U.S. House passes anti-GMO labeling Law
Source: Reuters
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a hotly debated measure that blocks any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops, including pre-empting a state law set to take effect next year in Vermont.
Dubbed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act by supporters, but the "Deny Americans the Right to Know" or DARK Act, by opponents, the measure was approved 275-150 with 45 Democrats voting for the bill.
House passage marks a victory for food and agricultural companies that have lobbied for the bill, and a blow to opponents, which include consumer, health and environmental groups and organic food industry players.
House members had a heated debate ahead of the vote with supporters claiming GMOs are proven safe. They said mandatory labeling would burden the food industry with unwieldy and costly requirements.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/usa-gmo-labeling-idUSL1N1031F220150723
Whats the problem with letting consumers know what they are buying? asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
Democrats in the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, meanwhile, threw their support behind the legislation just before the bill went to the floor for a vote Thursday.
A patchwork of confusing state specific laws related to GMO labeling risks further confusion in the marketplace and rising food costs, the Blue Dog Coalition said in a statement. However, we also understand that consumers have the right to know if food is GMO-free and this bill provides a uniform standard for those products through a USDA administered program.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/248974-house-passes-gmo-labeling-reform-bill
Roll Call Votes
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll462.xml
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)not have a side of Round-up with our veggies.
Transparency is the way to go. If GMO's are so great they should be happy to label them.
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)but there's probably no way to implement that, and GMO labelling is one of the best surrogates available.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)It's been hard to avoid for a long time and I'm disturbed at the big box stores selling fertilizers with either or both mixed in.
I try to talk to people I know about it but they are determined to put that stuff out on the lawn and in their home gardens, at least the older ones are.
I always grew organic without chemical fertilizers, weed killers or pesticide and did just fine. There are alternatives that always worked for me, not matter what climate I lived in.
mpcamb
(2,875 posts)...Just sayin'
Beware the paid trolls!
(They're paid well because they argue well)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Here's a GMO rice that fights global warming: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/539536/new-gmo-rice-for-higher-yield-less-global-warming/
GMO is a tool. Like all tools, it can be used for good or evil.
As for pesticide labeling, it's really not that hard to implement. Farmers are quite aware of what they dumped on their fields, since they had to buy it. And needing to buy it gives you an audit trail.
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)I have nothing against GMOs designed for nutrition or other beneficial purposes. My objection to them is solely on the basis of pesticides, and that covers (as far as I can tell) every single GMO product that's sold retail in my town.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Avoiding spoilage and other positives for shipping have been quite popular for genetic modifications too.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)GMOs are actually harmful to humans, not theoretically harmful but actually harmful.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 23, 2015, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)
From the standpoint of direct human consumption. I do however believe there is cause for concern in regards to the long term consequences of introducing new organisms into the ecosystem. Steps could be made to mitigate this problem and to avoid negative consequence.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Hope they have primary challengers that are not puppets for Monsanto.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)People who do not engage in pseudoscience, emotionalism and histrionics are not puppets for Monsanto the latest big bad boogieman for certain liberals of the conspiracy theory persuasion.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)....ALL 45 need to be primaried if they have no interest in public safety...
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)the last time I checked cannot be labeled as organic if its GMO.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)and you should discontinue spreading bullshit information. GMO and organic have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. So, the last time you checked, you were wrong.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-in-organic-products/
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts).....that may push GMO products out of the marketplace eventually anyway.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)for anti-GMO labeling campaigns.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you are a food scientist and you modify just one gene in a plant with predictable and testable results, your product is ineligible for certification under the National Organic Program even if you meet all other requirements.
However...
If you are a food scientist and you bombard plants or seed with gamma radiation or soak them in ethyl methanesulfonate in order to produce completely random and unpredictable genetic mutations, you can get a certification for your products through the NOP and sell it in health food stores labeled as organic.
