800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

reply to post by Grimpachi


If they do it correctly, there is no need to worry about law suits. Are you implying the workers would be unable to do their jobs efficiently enough?

I fail to see how a few weeks of cleaning would automatically mean higher prices forever after. They have the means and resources to do it. If they're still shipping the same amount, why can't they just split the two apart using the same equipment?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So what was your point again? There had to be a reason you quoted that one sentence out of the entire article to use as an argument.

We established that my comment about the statement in the article is irrelevant because I was in error. The fact that I was in error about the title of the article (Thinking it said liver,yes a really silly mistake) does not alter the fact that Seralini is known for his shoddy work and biased analysis.

reply to post by Phage


I thought your error was in the definition of inert? The sentence you quoted didn't even mention the word liver, so I doubt that's where you were in error.

Based on ONE study? That's not very fair to him I don't think. I think everyone is entitled to at least one mistake in their lives, don't you?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Of course they make GMO seeds but they do not make the foods. Monsanato has a business to run but what you are proposing effects more than just their business.

Again I ask do you have a way that can prevent cross contamination and yeah most of us in America do not want to pay 2 or 3 times what we do now for it. So quantity is needed at an affordable price that is just human nature and good business.

I guess it all depends on what is acceptable for foods to be labeled as non GMO if you expect them to be as stringent as say Kosher food then I say it only makes sense to label non-GMO food but if you allow some cross contamination then it would depend on how much and how you would be able to test for it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

If they do it correctly, there is no need to worry about law suits. Are you implying the workers would be unable to do their jobs efficiently enough?

I fail to see how a few weeks of cleaning would automatically mean higher prices forever after. They have the means and resources to do it. If they're still shipping the same amount, why can't they just split the two apart using the same equipment?

Oh so in your scenario the trucks, trains cars, ships would all just exclusively carry one grain of food and never carry grain for other companies?

I think that would hurt their business wouldn't it. Are you suggesting that between every load they spend a few weeks downtime cleaning? That isn't a sustainable business model for any shipping company. Please tell me you understand that..

As far as splitting the shipments please take the time and go back to the links I posted and it should be very obvious why splitting the shipments would not work.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I fail to see how a few weeks of cleaning would automatically mean higher prices forever after. They have the means and resources to do it. If they're still shipping the same amount, why can't they just split the two apart using the same equipment?

Milling operations generally run 24 hours a day during the season. To shut down the mill in order "just to clean it" is a very big deal. This means you have to have separate facilities for milling. The same holds true for the other aspects. It is neither easy or cheap.

Data is estimated based on the following assumptions: capacity of 100,000 bushel/day; modern plant; operating 24 hours per day; feed house integrated to maximize energy efficiency; incoming fresh water to starch washing heated with waste heat; compressed air demands for pneumatic controls (approx. 2000 ft3/hr or 15 HP) not included in analysis

www.energystar.gov...

100,000 bushels a day. That's 5.6 million pounds each day. 5.6 million pounds in one mill alone. 5.6 million pounds of corn coming from different sources. I know, no problem. "Whups! Here comes that non-GMO load. Shut her down boys. Get out the cleaning gear!" Not efficient. Not cheap. Not easy.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So it would be too big of a burden to designate certain trucks/train compartments/shipping containers as GMO or non-GMO?

What makes you think it would takes weeks to clean out one truck or shipping container? Get a pressure washer and hose it down, 15-20 minutes tops. If they designate trucks, that wouldn't be an issue, or as I said earlier, use separate compartments within a truck.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

One slip by the loader operator. Whoopsy.
Then who ends up paying the fine and legal fees?

Why risk not putting a GMO label on everything under circumstances like this?
Why bother? Put a sticker on everything because it's the only way to protect yourself.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

So it would be too big of a burden to designate certain trucks/train compartments/shipping containers as GMO or non-GMO?

YES. Don't forget ships some worth hundreds of millions.

What makes you think it would takes weeks to clean out one truck or shipping container? Get a pressure washer and hose it down, 15-20 minutes tops.

Weeks is the time you came up with. The amount of time all depends on the question I asked already about how much cross contamination would be acceptable because there would be some.

If they designate trucks, that wouldn't be an issue, or as I said earlier, use separate compartments within a truck.

