for us to distinguish between good and bad ones. I would love a directory we can access to get a general idea of what mods were made. I presume that Organic GMOs will not be drenched in pesticides.

so I don't understand the complaint.

....that's the whole point behind Roundup Ready. A farmer sprays the field with Roundup to eliminate virtually all weed competition, insuring better yields and reducing costs. That's fine, if one wants to ingest Roundup residue. Seems we're all now part of a gigantic human trail for glyphosate, AMPA and other minor glyphosate metabolites, with virtually no IRB.

The GMO Chem Pharmaceutical Borg is deceiving you with that thought. You'd do well to seek out the truth. There is NO scientific consensus on GMO safety. None.

But the industry and it's paid trolls - who are all over the net - repeat that lie over and over and over, along with the lie that corporate GMO production is just the same old selective breeding that farmers have been doing for millennia. But as you will be shocked to learn, these are FALSE talking points pimped by the industry.

I am sorry you are among those who have been duped, and wish you the best of luck as you learn the truth.

http://www.ensser.org/media/0115/

The American public overwhelmingly demands GMO labeling.

we shouldn't set up policy based on ignorance, even if the majority support the ignorance.

hid the facts instead of spending that money to educate the public?

And don't try to convince me that gene splitting is equivalent to hybridization, it won't work.

and more precise.

My question is why isn't hybridization labeled?

Nature allows for hybrids, but nature does not allow for such things as splicing a part of flounder dna into tomatoes.

Grafting is little more than using one life to support another within the same family of species. A peach sapling grafted onto apple stock, yes, but do you think you would ever see an apple sapling grafted onto an elephant naturally?

Mutations can make quick changes to a species but again they are usually natural and most do not survive to reproduce.

Yet you see no difference in these processes and dna splicing!

The label wouldn't tell you what you are putting in your body. The label wouldn't provide any meaningful nutritional or safety data about the food you are eating.

For something supposedly so beneficial to society why aren't the companies that use these processes bragging about their advances in science and productivity?

And the media has a bad habit of either over sensationalizing it, or underreporting it.

into the most recent omnibus funding bill that prohibits states from demand country of origin labeling for imported meat after the WTO ruled it a restraint of trade in a suit brought by Mexico. Expect the same with GMO labeling.

...and know whether or not it is GMO, then consumers will simply buy elsewhere. There ARE other options, more every day. And people will grow more of their own food, buy at farmers' markets, or buy in state from local farmers. Corporate bullying won't work any more.

This makes Vermont the "Mikey" of New England.

for younger readers:

Obviously.
Most food in boxes or other packaging will simply have a "GMO" or "Non-GMO" wording added to the label.

No real problem there.

What about produce?

Will we see those stickers on any and every kiwi or apple or orange?

And then there is the problem of outright FAKE claims from the anti-GMO activist like Jeffrey Smith.
Or that Saldana(?) woman, forgot her whole name.

There is so much absolute BULLSHIT being spread by these demagogues, about "frankenfoods!" "Poison!" "Cancer!"

And meanwhile, most organic producers use factory farming methods, (the "small farmer" nowadays is nearly extinct,) and some pesticides that are horribly poisonous.

And they charge 2, 3, 4 or more times what other food producers charge.

They have the plu code on them.


I guess it depends on where you shop.

Which 92% of Americans actively want - and which a tiny percentage of well-funded corporate agents want to block.

Methinks you doth protest too much. What's that all about?

Keep going with your irrational accusations about subjects you know nothing about.

And I even signed the petition.

https://www.change.org/p/monsanto-pay-pro-gmo-advocates-and-defenders

I, and many others, have spent innumerable hours discussing, debating, refuting, researching, and rebutalling anti-GMO propaganda. According to this article: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/food-agriculturemonsantogmoadvertising.html Monsanto has done what many corporations in many industries have done: engaged in "stealth marketing" (although this wasn't very stealthy, but criticisms of that aside) and PR efforts. Furthermore, we assert that a meagerly one-time $150 is an insult to the amount of energy and time we have spent. We demand /at least/ minimum hourly wage + 5 cents per word written or spoken online + 10 cents per view + overtime pay + accumulatable vacation pay + other negotiable payments on an assortment of other variables. These are not unreasonable requests. Indeed, these are more than meek requests. We, indeed, deserve more than that.

being held in higher esteem than critical thinking.

