• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Support GMO foods

I can't imagine why one would wash a salt shaker before adding more salt to it.

I also wash tuperware containers before reusing them, and I wash my dishes before eating off of them a second time.

Of course. I picked the salt shakers because you're adding more of what was already there and it doesn't spoil.

You're also going to need completely separate grain elevators.
No you're not. You're just going to need to know whether or not the grain being lifted on those elevators comes from a GMO source or not.

1) Grain elevators aren't just used for a short time. They're fairly long term storage facilities.

2) If you just track what's in there you are going to have a major case of cross-contamination.

But they aren't required to list the strain of wheat that flour was made from.
Which is something that may change with the new labeling laws.

Significantly, flour manufacturers are at least AWARE of what strains they have been using. They would have to know at least that much in order to manufacture a product of consistent safety and quality.

[Citation needed]

The idea that a manufacturer would take several tons of a material whose origins he cannot account for -- and cannot even know exactly what the material is -- and then process it into a food to sell to people is, frankly, HIGHLY disturbing and not something I would want to encourage IF it were common.

Then I suggest you quit eating.

Remember the lawsuits about pollen blowing in?
Yes. Farmers preemptively sued Monsanto over accidental contamination of their fields with GMO products. The judge tossed the lawsuit, citing Monsanto's stated policy of not filing suit against farmers for harvests resulting from said contamination (thus making that policy legally binding).

This is significant, since the farmers were VERY much aware that the GMO seeds had been blown into their fields from neighboring (licensed) growers. That's actually a pretty difficult thing for farmers not to notice.

It's not a matter of noticing it, it's a matter of knowing how things work.

Unless you grow your soybeans in a carefully isolated area (like the seed producers do) you're going to have some RR genes in the product.
Which, as I already stated, wouldn't need to be listed unless the product is trying to be certified "GMO free." Trace amounts would be acceptable enough... again, unless the farmer or manufacturer is stupid enough to sell his product without knowing anything about the quality or nature of what he's selling.

It might not be trace amounts.

Basically: the only way you can be that ignorant about what you are using to make your product is because you're an imbecile and probably shouldn't be putting your product on the market in the first place.

In the real world the grain elevators accept grain from the farmers in the area and mix it all together.
So somewhere in the "real world" there is a place where farmers from all over the area randomly drive up to grain elevators in big trucks, dump the contents of their trucks into the elevators, collect a paycheck, and then drive away to SPEND said paycheck. No questions asked, no paperwork, no accounting for what they just dumped in the elevator.

Assuming that I believed this (I don't) I am again kind of tickled that you think this is an acceptable practice.

You can look at it. Right grain, in good shape. And of course there's paperwork--you don't sell that big an item without paperwork.

- - - Updated - - -

You've got a glaring error here: While you consider electricity from renewable stations as worth more it's actually a commodity--even if you are buying power from a renewable place you actually might be getting power from a coal station. There's one set of wires from which the producers add power and the consumers draw power.

When you buy power from the renewable source that simply means that the money you spend for the power goes to that company in exchange for the amount of power they push onto the grid, not that any given electron running through your house came from that power station.

[derail]The drift velocity of the electrons in domestic power wiring, coupled with the fact that most supplies are alternating current with a frequency of 50-60Hz, means that the electrons in your home are the same ones you bought with the property. The distance across the electricity meter is orders of magnitude greater than the distance the electrons travel in a cycle; so you are not buying electrons from anyone. What you are buying is pure energy - the 'jiggle' is what the generators supply, and you consume. [/derail]

I didn't realize it was quite that short but I agree with the basic idea. I was just using the simplest way to express the notion that it's all one pool of power.

- - - Updated - - -

Loren: YOU will not be telling ME what I care about. People are not "interchangable." Maybe for your purposes, they might seem that way. I have stated over and over that YOU are trying to control what we have a right to know...and invariably it is in the direction of less knowledge for the people. I call that selling IGNORANCE.

We aren't trying to ban "GMO-free" labels, we aren't doing anything to deny you knowledge.

We just don't want to pay the considerable cost of keeping track when we don't care.

You still don't get it do you. You cannot be free if you are not allowed to know. GMO should be labeled. So should meats shot up with growth hormone. So should meats shot up with antibiotics and painted with artificial reddening agents. We really don't have the time to search for labels on things telling us what they are not. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN IT, NOT WHAT IS NOT IN IT. Labeling GMO's would reveal how hard it is to avoid them. You have no right to dictate this ignorance to us. Your arguments still only justify keeping people ignorant because it costs too much to be honest with them.
 
