Monsanto buying the law - again

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JUhrman

Yeah. Probably carcinogenic to the people who work with glyphosate every day.

One cigarette can cause lung cancer.

When we deal with cancer it's all a matter of large numbers and statistics. There are no such things as "safe level of use".

If someone is willing to take that risk it's their choice. But to make that choice they need information.



So we go back to square one: why would anyone hide information from the customer? Because they know damn well that if given the choice the consumer would probably prefer non GMO/roundup products.

a reply to: purplemer

Food makers have to label foods that may contain fish, or they label foods that may contain nuts, these labels are in place because some people have serious reactions to fish and nuts.

No one has serious reactions to GMO.

Why label something that's not harmful?

a reply to: JUhrman

Why would a company want to poison it's customers?

How do you build a world dominating empire when everyone is dead?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JUhrman

Why would a company want to poison it's customers?

How do,you build a world dominating empire when everyone is dead?

I don't know? Why would cigarette makers sell things that kill their customers? This is so mysterious...

Maybe it's because they only die after a few decades of being good customers?




e: for having worked in the pharma industry I can tell you that if you believe big industries have any consideration for the well being of individuals you are completely wrong. It's all risks VS possible revenues.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: purplemer

Food makers have to label foods that may contain fish, or they label foods that may contain nuts, these labels are in place because some people have serious reactions to fish and nuts.
No one has serious reactions to GMO.

Why label something that's not harmful?

Are you advocating that all non harmful food ingredients be removed from ingredient lists. Most companies are proud to have their products names. Evidently Monsanto is not.

I am not trying to argue whether these ingredients are safe or not I think that peeps should have the right to choose. Personally I prefer to avoid such things are understanding of dna is in its infancy. We do not fully understand the implications or what type of gene transfer can occur or the effect these can have on our bodies.

If you want to be a lab rat that's your choice I too would like to make my own choice without something being stuffed down my throat.

a reply to: JUhrman

Cigarettes aren't part of our food supply.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike monsanto too, I'm not just blinded by hate for them.. There is so much disinformation out there, I'm just trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Genetic modification has happened naturally, since the plant kingdom invaded the landmasses. 99.9% of all people on this website are clueless as to what genetic modification even is. Chicken Littles.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient of RoundUp, breaks down into CO2 and H2O, almost immediately when coming into contact with an organic surface, such as the soil. And yes, you could drink RoundUp, table salt is more dangerous.

The pathology I see on these forums quite frequently is called Chemophobia. It's basically a fear of the unknown. If its a chemical...it's BAD!

These folks would be frozen in fear if I told them they consistently ingest dihydrogen monoxide. It's colorless, tasteless, odorless and kills thousands of people every year. You can even drink it!!!!



a reply to: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JUhrman

Cigarettes aren't part of our food supply.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike monsanto too, I'm not just blinded by hate for them.. There is so much disinformation out there, I'm just trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I understand and applaud you from that. But the factsheet you posted about this labeling legislation is disinfo too.

Instead on focusing on the heart of the topic, i.e. transparency about what is contained in the food we buy, it derailq the discussion on an emotional level claiming it's all organic activists being activists for the sake of annoying Monsanto.


But as claimed many time in the thread already, if Monsanto are proud of their products and their level of safety then they have absolutely no reason to be against mentioning their presence in our food.

Lack of transparency is never an advancement for consumers

a reply to: JUhrman

I'm not sure how you've deemed it as disinformation, it's laying out the purpose of the bill, what the bill is set to achieve.

If the factsheet ismdisinformation, then the bill is disinformation.

originally posted by: Chadwickus

I'm not sure how you've deemed it as disinformation, it's laying out the purpose of the bill, what the bill is set to achieve.

If the factsheet is disinformation, then the bill is disinformation.

Uh the factsheet you posted was the work of one specific congressman and is showing a personal and partial view of the situation.

It doesn't stick to fact only, it's literally a personal opinion.

Activists in nearly 30 states are attempting to require government warning labels on food products containing ingredients derived from biotechnology. These common ingredients, which include corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, are safe to eat.

The activists’ goal in mandating state labeling is to mislead consumers into believing that
America’s food supply isn’t safe.

This above is all assumptions above motivations and has no real place in a fact sheet. As such this particular document you posted is deceiving.

This is not laying out the purpose of the bill.


If you expect intellectual honesty you have to expect it from both sides.



I think we start going in circles here, we are merely repeating what was already posted. I have nothing more to add. You can keep claiming it's all unfounded scare tactics, I stand by my point; if they have nothing to hide, mentioning GMO on labels shouldn't be a problem at all. Let the consumer decide based on information, this is the basis of a free market.

a reply to: Chadwickus

I have to ask this even if I get into trouble for it...
Do you work for monsanto or any other gmo company?
I can't believe that there are people out there that still
believe that gmo's are save for us.

a reply to: JUhrman

Ok, so it's Pompeo's opinion, but it's his bill and this is how he's selling it, so you're wrong when you say it's not laying out the purpose of the bill.

And you're right, we are going round in circles, I guess people fear what they don't understand.

Mark Lynas changed his opinion, all is not lost

www.cantechletter.com...