As illustrated by a late night debate I had last night, it seems many pro-labeling people aren't fueled by concern for food safety, but rather a contrived "ickness" factor that has no basis in biology or genetics. They even use their own ignorance of those subjects as a bulwark against debate, closing their minds to facts because they don't fit their biases.

I'm reminded of the "Certified Organic" industry, which is itself held up most due to misconceptions rather than facts. Organic labeled products are labeled as safer(they are not), healthier(again, they are not), or farmed more sustainable(really not true) alternatives to industrial farms and I guess you could call standard food. So the label "Certified Organic" or just "Organic" now carry an undeserved positive association, and thanks to attacks from people ignorant of science over the past 2 decades, GMOs carry some negative connotations, again undeserved.

I do wonder how long this negative association will last if the alternatives are going to be more expensive though. It may backfire on the "pro-labelers".

You are welcome, or course, to take your stand against democracy. That's what democracy is all about.

92% of the American people want to know what's in their food. Deal with it.

the fact is that you don't have the facts on your side, so you devolve into using memes to make your point.

...not on the human beings to prove it is unsafe by suffering from epidemics of degenerative disease.

The corporations have failed in this respect. They have not proven that GMOs are safe, and there is NO CONSENSUS, despite the relentless propagada, and the insidious, secret onslaught of their GMOs into the marketplace.

All this is, of course, another reason why 92% of the American people want to know what's in their food. But it's fine with me if your puny 8% minority cohort does not give a feather or a fart about what corporations are doing to your food. Chow down.

But you are just going to have to deal with the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans who are exercising their democratic rights. So sorry that this democratic reality pisses you off. Five deep breaths - of clean, unpolluted or genetically altered air - can be a big help. It works for me.

On top of that "genetically altered air" do you even read what you write. There are no genes in air! Holy fucking shit, you really are less than qualified to comment on this issue.

pesticides and herbicides, a whole bunch of them, many that are much more toxic than Round-Up.

a lot of pesticides, particularly some organic pesticides are far more toxic, why not show concern about their use?

Listen to these corporations claim the world will be overrun by bugs and weeds and we'll all starve to death without their new and improved patented product.

Do you have any actual points, or is it just thoughtless memes?

They are not as essential as they claim.

and attempts at solving some problems, particularly in drought resistance and vitamin deficiency could be very useful in the future. It can be essential in the future, sustainable and economical if the technology is allowed to be implemented. Instead we have people who apparently failed high school biology scream out "frankenfooooood!" and attempt to shut down even safety testing. Its idiots on parade.

are you?

I mean, as long as the science is sound, the products are tested safe, why should it matter if its produced through genetic engineering or hybridization, or whatever?

ON EDIT: In addition, this is taking anti-corporation ideology taken to an extreme. Agribusiness is a business of large corporations, period, the era of small family farms ended with the advent of industrialization.

Now they have to buy seeds every year.

BTW: Family farms are still alive in America despite the efforts of corporations.

Are there laws in place that prevent them from keeping and continuing to grow their own varieties and non-patented or IP infringing seeds?

At best, this is a legal issue about the nature and enforcement of IP laws both nationally and internationally, and has nothing to do with the technology itself.

And yes, family farms are still alive in America, and most are affiliated with one of the large agribusinesses that exist in this country. The independents take up niche or local markets.

And Monsanto was one of a handful of companies forced to manufacture it by the US government.

Also the seed sharing issue predates Monsanto and is again an IP law issue.

Honestly, there isn't much to be worried about, small family farms are for niche and local markets, most of the agricultural business is large scale for a reason, they need to help feed the 7 plus billion people on this planet who, I might add, wouldn't be alive at all today without modern industrial technology implemented on today's farms the world over.

GMOs are simply a modern extension of human's 10,000 plus year history in using agriculture to try to provide more food for our growing populations. Put simply, there is little to be worried about, particularly since we have a better handle as to what we want our food crops to do, and are much better at analyzing the results and testing for safety, along with nutrition and even taste.

the grocery store(around here local stores, Schnucks, Dierbergs, Shop n' Save)?

I like grape jelly, PB&J is the bomb, but not the fresh fruit.

As far as being an advocate, yes, I'm an advocate for science, facts and small "t" truth. See, that's the issue, if you want to say that you are boycotting Monsanto because you don't like their business practices, particularly when they were largely a chemical company, for example, when they were forced to manufacture Agent Orange, or helped create the Atomic Bomb, fine, I get that, I think those are history, and something to learn about, but not boycott worthy, but different strokes for different folks. But if you want to attempt to ban their products based on junk science and fearmongering, then I'm going to call you on your bullshit.