What makes you think it wouldn't be a issue? You do realize they are generally owned by shipping companies not the processing facilities many are owned and operated by regular Joes I once ran one myself. The idea of separate compartments simply would not work on trucks. Most grain is carried in open beds either on trains or trucks.

I posted links to pictures showing just that. Compartments are a no go.

reply to post by Phage


Maybe problematic, but maybe necessary as well. Sacrifices have to be made sometimes for the greater good.

So, what happens if a bill DOES pass? I'm pretty sure California took that into consideration when they proposed the bill. Unless of course, they knew it wouldn't pass all along.

Or maybe we could take the same measures the EU did.

The non-binding guidelines included in the new Recommendation on co-existence better reflect the possibility provided in the existing legislation (Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC) for Member States to adopt measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops. This also allows for measures aiming to limit GMO content in conventional food and feed to levels below the labelling threshold of 0.9%. The Recommendation also clarifies that Member States can establish "GMO-free" area and this new Recommendation provides better guidance to Member States to develop co-existence approaches. The European Co-existence Bureau will continue to develop together with Member States best practices for co-existence as well as technical guidelines on related issues.

europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-921_en.htm

Designate certain holding tanks as GMO and non-GMO, only store each type in designated tank, make a threshold of 0.9% and wait for the threshold to be reached after dilution, then implement the labeling.

Totally doable in my opinion.

reply to post by Phage


The same ones who pay workmans comp today I would suppose. Are you insinuating work-related accidents would only happen if they started cleaning containers regularly?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


That isn't what workmans comp does.

Workers' compensation is a form of insurance providing wage replacement and medical benefits to employees injured in the course of employment in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee's right to sue his or her employer for the tort of negligence.

Work related INJURIES not mishaps that cost companies money. INJURIES only.

en.wikipedia.org...'_compensation

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Designate certain holding tanks as GMO and non-GMO, only store each type in designated tank, make a threshold of 0.9% and wait for the threshold to be reached after dilution, then implement the labeling.

Don't you understand that statement reiterates what I've been saying? You must construct a separate infrastructure to segregate the crops. And that doesn't address the manufacturing process.

It may be more manageable in the EU but it isn't easy and it isn't cheap there either. I'm not sure I want to adopt EU practices in the US for anything but have a look at this. There is a bit of a difference in the scale of the problem.


I'm more convinced now that what will happen if labeling is required is that we will just see "May contain GMO" on everything. It's the cheapest, and safest (from the point of view of the producers), way to deal with it.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I read his reply wrong, I thought he meant a loader slipping and hurting himself. I understand what he meant now.

I guess the company would have to pay for it. That's the risk that comes with any job. If the workers are trained right and do their job correctly, there would be no more reason to worry any more than a worker getting hurt while on the job.

reply to post by Phage


It's still very doable. If it is implemented the right way, it could work. And plus, Europe imports foods from the U.S., so they have to label them somehow. I don't see why we couldn't use the same technique as they do.

If it becomes law, like you believe it should, then they wouldn't really have a choice, so they would HAVE to make it work, and they could make it work.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It's still very doable. If it is implemented the right way, it could work.

Why would they bother when all they have to do is put a GMO label on it? Why spend more money? Why take the risk?

HAVE to make it work, and they could make it work.

Yup. Label 'em all.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Hey no problem I was a bit surprised about it I misread thing as well.

However as Phage said if they require labeling then just about everything will be labeled as GMO just to cover their basses. It would be better than law suits and it may even help them win people over after they realize they have been eating them all of their lives without any change to them.

reply to post by Phage


Ummm.... what just happened?

Now you are taking my position? You just argued for a couple of pages that labeling them as GMO would be too costly, now you're saying that labeling them would be the cheapest route?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Phage

 

Ummm.... what just happened?

Now you are taking my position? You just argued for a couple of pages that labeling them as GMO would be too costly, now you're saying that labeling them would be the cheapest route?

I believe he said it would be cheaper to simply label everything than risk being sued or having to shut down operations to clean before running a different batch.

It would still cost them but not as much as making separate facilities.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Maybe because the law would say to only label actual GMO foods as GMO? How could they get away with labeling non-GMO foods as GMO? I'm pretty sure there are laws about false advertising.