The 1929 Ruby Red patent was associated with real commercial success, which came after the discovery of a red grapefruit growing on a pink variety. The Red grapefruit, starting with the Ruby Red, has even become a symbolic fruit of Texas, where white "inferior" grapefruit were eliminated and only red grapefruit were grown for decades.[citation needed] Using radiation to trigger mutations, new varieties were developed to retain the red tones which typically faded to pink.[15] The Rio Red variety is the current (2007) Texas grapefruit with registered trademarks Rio Star and Ruby-Sweet, also sometimes promoted as "Reddest" and "Texas Choice". The Rio Red is a mutation bred variety which was developed by treatment of bud sticks with thermal neutrons. Its improved attributes of mutant variety are fruit and juice color, deeper red, and wide adaptation.[16]
Star Ruby[edit]
The Star Ruby is the darkest of the red varieties. Developed from an irradiated Hudson grapefruit, it has found limited commercial success because it is more difficult to grow than other varieties.[17][18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit#Ruby_Red
http://www.stxorganics.com/product-information.html
Kinda destroys all arguments about scary GMOs vs organic, eh? Perhaps those who harbor irrational fear should be more afraid of organic.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Must they also believe in pseudoscience, conjecture and histrionics?
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Buy organic or food labeled as non-GMO.
That still won't stop you from getting food that's been genetically modified by bombarding it with gamma radiation, but you might just sleep better at night.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)It is bad science and bad for our planet, bad for us and our farmers.
Monsanto is the boogieman destroying family farms and spreading cancer like the plague in farming communities.
But go ahead and be an appologist for the megacorporation whose only motivation is greed it only shows your ignorance.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)As I have said elsewhere, Monsanto is predatory mega corp that destroys local farmers. They ought to be Ma Belled and broken up in to smaller companies. I'm not a fan of Monsanto but I do find it amusing that you somehow think GMOs and Monsanto are the same thing.
carla
(553 posts)waste my time responding to your questions...GMOs that are bred to produce resistance to RoundUp or to various pesticides, or GMO plants that produce their own pesticides are a danger to humans who consume them regularly. The capacity for these crops to cause damage to native strains of corn in Central America, for instance, is no longer open to debate. The weeds and insects that these GMO varities are supposed to constrain or even destroy are now "superweeds and supergrubs and superbeetles". The Seralini study was direct about the 300% cancer increase in female rats, the deformed foetus rats they bore and the long term carcinogenicity of NK 603 corn (a Monsanto product, btw). Seralini study invalidates Monsanto 'safety' studies. Since the Seralini study is, in fact, completely valid, this poses a major problem for the establishment. By looking at how rats react to Monsanto's GM corn and Roundup herbicide over the course of two years rather than just three months, Seralini has proven that Monsanto's own short-term safety studies are inherently flawed. Seralini isn't alone in discovering GMO toxicity. While many of his peers have refused to vet his work due to political pressures, Seralini is supported by a number of other independent researchers who have come to similar conclusions about the toxicity of GMOs. GMOEvidence.com outlines many of these, including studies on the toxicity of both Roundup and GMOs in piglets, dairy cows, bees, various aquatic animals and other organisms. The beet crops, the soy crops are over 90% GMO and they are ubiquitous. Try to find non-GMO soya, I wish you luck. Only Edemame variety soy is not GMO. The claim that GMOs produce a larger yield are fully debunked by the testimony of numerous farmers, even Monsanto says the varieties have failed to ;live up to the proposed yields. I would link to numerous articles to help you understand that you speak out of your inexperience and ignorance. I farm. I farm organically, I research what i do, I research what new products, seed types and techniques are being developed or being rediscovered. I read the scientific literatutre to KNOW what is going on. I don't think ypou do, but you sure do have a strong opinion but nothing much to support it but your attitude and snarky replies. Monsanto and GMO are nearly identical as they have spent over 2 billion US$ to develop the technology and the one-season seeds (since when have farmers had to buy seeds each year to grow a crop?) I grow from my own seed stocks and I use NO pesticides, no commercial petroleum-based fertilizers and NO GMOs. I have reasons to think your ignorance could be deliberate, despite your claims to not be a fan of Monsanto. I think you don't know of what you speak.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There is no particular reason that genetic modifications must be for resistance to pesticides. It's a tool. Like all tools, it can be used for good or evil.
Also, the "produce their own pesticides" plants you refer to are producing Bt toxin. Which is sprayed on organic crops, in much higher concentrations. And on the parts you actually eat. As opposed to the GMO plant, which makes less and does not make it in the parts you eat.
The study you cite used rats bred to develop cancer, and a very small sample size. The results have not been replicated in "normal" rats that were not bred to develop cancer - attempts to do so have failed.