But lemme guess..monsanto got to him..

a reply to: mamabeth

Yeah, that's the only option isn't it? Someone couldn't possibly have a differing opinion without being compromised.

What a tiny, scared and closed minded world you must live in..

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Mark Lynas changed his opinion, all is not lost

www.cantechletter.com...

But lemme guess..monsanto got to him..

I thought this thread was about GMO labeling and transparency but please continue to make this about whether GMO/roundup are safe or not in order to derail the discussion.


If you are against a labeling providing more info you are against transparency and against free market.

There is no other way to put this.

a reply to: JUhrman

That's your opinion, you're in the minority though.

The majority of anti GMO people want it labeled because they believe it's dangerous or harmful.

There's a couple of them that have posted in this thread, claiming GMO is poison, I'm all for labelling, just not if it's for the wrong reasons.

Right now, the GMO labelling campaign is all about fear.

I also suspect labelling will be pointless, especially when it comes to the larger food manufacturers, do you really think the ones selling GMO and non GMO products will shut down production to clean machines each time the raw product coming through changes from GMO to non-GMO and visa versa??

They don't do it for nuts now!

originally posted by: Chadwickus
I'm all for labelling

Good. So you are against the proposed law. Thanks for clarifying it seems we agree after all.



Also of course anti-GMO people will say GMO are bad. It's basically their definition. It doesn't mean only anti-GMO are against that law. That's another deceiving assumptions.

Such a law is restricting the freedom of the consumers, I assure you plenty of people dislike that regardless of their opinion about GMO.

a reply to: JUhrman

I couldn't care less if the bill passes or not, it doesn't affect me.

Just sick of seeing the same old rhetoric when it comes to monsanto, just like anti-vaxxers.

originally posted by: Ignatian
Genetic modification has happened naturally, since the plant kingdom invaded the landmasses. 99.9% of all people on this website are clueless as to what genetic modification even is. Chicken Littles.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient of RoundUp, breaks down into CO2 and H2O, almost immediately when coming into contact with an organic surface, such as the soil. And yes, you could drink RoundUp, table salt is more dangerous.

The pathology I see on these forums quite frequently is called Chemophobia. It's basically a fear of the unknown. If its a chemical...it's BAD!

These folks would be frozen in fear if I told them they consistently ingest dihydrogen monoxide. It's colorless, tasteless, odorless and kills thousands of people every year. You can even drink it!!!!



a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes - genes modify naturally and with human help - it's generally called hybridization. And it takes time and lots of failure to produce a new hybrid especially one that 'breeds' true. However Geneticilly Engineered Crops and Animals (don't forget the GM Salmon that is out there!) is not a slow modification over time where problems and dangers can be observed and changes made.

GM is one artifical - where in genes from one specises is 'implanted' in another in the 'hopes' of coming up with something else (I won't say better where this companies are concerned). These 'items' are rushed to market for profit, containate the surrounding environment, require ever increasing amounts of pest and herb-icides (which wouldn't be true with non-dustrial farming methods), and are sterile to protect 'profit margins'.

Do you really believe 'they are trying, or even care, about feeding people heathy food'? Why then not serve it in their cafeteria? To their executives? To their families. And I do know the response to that by Monsanto - why should I believe a company (and other bio-tech) that, even excluding GMOs, is posioning the planet and seeking an increasing share of that planet?

PS - this thread is intended to be about the legislation, which was defeated, and is now reintroduced, to protect Big Chem from state measures allowing citizens to decide labeling. That's all it's about - overriding the will of the public by the will of Capital. If this 'stuff' is so great why don't they spend their money on telling us all about it, and labeling it because its a selling point, and, and, and. You only hide things that are dangerous and shameful.

PPS - and sources for Geopsyasphate, whatever, breaking down quickly in the environment - real sources.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Back in September of 2013, public pressure forced Congress to block the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" from becoming law.

But, the GMO industry didn't give up on their fight to deny Americans the right to know what's in our food.

Last week, the Center for Food Safety issued a press release warning that "the Monsanto Protection Act is back, and [it's] worse than ever."

The original legislation would have stripped federal courts of their power to block the sale or planting of genetically-modified crops. The new language would also ban GMO labeling and prevent state and local governments from restricting genetically-engineered crops in any way.

If approved, House Resolution 1599 would make it nearly impossible to regulate GMOs in any way, even if and when those crops are deemed dangerous for consumption.

No matter what your views are on genetically-modified crops, We The People should never give up our rights to monitor and control what ends up in our food supply.

We stopped the Monsanto Protection Act once, and we can do it again. Call Congress and tell them to say "No" to H.R. 1599.

www.truth-out.org...

More Frackers....

Monsanto are, in my opinion, one of the WORST offenders of humanity that I've ever seen.

Despicable - look at the issues that have 'cropped up' (pun intended) of their doing....so many health problems from 'cloning' of food.

In nature, food is similar, but different in subtle ways...Monstanto..it's all the same, every time.

Farmers cannot replant seeds and are forced to buy new every year....sickening. Food costs going up, blame them.

a reply to: JUhrman

Well then i guess people like you will get stuck in this Negative frequency while people like me will shift into a better one.