I suppose cancer's got a right to live too.

because you failed to clarify what you meant.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You do realize that the rats used had an 80% chance of developing tumors before being exposed to glyphosate? As a result the study was junked by the publisher. In addition, the WHO classification has been criticized heavily by even the authors of the studies it cited as being misleading and guilty of cherry picking.

There is little to no evidence that glyphosate is carcinagenic, at all.

that's fine, but don't pretend its because you are interested in the truth.

affair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

And here's a good rundown of the issues with the International Agency for Research on Cancer report that was released:

It's reminiscent of when Big Tobacco sued to keep warning labels off of their products.

Here in Vegas people have gravel for yards and they douse them in Roundup to kill every form of plant life known to the planet.

I suppose if the kids here develop tumors you can always blame the nuclear test site 60 miles away.

aren't going to develop tumors. Roundup is not a new product and has been sprayed for going on 30 years, this isn't comparable to tobacco, where a relationship between the tar and other carcinogens in the smoke were directly linked to cancer developing in the lungs. There was a causal link established, and a strong correlation between incidences of lung cancer and smoking rates. None of that exists for glyphosate and any type of cancer.

of Monsanto, and indeed predate its entrance into agriculture.

Just like manufacturing.

we try to adapt and try to form public policies that assist as many people as possible in transitioning to different fields/jobs as much as possible.

that worked in agriculture on one level to another, to about 1% of the population now working in those same fields. In that same time period, yields have grown damn near exponentially.

or not.

That's the problem, you go all anti-corporate, and that's fine, except you do it thoughtlessly, for example, I'm not really an insider on agribusiness, but I'm sure farmers are everything from employees, to employers, to contractors and subcontractors depending on situation. And frankly, that's fine as long as they get fairly compensated for their work. More than that, many farmers get out of owning farms because the risks and costs associated with it are far too high for the income it takes in. Hate to say it, but large agribusinesses are, in some cases, better positioned to absorb such costs and being able to work marginal farmland, and will also be able to invest money into developing new crops that can better take advantage of that land. Yes that would involve both developing hybrids, possibly GMOs, etc.

If there are unethical and/or illegal practices going on, then speak out on those, don't make general statements that are, at best, incomplete, and in addition, ethically neutral.

These?

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/the-11-biggest-agricultural-companies-in-the-world-350124/

Or how about this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill

Its Cargill, and it dwarfs the competition in this country, oh, and its family owned.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamurphy/2011/11/17/americas-largest-private-companies-food/#1867ca98c365

Mass GMO chemical corporate caused tragedy

I'm fine with companies labeling "contains GMOs" too to make it easy for simpletons, although it's really not necessary.

Are so-called "organic" producers required to disclose which super-toxic pesticides they use? If they have nothing to hide, then why don't they print this information right on the label? What are they afraid of?

and the GMO corporations are evil!

The date of the vote was actually Wednesday, not Friday.
I was going to post about this but was waiting to try to find how each senator voted. Can't find it.

I did find how House members voted last summer on a companion bill:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h462

try to drench a selective bred crop with a herbicides and see what happens. It'll die a quick death is what.
Have you noticed how Bill Nye and Tyson has shut up about how gmo and selective breeding is the same?
GMO is about splicing a gene from another organism into a food crop so the food crop can then withstand a particular herbicide

and more useful.

It allows farmers to use a herbicide that is much safer than previous and current herbicides, same with pesticides, etc. Allowing them to increase yield on a per acre basis.

Indiana is playing Kentucky right now. Therefore you will have to tolerate democracy until at least Sunday morning. Good luck

You're clearly confused on this issue. Luckily, you can recognize reality.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/20/1414008/-Anti-GMO-activists-and-climate-change-deniers-no-science

Your Drumphian Logic - calling the 92% of Americans who, like me, want to exercise their fundamental right to know what's in their food, STUPID, CONFUSED AND FEAR-MONGERING - is a classic ad hominem logical fallacy.

You and your 8% cohort are welcome to remain actively ignorant about what corporations are putting in you food. That's your right in democracy.

But you are not welcome to impose that kind of ignorance on the vast 92% majority of Americans who want to know what the GMO-Chemical-Pharmaceutical corporations are doing to their food.

Your personal attacks are beyond the pale.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

As consumers shift to non-GMO sugar, farmers may be forced to abandon environmental and social gains
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/