It's unclear why Seralini decided to not use "normal" rats. It is a very odd decision. But it's great if you want to get lots of coverage on places like GMOEvidence.com.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)He created shell companies to funnel money via the organic industry and then claimed his research was independent. Two large companies in Europe that market organic foods pay him and target their marketing campaigns to coincide with the release of his "research".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_S%C3%A9ralini
WDIM
(1,662 posts)They are the face of GMOs and they are the pusher pusing the GMOs and paying off our political leaders to allow GMOs
GMO plants effect the biosphere. They spread into farms where it is unwanted. They kill insects and larvae vital to the biosphere.
Truly the damage and dangers of GMOs is unknown, but i dont believe a corporation when they tell me something is safe. Safety takes a back seat to greed. 26 counties have banned GMOs. I think labeling them and giving the people an informed choice is exactly what we need to do.
BurfBrainiac
(15 posts)Typical of Republicans and their corporate overlords, they employ corporate "science", emotionalism and histrionics, and then PROJECT all of that crud onto sensible people who want the right to know what is in the food they are eating and feeding their children.
The GMO stuff is not conclusively proven safe at all. That is a phony corporate propaganda point, repeated endlessly by people who have been suckered, or who are benefitting directly.
Here's the standard Republican-style DUCK ALL RESPONSIBILITY, and then 'PROJECT-your-heinous-crap-onto-your-opponents' strategy of the GMO & Chem Corps in a nutshell:
"As Monsantos director of communications, Phil Angell, told Michael Pollan in 1998, Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDAs job.
"Yet the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations policy on genetically engineered foods, introduced as a regulatory relief initiative in 1992 by then-Vice President Dan Quayle, says, Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.
http://civileats.com/2014/01/23/whats-missing-in-the-debate-about-gmos/
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Go here. Download the spreadsheet. There are plenty of non corporate studies. Move on or continue spewing ACTUAL pseudoscience. Facts are good. Keep saying it. Eventually you will get it.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/26/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/
Oh and I would like to add... You have completely confused pseudoscience and science. Someone who self identifies as a brainiac should know this. Also, someone who espouses so much intelligence should not use "GMO Stuff" in a sentence.... EVER.
BurfBrainiac
(15 posts)Your effort to slickly skip by the substance of the post and to change the subject to a weak-kneed ad hominem garbage-spew says, alas, volumes about you.
One feels an an odd mixture of compassion and revulsion for the horde of BrainyWhacks who have bent over, assumed the position, stopped thinking as free men and women, and allowed themselves to be inseminated with THE UNHOLEE codswallop OF Faith-and-Profit Based corporate "science."
tymorial
(3,433 posts)You are so not worth my time. Read or don't. I don't care. I'm done arguing with people who embrace emotionalism and their feelings over fact and science. I'm out. Peace.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)No words. The lunatics are clearly running (ruining?) the asylum.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I'll buy only food marked "non-GMO." If a corporation doesn't want to label its food so, then I'll assume it's GMO-made.
enough
(13,262 posts)Archae
(46,345 posts)The hysterics with their screaming about "GMO poison frankenfoods" have fooled too many people into believing organic is only hippie farmers while mad scientists chase chickens around with hypodermic needles laughing maniacally.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)Lots of labels now mention high fructose corn syrup, all sorts of things people want to avoid. NoGMO labels will now become common.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)I checked they cannot label and sale an item as organic if its a GMO.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)who don't adhere to organic standards but don't use GMOs. And a lot of people don't mind buying their food.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)GMO crops are just like what farmers did for millennia -- cross-breeding two crops with different salubrious attributes to make newer strains that were more drought-resistant insect-resistant and with a higher yield. GMO can accomplish this in a lab in a small fraction of time the natural process takes. The hysteria around this issue, especially on DU is laughable.
If we have to feed 9+billion people in the coming decade with less and less land, we have no choice but to grow crops that increase the yield with less water. Bearded hippies wearing tie-dye shirts using all natural methods cannot feed the world -- they can barely feed the local paranoid anti-vaxxers.
djean111
(14,255 posts)cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)they could crossbreed it with other strains to produce a new strain.
Humans have been crossbreeding plants for thousands of years with other varieties to produce new versions for different traits some for different climates, some for improved growth, some for a different taste and some to ward off a variety of pests be it mold or insects.
djean111
(14,255 posts)I will be checking to see which Florida Dems I can add to my do not vote for ever list, and will be even pickier about what food I buy.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)it wouldnt surprise me if they were to find such a plant that naturally produced it.