We just don't want to pay the considerable cost of keeping track when we don't care.
I wonder if you'll start to care if the first really serious and thorough study shows the problems hinted at in Seralinis study :)

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nto-safety-of-gm-food-launched-by-russian-ngo

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

According to the Nags, the experiment will try to establish whether the GM maize and its associated herbicide cause cancers, reduce fertility or cause birth defects. The scientists also want to know whether the mixture of chemicals present in Roundup (Monsanto’s tradename for its glyphosate herbicide) are more or less toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate.
 
Loren, you can imagine as many obstacles as you wish, but this already works in Europe. It's not as difficult as you're making out.

Granted that treating different kinds of wheat as different means you can't just mix everything up, but then that's a direction the commodities market has been moving in for decades. Buyers now care where things come from. Brent Crude doesn't have the same price as saudi crude and if you can't prove the source you can't sell it. Electricty from renewable stations is worth more than electricty from coal. Textiles have gradually been improving their sourcing information, mainly to satisfy US trade requirements. There's nothing magical about Softs that should be able to ignore the same tracking requirements that are being brought in for everything else. The fact is, if you can't prove where somethoing came from, not everyone will buy it.

You've got a glaring error here: While you consider electricity from renewable stations as worth more it's actually a commodity

Yes, what I'm describing to you is the operations of commodities market, which used to be exchanges of featureless quantiities of generic goods, and now isn't. You have to track the source of everything now. The US softs market, the grain elevators of your example, are one of the few places that hasn't caught up yet. If they can track rice in Mumbai, they can track grain in the US.

--even if you are buying power from a renewable place you actually might be getting power from a coal station. There's one set of wires from which the producers add power and the consumers draw power.

When you buy power from the renewable source that simply means that the money you spend for the power goes to that company in exchange for the amount of power they push onto the grid, not that any given electron running through your house came from that power station.

Precisely so. The point is that even in the elecriticy market, where the product is literally indistinguishable, people still want to know the source. Because tracking the source isn't just about the enviromentalists, it's a growing feature of the global market works, and the US antiquated treatment of rice and grains is under increasing pressure.

So all this discussion of washing salt shakers and grain elevators is fighting against something that's a more general issue, not specific to GMOs.
 
I can't imagine why one would wash a salt shaker before adding more salt to it.
Remind me to never eat at your house ever.

You can look at it. Right grain, in good shape. And of course there's paperwork--you don't sell that big an item without paperwork.

Amazing how you can just refute your own argument like that!:shrug:

We just don't want to pay the considerable cost of keeping track when we don't care.

Still waiting for you to quantify the "considerable cost" of reading the paperwork that you've already admitted is provided at the time of delivery.
 
You still don't get it do you. You cannot be free if you are not allowed to know. GMO should be labeled. So should meats shot up with growth hormone. So should meats shot up with antibiotics and painted with artificial reddening agents. We really don't have the time to search for labels on things telling us what they are not. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN IT, NOT WHAT IS NOT IN IT. Labeling GMO's would reveal how hard it is to avoid them. You have no right to dictate this ignorance to us. Your arguments still only justify keeping people ignorant because it costs too much to be honest with them.

Let the people who care pay the costs of tracking. For the rest of us, I have no problem with a label "This product may contain GMOs."

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder if you'll start to care if the first really serious and thorough study shows the problems hinted at in Seralinis study :)

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nto-safety-of-gm-food-launched-by-russian-ngo

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

According to the Nags, the experiment will try to establish whether the GM maize and its associated herbicide cause cancers, reduce fertility or cause birth defects. The scientists also want to know whether the mixture of chemicals present in Roundup (Monsanto’s tradename for its glyphosate herbicide) are more or less toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate.

Sorry, but Russia has a long track record of using "safety" as a excuse for anti-competitive moves.

- - - Updated - - -

Precisely so. The point is that even in the elecriticy market, where the product is literally indistinguishable, people still want to know the source. Because tracking the source isn't just about the enviromentalists, it's a growing feature of the global market works, and the US antiquated treatment of rice and grains is under increasing pressure.

