[ScottMayers]

BeaverFever, CAN YOU PLEASE EDIT YOUR POST ABOVE? It appears as though I'm responding to someone else and that your words are mine.

Thank you.

P.S. I repaired it below, if you see this before hand. (It's appears one is schizoid when it gets quoted like the last. I'm not nit-picking on you, though.).

[ScottMayers]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

I don't know about this. I DO know that though I live in Saskatchewan, we have a relatively low quality of bread products in OUR OWN BREAD that reaches the shelf! This suggests that the quality is going elsewhere if we even had it to begin with. [Even the famous, "Wonderbread" corporate bread company product here is NOT the same as the Americans get in equal quality!

First I’ve heard that, but what does that claim have to do with anything?

You said, "The GMOs approved for human food chain are not being used to feed impoverished people, they’re being used in first world countries, mostly in processed foods or livestock feed, and they’re replacing rather than adding to the commercial crop."

Quality foods are not even being used by us either. I can't comment on whether our cattle are getting the best of our own quality but doubt this. So I'm saying that the opposite is more likely: that we ARE sending out our own quality foods elsewhere with priority even from those in our own food-growing area. I have no proof that the world is NOT getting our quality food when you can even cross to the U.S. border to discover a relatively ordinary bread is tastier than the same brand here.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

We don't improve our potential to 'feed the world' by growing food in the old-fashioned ways regardless. Those products also only 'feed' the rich and religious minded who can afford them and who are deluded in thinking that those products are somehow 'superior' simply because they are more 'godly' for being somehow more 'natural' or 'organic', themselves simply marketing memes that are misleading.

You make it sound like anything non-GMO is overpriced and only available to wealthy health food nuts. Not so. Also the world doesn’t have a food production problem. We have a food distribution problem. We here in west throw out half the food we produce. The majority of crops grown are for livestock and we overconsume meat. We use our political influence to force developing countries to export their crops for our consumption, while dumping our subsided crops on their markets. And at any rate the market and government dysfunctions in third world countries that prevent food from getting in the hands of the public won’t be magically solved by GMO crops. A corrupt official can steal a truckload of golden rice just as easily as a truckload of normal rice.

"non-GMO" is an indirect reference to the "organic" alternative farming and its products, by anti-GMO nuts (yes) who are often of the elite class of those who already have options of varying kind. They want to impose upon us to go back to the old ways of farming naively. They are not higher quality without some form of 'artificial' processes regardless.

We are more actually DUMPING foods, including meats, in the garbage rather than competitively reduce the costs to sell them. This too is often indirectly due to those same organic-related businesses demanding their products be sold better in the store by keeping up the prices on the higher quality GMOs (and other mass produced products). This campaign IS what is causing the waste because you demand places like Walmart to toss out the food that people NEED rather than reduce the cost beneath those lower quality but higher costing 'organic' products. Large stores are blackmailed to do this by the successful con artists preferring to sell their 'organic' crap at higher prices that make them seem MORE than they are.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

Either FEED the unlimiting population of the people or allow laws that limit the free powers of individuals to reproduce independent of the respect of the rest. This cannot be done using conventional farming without killing off others by starving them to death for making them unable to afford to compete.

not true.

Why, "not true."?

[Sunnyways]

Thanos Thanos:

You have a right to now and to make your purchasing decisions as you see fit. That being said the anti-science campaign of hysterics aimed a GMO products, and ones that have been irradiated with harmless x-rays that kill dangerous bacteria, is one of the more reprehensible things that both the conspiracist right-wing and the holistic organic left-wing has done over the last decade or so.

How can I know if food is not even labelled appropriately? Genetic modification is not a trivial change by any standard and, of course, the companies involved and their political lackeys are fully aware of that which is why they fight tooth and nail to maintain the current bizarre situation.

[herbie]

OMG you seem to think these large companies operate for the common good or something.
They throw out the meat on it's expiry date because if they discounted it you'd buy that instead of the high prices stuff. Likewise the not perfect food and produce.
And you make things "tastier" by adding salt or sugar or both. Probably why that bread seemed "better" - cuz it was worse for you.
And they made that GMO wheat to be immune to ROUNDUP the shit they own and get farmers to use to poison everything else in the fields.

[ScottMayers]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Thanos Thanos:

You have a right to now and to make your purchasing decisions as you see fit. That being said the anti-science campaign of hysterics aimed a GMO products, and ones that have been irradiated with harmless x-rays that kill dangerous bacteria, is one of the more reprehensible things that both the conspiracist right-wing and the holistic organic left-wing has done over the last decade or so.

How can I know if food is not even labelled appropriately? Genetic modification is not a trivial change by any standard and, of course, the companies involved and their political lackeys are fully aware of that which is why they fight tooth and nail to maintain the current bizarre situation.