The rhubarb and potato plant for example produce some very toxic poisons, almonds have cyanide in them, every part of the common tomato plant except the fruit is poisonous and thats not counting cherries and apples and other varies plants we ingest.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Eureka!
djean111
(14,255 posts)So they can be soaked with glyphosate.
I was poking fun at the idea that cross-pollination and inserting genes are the same thing.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)means "shill". And cross-pollination, over many many years, usually produces something both natural and time-tested. Inserting genes is neither. Not answering any more. The conflation of natural cross-breeding and inserting genes will not ever fly. Have a nice day.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)...and I was poking fun at the warped idea that cross-pollination and inserting genes aren't the same thing. Even if they weren't (and they are), that's just one aspect of artificial genetic variation methods which is far from inclusive of all the myriad of methods available for creating new varietals.
The half-baked pseudoscience that appears in this thread is more than just a bit humorous and it just keeps getting better. Inserting genes is both natural and time-tested and you would not be who you are without it. See horizontal gene transfer for further reading.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Do you not realize that anti-gmo hysteria is the exact opposite of "sense"
mountain grammy
(26,648 posts)Not even close..
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)What a crock of shit...
http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html
http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/dangerous-levels-of-roundup-found-in-gmo-foods-across-u-s/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-roundup-glyphosate-weedkiller-in-our-food-and-water/5339244
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/roundup-cancer/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/world-health-organization-wont-back-down-from-study-linking-monsanto-to-cancer/5439840
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Hybrid plants and GMO plants are completely different.
But anybody that would defend GMOs is obviously uninformed.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I know how the technology works.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)I'm glad too
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I'm not a plant person
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)You really need to read up on the difference between hybrids and GMOs before you start calling people hysterical.
BurfBrainiac
(15 posts)The GMO corps have been pumping that bilge for so long that lots of people have been suckered. That line of BS is faith-base corporate "science." But it's dead wrong propaganda. http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos-zb0z1301zsor.aspx
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Every call you make to your Reps, Sens and WH is worth 4,000 constituents voices, so call.
Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111
United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121
C_U_L8R
(45,020 posts)If you aren't labeling, then I'm not buying.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)jalan48
(13,883 posts)Maybe we need a labeling process for the Democratic Party so we don't wind up calling them all 'liberals'.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Are you making fun of people who are saying these democrats aren't liberal or are you engaging in identity politics meaning that to be a liberal one must support anti-gmo?
jalan48
(13,883 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)All must vote the same way... even if anti-GMO ideas are completely unfounded and based entirely on pseudoscience. I get it. Republicans are bad, Democrats are good unless they vote with republicans.. then bad... but republicans who vote with democrats are okay right? What if democrats all voted to allow anti-vaccine laws to be put into place.. you would applaud? Would that give the liberal street cred? Wouldn't matter that it would kill people? Anti-GMO will kill people considering it is helping to stop famine.
jalan48
(13,883 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)plus it has the purpose of scaring the public away from perfectly safe and beneficial foods. Requiring GMO labeling also puts the government's stamp of approval on pseudo science.
jalan48
(13,883 posts)Just the conservative Democrats and the Republicans are believers in the honesty of big Ag. How's that RoundUp workin for ya? What? Associated with decline in bees? Who woulda thunk?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Please stay on topic. You're changing the subject.
jalan48
(13,883 posts)Asking to let the consumer make his/her own educated choice seems like the American way. But then, if it's all about money I can see the concerns.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)jalan48
(13,883 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)If everything is GMO, and GMO is dangerous, then where's all the bodies?
jalan48
(13,883 posts)dkhbrit
(110 posts)It's funny to hear normally intelligent people on here ranting about GMOs when there is no evidence whatsoever that they are in any way dangerous to us. Science is dead in the USA.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)"NEW! Now with twice the GMO content!"
tymorial
(3,433 posts)What boggles my mind is the fact that some of these same people will rant about anti-vaxxers. It all stems from emotionalism. People have come to conclusion that feelings matter more than facts. They come up with an opinion and then set out to prove the opinion, every shred of evidence to the contrary is discarded as irrelevant. It is infuriating.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)pseudoscience to a whole bunch of cheering crowds with buzzwords like "superfood" and "fat burner" and "immunity booster" what do you expect?