So all this discussion of washing salt shakers and grain elevators is fighting against something that's a more general issue, not specific to GMOs.

And what you're missing is that while they're paying for renewable power the power they actually get could be from any generator.

- - - Updated - - -

Remind me to never eat at your house ever.

You can look at it. Right grain, in good shape. And of course there's paperwork--you don't sell that big an item without paperwork.

Amazing how you can just refute your own argument like that!:shrug:

We just don't want to pay the considerable cost of keeping track when we don't care.

Still waiting for you to quantify the "considerable cost" of reading the paperwork that you've already admitted is provided at the time of delivery.

What you're missing is the notion that the existence of the paperwork somehow avoids the logistics problems.

Knowing you have 20 tons of BT-corn and 30 tons of GMO-free corn does nothing about keeping them separated.
 
What you're missing is the notion that the existence of the paperwork somehow avoids the logistics problems.

Knowing you have 20 tons of BT-corn and 30 tons of GMO-free corn does nothing about keeping them separated.

Why would you need to separate them? Paperwork says you have 50 tons of corn, and 20 tons of it is genetically modified.

No mystery. No investigation. You don't even need to know the exact quantity of GM/non-GM corn in any particular serving of your product.

So how much does it cost to LIST the GM corn on the ingredients list?
 
Knowing you have 20 tons of BT-corn and 30 tons of GMO-free corn does nothing about keeping them separated.

Why would you need to separate them? Paperwork says you have 50 tons of corn, and 20 tons of it is genetically modified.

No mystery. No investigation. You don't even need to know the exact quantity of GM/non-GM corn in any particular serving of your product.

So how much does it cost to LIST the GM corn on the ingredients list?

It's the people in the supply chain that have to keep them separated.

Separate trucks, separate grain elevators, separate processing facilities.
 
Why would you need to separate them? Paperwork says you have 50 tons of corn, and 20 tons of it is genetically modified.

No mystery. No investigation. You don't even need to know the exact quantity of GM/non-GM corn in any particular serving of your product.

So how much does it cost to LIST the GM corn on the ingredients list?

It's the people in the supply chain that have to keep them separated.

Separate trucks, separate grain elevators, separate processing facilities.

Paperwork says you have 50 tons of corn, and 20 tons of it is genetically modified.

You sell 15 tons to Kellogg's. What do they put on the ingredients list for their Cornflakes? The corn they bought might be 100% GM; or 0%; or anything in between.

So they can only put 'May contain...'; which is the only statement that is true, and which can be done right now, with no supply chain changes at all. No further labelling is needed. Just put 'May contain...' labels on everything that isn't Organic or certified GM-Free. Which achieves exactly NOTHING that isn't already achieved by the "Organic" and "Certified GM-Free" labels we already have. So what was the point?
 
It's the people in the supply chain that have to keep them separated.

Separate trucks, separate grain elevators, separate processing facilities.

Paperwork says you have 50 tons of corn, and 20 tons of it is genetically modified.

You sell 15 tons to Kellogg's. What do they put on the ingredients list for their Cornflakes? The corn they bought might be 100% GM; or 0%; or anything in between.

So they can only put 'May contain...'; which is the only statement that is true, and which can be done right now, with no supply chain changes at all. No further labelling is needed. Just put 'May contain...' labels on everything that isn't Organic or certified GM-Free. Which achieves exactly NOTHING that isn't already achieved by the "Organic" and "Certified GM-Free" labels we already have. So what was the point?

Also, if they aren't sure, they might as well also put "may contain organic and GM-free ingredients", along with the "may contain GM ingredients"
 
Paperwork says you have 50 tons of corn, and 20 tons of it is genetically modified.

You sell 15 tons to Kellogg's. What do they put on the ingredients list for their Cornflakes? The corn they bought might be 100% GM; or 0%; or anything in between.

So they can only put 'May contain...'; which is the only statement that is true, and which can be done right now, with no supply chain changes at all. No further labelling is needed. Just put 'May contain...' labels on everything that isn't Organic or certified GM-Free. Which achieves exactly NOTHING that isn't already achieved by the "Organic" and "Certified GM-Free" labels we already have. So what was the point?