TV has become the albatross where slick con artists can preach pseudoscience to audiences whose average education level is paltry and whose average IQ is dismal.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)especially Pigweed. So much so that there is now talk of bringing back 2-4-D to deal with the problem. All brought to us by our little GMO friends. You're damn right some of us are ranting about it.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)No
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)I'm saying that the heavy use of Roundup has led to an increase in the emergence of Roundup resistant weeds. I don't find that to be a good thing, do you? It's a real problem for many farmers in our state particularly in the southern portion.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Pesticide resistance is the inevitable consequence of pesticide use. How many real problems do you think many farmers in your state would have if Roundup had never existed?
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)And I am not against all pesticides and herbicides when used intelligently and as needed.
And if the whole premise behind RoundUp ready crops is that you can use it without damaging your crops, what's the point if you're creating a whole species of superweeds that are resistant to the very thing you are engineering the plants for to begin with.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)I don't understand the point you are trying to make
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)How can Roundup resistance possibly be a bad thing if Roundup is a bad thing?
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)You may think your question is relevant but it doesn't make any sense. Roundup resistance is a bad thing because weeds that become resistant to it require an increased use of Roundup or a switch to a more toxic solution to deal with the problem caused by the building resistant to the herbicide. It also impacts the farmers because now they have increased costs: the cost of the patented GMO seed and the cost of applying even more RoundUp to the weeds that they had no idea they would have to contend with because they are using GMO seeds.
You can make a case that RoundUp, in and of itself is not bad, but the way in which it is used is bad and that's the problem here.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141155103#post123
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141155103#post128
I'm not playing anymore though. As W once so eloquently said....
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)Another poster who gets his feeling hurts when he can't make a cogent argument. I was respectful...answered you questions in a way that I thought clarified my position and you go off in a huff......
You didn't even know what the fuck Roundup is...
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Because it is completely safe.
The only research done on GMO safety in the US was done by the GMO companies themselves. Yeah megacorporations are so trustworthy.
GMOs are a gross misuse of science.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that has me wanting a primary. I think the TPA will be more of something that will lead to an effective breakdown of our governmental system itself the way it enables horrible trade bills to be passed without filibuster, etc.
I'm disappointed in the congressman of my college town voting for it. I guess Loebsack being in a farm state has some additional pressure from the farming industry beholden to GMO stuff, but ultimately that's not a real excuse.
I think the big thing is whether we will stop this in the Senate or not. Jeff Merkley led the battle the last time Monsanto wanted a "protection act" passed for them and helped stop it then. I'm hoping he continues to do that and if Wyden fails on this bill, there will definitely be a call to DeFazio's office to say that a big donation is waiting for him if he primaries Wyden in 2016.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)As the Talking Heads sang - Stop Making Sense!!!
G_j
(40,370 posts)I can see...
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Why are so many legislators bending over backwards to appease Monsanto? I doubt their kids will ever eat that bullshit they expect our kids to eat.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ACSH_Scientific_advisors
frankly given the proportions we should be calling corrupt and juicehead police "ACSH cops"
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)I'm working on getting my blood sugar down, so I'm avoiding all processed foods. Guess what, my BS would not go below 124. I couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. Untill I figured out that all my supplements are made with gmo corn. I went off ALL of the supplements, the next day my BS was 94, perfectly normal.
This gmo secrecy shit has to stop. Gmos must be ceased. They are causing Diabetes, obesity, HBP and cancer on purpose (because they profit from that too) and they know it!
Nailzberg
(4,610 posts)BurfBrainiac
(15 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:15 AM - Edit history (2)
Oh, it's Major Chuckles, I suppose, to fling mud at people who want to know what they are eating, while you giddily support corporate hegemony of the food supply.
"Ha ha. You lose. Shut up and eat your unidentifiable corporate rations. Ha ha." Have fun with that crud if you somehow find it amusing.
But it is wrong wrong wrong - some would say deliberately evil -- to imply that people who want to know what they and their children are eating are somehow responsible for world hunger.
From the UN's World Food Programme:
What causes hunger?
The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people. And yet, one person in eight on the planet goes to bed hungry each night. In some countries, one child in three is underweight. Why does hunger exist?