Also, if they aren't sure, they might as well also put "may contain organic and GM-free ingredients", along with the "may contain GM ingredients"

Given that many pesticides permitted for use in Organic farming are more dangerous than those used in conventional farming, perhaps we should be lobbying for foods contaminated with organic produce to be clearly labelled. Or banned outright; Big Organic is making a LOT of money these days, and we would be crazy to trust them when they have such a clear motive to do harm.
 
Also, if they aren't sure, they might as well also put "may contain organic and GM-free ingredients", along with the "may contain GM ingredients"

Given that many pesticides permitted for use in Organic farming are more dangerous than those used in conventional farming, perhaps we should be lobbying for foods contaminated with organic produce to be clearly labelled. Or banned outright; Big Organic is making a LOT of money these days, and we would be crazy to trust them when they have such a clear motive to do harm.

Big Organic? You guys down under must have a strange economy indeed. You don't seem to understand organic farming at all. I have never been to Australia. Maybe your organic farmers are different down there...not down under but upside down.:confused:;)
 
Given that many pesticides permitted for use in Organic farming are more dangerous than those used in conventional farming, perhaps we should be lobbying for foods contaminated with organic produce to be clearly labelled. Or banned outright; Big Organic is making a LOT of money these days, and we would be crazy to trust them when they have such a clear motive to do harm.

Big Organic? You guys down under must have a strange economy indeed. You don't seem to understand organic farming at all. I have never been to Australia. Maybe your organic farmers are different down there...not down under but upside down.:confused:;)

Sales topping $81.3 billion in 2012

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/US-organic-food-market-to-grow-14-from-2013-18

Sounds pretty big to me.

And also:

3 Big Companies That Dominate The Organic Foods Market

http://www.benzinga.com/markets/com...minate-the-organic-foods-market#ixzz3S8qvifro
 
Given that many pesticides permitted for use in Organic farming are more dangerous than those used in conventional farming, perhaps we should be lobbying for foods contaminated with organic produce to be clearly labelled. Or banned outright; Big Organic is making a LOT of money these days, and we would be crazy to trust them when they have such a clear motive to do harm.

Big Organic? You guys down under must have a strange economy indeed. You don't seem to understand organic farming at all. I have never been to Australia. Maybe your organic farmers are different down there...not down under but upside down.:confused:;)

You don't seem to understand organic farming at all. From the first page of google results for a search on "Hazardous pesticides used in Organic farming":

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be-harmful-the-truth-behind-organic-produce-doug-smith/

As for 'Big Organic', their biggest success was persuading humanity that they don't exist:

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

http://www.naturalnews.com/037972_organic_companies_corporations_sellout.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies-influence.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It is amazing what you can learn when you use information not sourced from the inside of your own preconceptions. 'Organic' is massive business - as might be expected when you have a business model that involves charging consumers far more money, for lower quality produce.

If you are eating Organic food because you think normal food is harmful, then you are wrong, but in a way that is perhaps understandable.

If you are eating Organic food because you think that by doing so you are supporting small family farms in their battle with agribusiness, then you are also wrong, but also in a way that is perhaps understandable.

Advertising (aka 'propaganda') is very effective - that's why billions of dollars a year are spent on it. But the truth is out there, for those who get their information from a variety of unrelated sources.
 
Big Organic? You guys down under must have a strange economy indeed. You don't seem to understand organic farming at all. I have never been to Australia. Maybe your organic farmers are different down there...not down under but upside down.:confused:;)

You don't seem to understand organic farming at all. From the first page of google results for a search on "Hazardous pesticides used in Organic farming":

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be-harmful-the-truth-behind-organic-produce-doug-smith/

As for 'Big Organic', their biggest success was persuading humanity that they don't exist:

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

http://www.naturalnews.com/037972_organic_companies_corporations_sellout.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies-influence.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It is amazing what you can learn when you use information not sourced from the inside of your own preconceptions. 'Organic' is massive business - as might be expected when you have a business model that involves charging consumers far more money, for lower quality produce.

If you are eating Organic food because you think normal food is harmful, then you are wrong, but in a way that is perhaps understandable.

If you are eating Organic food because you think that by doing so you are supporting small family farms in their battle with agribusiness, then you are also wrong, but also in a way that is perhaps understandable.

Advertising (aka 'propaganda') is very effective - that's why billions of dollars a year are spent on it. But the truth is out there, for those who get their information from a variety of unrelated sources.
We're talking about people who eat food sprayed down with NICOTINE. who don't know that their food is being bathed for months in one of the most addictive, dangerous, and poisonous drugs we've discovered. It's so toxic it kills with very small doses through mere skin contact, and if it doesn't poison you outright, never fear, it can still give you cancer!