There are many reasons for the presence of hunger in the world and they are often interconnected.
https://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
WDIM
(1,662 posts)GMOs are the pseudoscience.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)The number of deaths from GMOs really cant be tracked because connecting the deaths to the GMOs is extremely difficult. But over the last 30 cancer rates are skyrocketing.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)People like you believed the cigarette companies when they said their product didnt cause cancer either.
The only safety research the US gov requires to determine the safety of GMOs is done by the GMO companies themselves. So lets just sit back and completely trust our corporate masters they never do anything that endangers us.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Nailzberg
(4,610 posts)GMOs are one of the most researched products in the world. They're safe.
BurfBrainiac
(15 posts)...good idea to check out the special institutional accommodations for DEGENERATIVE ZOMBOIDS before you and your family members are likewise institutionalized.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Nailzberg
(4,610 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Fear based legislation is always a bad thing. Another win for science!
WDIM
(1,662 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)must have been in the memo Big Ag sent out this morning as a keyword to use.
Used 10 times on this thread alone.
As well as comparing anti-GMO activists to anti-vaxxers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There are no saints in this battle.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Selling you something of the same species for more money that isn't nutritionally superior or safer is a huge boon for "big agra", which is why they are heavily involved in it. The idea of people who see boogeymen under every rock, but can't or won't see them behind their most cherished products is more than just a bit amusing. Especially when you point these things out to them and they just accuse you of being part of the vast conspiracy.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)BurfBrainiac
(15 posts)The most oft-repeated epithet directed against people who want to know what they are eating is just this "pseudo-science" bullshit.
The minute you see a GMO advocate tossing it out, you can completely discount all the rest of what they have to say. Such a low practice is merely parroting -- consciously or not -- paid-for Talking Points, Inc.
Such corporate crap is intellectual poison for the body politic, injected into DU and every other media stream to skew the GMO debate away from reality and into monopolistic Corporate Bank Accounts.
READ AND WEEP
"...The spin offensive is paying off, at least in the media, with top reporters basing stories on Monsantos consensus of safety talking points. A recent front-page New York Times piece by Amy Harmon even pushed biotechs favorite PR meme: That people concerned about GMOs are the climate deniers of the left.
http://civileats.com/2014/01/23/whats-missing-in-the-debate-about-gmos/
MisterP
(23,730 posts)people who aren't barking maniacs see Inhofe and his snowball as the world burns, they see teachers sued for mentioning chimps, they see officers saying they're gonna chase the Debbil out of Fallujah and Dubya literally using a sort of Bible Code to kill a million, they see old ladies eating cat food so a millionaire in a pompadour can make himself a billionaire off their Social checks--so they respond much more readily to someone in a white coat
ironically these techniques were formulated back when the GOP had a big science/engineering constituency (in the "Big Business" faction) and it also meshes neatly with the right-libertarian sector of the GOP: the people saying GM is fine and dandy said the same about secondhand smoke and Love Canal (the kids were getting extra rows of teeth from the media circus, don't'cha know!) this peaked in the late 80s/early 90s "Science Wars" around whether Blacks could ever be as smart as the noble and progressive Caucasoids, and reshuffled the situation yet again; so all the warming denial is coming FROM this system of labcoats-for-hire and appeals to ridicule that they perfected after the Powell Memo--that's why the modern skeptic movement is full of warming deniers even as they bellow that anyone questioning any science ought to be maimed in public or whatever
the language of GM saving the planet, curing every disease, even Freeman Dyson's vision of gasoline-producing refinery-trees is even older, from back in the 60s when you COULD defeat the VC with enough defoliants and gas was 30¢ and Mariner 4 was going to show us where we could set up our new ranches and homesteads on Mars
overall it's the same situation that lets Phil Plait blame the Unabomber on Kristeva and Brent Spiner (when in fact Ted was a positivist--who hated women, natch), or Neil Tyson say the Maya were too stupid to make it to the present day, or everything in Dan Brown: it's not about science, it's about its spokespeople
forest444
(5,902 posts)Brought to you by Monsatan.
valerief
(53,235 posts)OhioChick
(23,218 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)senate will not pass it, pres will not sign it.
plus it would not hold up to judicial scrutiny. they can't tell a state that THEY can't make a label law
but it won't get that far
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
from your continually disappointed constituent in Pennsylvania.
You're no less demented that my last GOP - gerrymandered fascist of the district, Tim Murphy.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)But, we aren't corporations
The Senate's up next after the house of unrepresentatives ignored who they are supposed to represent.
This shit must die.
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)NBC affiliate WPXI Pittsburgh, which runs it's 11 o'clock news an hour earlier on the local FOX channel, reported this story with the impression that the bill was to require labeling, not make it illegal to label GMO foods as such. I don't know whether it was intentional, or whether it was just piss poor reporting, but they definitely reported it as though the bill was being made to require labeling. I did not see the 11 o'clock broadcast, perhaps they corrected themselves, I hope...
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)but requiring GMO labeling is anti-science B/S.
http://www.popsci.com/transgenic-chestnuts-roasting-open-fire
The anti-science ignoramuses are also interfering with efforts to bring back the American Chestnut Tree:
The team has created transgenic chestnut trees that use a wheat gene to fight blight. The trees are being grown in labs and test sites, and the team may soon seek federal approval to set them loose in forests.
The project has drawn mixed reactions. On the one hand, the team aims to restore the traditional, natural ecosystem of the east coast. On the other hand, they're trying to do that through genetic modification, a process long reviled by environmental activists, even though the science suggests the biotechnology is perfectly safe.
Not everyone is welcoming the trees with open arms. When the Post-Standard, a Syracuse-area newspaper, published an article about the transgenic trees' potential to revive American forests, it drew mixed feedback from readers. The researchers' dream could become a nightmare if something goes wrong, Martha Crouch from the anti-GMO organization Center For Food Safety, wrote in a letter to the paper. GE trees will be difficult to recall once they spread.
Another commentator called the trees unnatural, to which Powell responded:
Horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species is not unnatural. It does happen in nature and is an important force in genetic diversity and evolution. But instead of happening randomly, genetic engineering allows some thought to be put in behind this natural process.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)even if it passed the senate which it won't
if gmo is safe, then there should be no issue with people knowing it is in their food. we all know how much vitamin c is in an orange, for example.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Regardless of whether it's GMO or not. Proponents of GMO labeling don't want to know what is in the orange, they want to know how it's produced, which is unprecedented. When a product contains sugar, it's labeled as sugar. You don't know if the sugar was produced from sugar beets or sugar cane, nor do you need to know because chemically it's still sugar. Decades ago the sugar cane industry tried to force the sugar beet industry to relabel their products differently. They lost that fight for the same reasons. It was nothing more than one industry trying to use regulation to increase their market share by taking advantage of public ignorance for financial gain.
If gmo wasn't safe, then it shouldn't be in the food supply. Forcing distributors to label something that provides no useful safety information to consumers is ridiculous. It's simply one industry trying to use the power of government regulation to stoke irrational fear in order to increase their market share. That's the actual issue.
http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA%20Report.pdf
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if you want. agree to disagree. you don't think labeling is required, i do.
i am guessing that we are both pretty firmly entrenched.
but the public is 93% in favor of labeling. it would seem to be a good consumer move except for monsanto and their surrogates.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just name one thing if you can. I'll wait. Your google must work better than mine.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Who knew?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i said there are a lot of dangerous things that get into the food, water and medicine supply.
gmo has its own issues
and 93% of the pop wants to know if their food has roundup
edit: before you ask, here is the science
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)"if gmo is safe, then there should be no issue with people knowing it is in their food. we all know how much vitamin c is in an orange, for example."
GMO isn't in food, it's a method used to create varietals. A soybean is a soybean regardless of what method was used to create the varietal, and pesticides were on and in foods long before GMO was used as a method, except there were more of them that were more toxic and didn't break down as readily.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)in the article i linked?
sounds kinda like something that should not be there
unlike vit c.....
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Glyphosate is sprayed on the plants and some is retained as residue. It's just not that complicated.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)something the consumers have a right to know and to decide about purchase.
i guess we will see how it all shakes out. but this monsanto protection bill has zero chance of being implemented. i hope we can at least agree on that.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which really has little to do with how the varietal itself was bred. Unlike glyphosate residues, cow shit residue actually does manage to kill and sicken people on a pretty predictable basis. Using your logic it would seem those who fertilize with cow shit need to label their product. Should consumers have a right to know if cow shit was used on their food?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)some people are very particular about fertilizer used on their food. i am ok with not knowing but wouldn't mind. and you're right....cow shit does expose people to e coli.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I hate that corporations rule this country.