But that's ok. Never mind that nicotine and other nicotine analogs also kill whole bee colonies. It's 'natural' and 'organic'.
 
Given that many pesticides permitted for use in Organic farming are more dangerous than those used in conventional farming, perhaps we should be lobbying for foods contaminated with organic produce to be clearly labelled. Or banned outright; Big Organic is making a LOT of money these days, and we would be crazy to trust them when they have such a clear motive to do harm.

Big Organic? You guys down under must have a strange economy indeed. You don't seem to understand organic farming at all. I have never been to Australia. Maybe your organic farmers are different down there...not down under but upside down.:confused:;)
We'd love to have you here if you'd like to visit :)
Where I live there is a lot of small organic enterprises and a lot of interest in organic products. I can go to anyone of several farmers markets in my area if I like or go to a number of shops that sell organic food, and I often buy frm my friends. Or I can go to Woolworths, who a few years ago bought a food company that markets organic food.
I can only imagine that is what he means by "big organic". Woolworths is very convenient here but I don't think any educated person would be surprised if they found out that they were making their "organic" products from "boat people" they had put through a mincer.
The farmers markets are much better as a social place, which is hard to put a price on, (though I do hear the fruit and veg section at Woollies is a great pick up place.)
 
Why we have arguments here is that things are changing. Bilby's "big organic" turned out to be about 4% of production, and a lot of that was under the auspices of General Foods...a truly huge producer, so it was one small division of one huge company. I kind of understand what he is talking about...misrepresentation is rife throughout our society. Bilby's Scientific American link was especially good. It remains apparent that we will eventually attune our technologies to the ecosystems in which they operate...or die. That means we can no longer act in ignorance and rely on the reckoning of bureaucrats and people with a belief in profits at all costs...to the environment and to people they do not care to deal with. Things that were called impossible a short time ago are commonplace today. We all know this. When we hear that labeling for instance is impossible....we know it isn't impossible. As the sheer number of common chemicals increase, it is clear that environmental assessments will involve keeping track of a lot more parameters. Our market society has made monstrous blunders in the past and they were in some cases appropriately dealt with when information about these blunders became common knowledge.

I have never demanded that everything we do be organic or even non petrochemical. That would be totally foolish. But...in the matter of GMO's and the activities of companies like Monsanto, Bayer, Chevron, Ciba, Pantex, Merck et. al, labels and public reporting should be required. Those labels should be accurate and tell the complete story. I know a lot of us feel...leave these giants alone. That is not a reasonable proposition. GMO's should be labeled not just as GMO's, but also as to the type designation in other words...which GMO from which source.

I have always felt that the demand of the "organic only" people will fail to accomplish anything because our environment is already so heavily polluted with industrial chemicals that separating these, let alone so called "natural products" is possibly no longer a realistic expectation...even for the rich. Posters here do not seem to understand that technology can help us work toward a safer and cleaner environment... Well educated people will be making better farmers than remote investors. There is such contempt for raising food here and attempting to make them as organic as possible. Really, that is a noble goal, just like long range electric automobiles and other things our future will contain...if we have one.

In L.A. we have some very nice farmer's markets and most of them are very heavily invested in organic and local produce.
 
Officials Declare ‘Eating Healthy’ A Mental Disorder
“Orthorexia nervosa is a label designated to those who are concerned about eating healthy. Characterized by disordered eating fueled by a desire for “clean” or “healthy” foods, those diagnosed with the condition are overly pre-occupied with the nutritional makeup of what they eat”.
Though, apparently if you like war you are perfectly normal. Go figure.

This of course usually means you like pushing other people sons and daughters out to be killed while you sit at home
 
This is wonderful! A year and a half ago, Aasif Mandvi did a Daily Show segment where he sided with the anti-GMO hysterics and passed on the usual preposterous myths as facts. I wrote a rant about it in a forum post and I took Aasif Mandvi strongly to task. I hated Aasif Mandvi after that. Now I love him. He has listened to rational voices and renews faith in human reason. Here is the new video.

[video]http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ixxwbt/the-return-of-a-simplot-conspiracy[/video]
 
Back
Top Bottom