Why not have those of us KNOWING that 'organic' and 'natural' are misleading terms to require specifically helping those of us KNOW for certain which are by labelling these with "CRAP"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. 'Organic' or 'Natural' are too generic of labels that mislead people in a 'positive' way that makes its opposing competitors appear as NOT 'organic' nor 'natural' with intent to infer of what the other is NOT falsely?

[ScottMayers]

herbie herbie:

OMG you seem to think these large companies operate for the common good or something.
They throw out the meat on it's expiry date because if they discounted it you'd buy that instead of the high prices stuff. Likewise the not perfect food and produce.
And you make things "tastier" by adding salt or sugar or both. Probably why that bread seemed "better" - cuz it was worse for you.
And they made that GMO wheat to be immune to ROUNDUP the shit they own and get farmers to use to poison everything else in the fields.

I can be opposed to corporate abuses of those like Monsanto as well as supporting tech. Monsanto is set up with a powerful monopoly on their Roundup(TM) products and use their own particular ADDITION within their GMOs to tag or 'copy protect' the content. I'm against this copyrighting of genes. But this still doesn't mean that the part of the science being used to potential good purposes is all not worthy of trusting altogether.

There is MORE of a rising con with products coming out that actually do NOTHING but use religious-like sales tactics to con people into a 'FAITH' in their products unscientifically. I fear this WAY more.

[ScottMayers]

Herbie, on the 'tastier' bread issue, taste is only the side effect. I believe that we are simply getting less 'gluten' of our products by the anti-gluten campaign. "Gluten" is the extra placental protein of the seed that both tastes good but has a lot more fat content. The extraction of these can be used for other purposes as well.

On meat, what many do not know is that the anti-fat movement helped justify meat companies to remove that part more significantly in our normal meat products that used to have them. The con though was as much from WITHIN as from without. The fat being taken off is sold off with better profit for making the glycerine used for explosives among other things! This is an example of how the very industry (those 'corporate' entities') use apparent outside health fanatics to justify altering their product for less AND then selling it for more as though value has been added when it was just cheated from us.

So be cautious of your concern about companies. They too are in the very competition to create false public concerns that appear grass-roots movements. The one I caught on to years ago was to a movie-doc called, "Supersize Me", that made McDonalds out to be giving us TOO much food for less of a price. It cleverly presented McDonald's as the enemy that forced them to change. But that 'change' actually saved them money. Great con: how to get people to WANT to pay more for LESS!

[Thanos]

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Thanos Thanos:

You have a right to now and to make your purchasing decisions as you see fit. That being said the anti-science campaign of hysterics aimed a GMO products, and ones that have been irradiated with harmless x-rays that kill dangerous bacteria, is one of the more reprehensible things that both the conspiracist right-wing and the holistic organic left-wing has done over the last decade or so.

How can I know if food is not even labelled appropriately? Genetic modification is not a trivial change by any standard and, of course, the companies involved and their political lackeys are fully aware of that which is why they fight tooth and nail to maintain the current bizarre situation.

Why not have those of us KNOWING that 'organic' and 'natural' are misleading terms to require specifically helping those of us KNOW for certain which are by labelling these with "CRAP"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. 'Organic' or 'Natural' are too generic of labels that mislead people in a 'positive' way that makes its opposing competitors appear as NOT 'organic' nor 'natural' with intent to infer of what the other is NOT falsely?

I don't know about the 'crap' part but I know for sure that a lot of those labels are intended to separate a fool from their money by charging them more for something that is no cleaner or healthier than most brand-name or generic items found in the average grocery store. Hopefully the laws and regulations for this are tougher in Canada than in the US but if sellers are going to label their product as such they should have to prove it with proper quality control records to show that it is what they say it is.

No different than if GMO has to be labelled so people can avoid if they choose, "natural" & "organic" should have a proof label on it so customers don't get suckered by a scam.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

... and ones that have been irradiated with harmless x-rays that kill dangerous bacteria,

It's actually Gamma rays. Slightly higher on the power scale, but very effective in removing pathogens from food and totally harmless after use.

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

They throw out the meat on it's expiry date because if they discounted it you'd buy that instead of the high prices stuff.

"Throw out"

That's tomorrows ground beef!

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

How can I know if food is not even labelled appropriately? Genetic modification is not a trivial change by any standard and, of course, the companies involved and their political lackeys are fully aware of that which is why they fight tooth and nail to maintain the current bizarre situation.

Why not have those of us KNOWING that 'organic' and 'natural' are misleading terms to require specifically helping those of us KNOW for certain which are by labelling these with "CRAP"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. 'Organic' or 'Natural' are too generic of labels that mislead people in a 'positive' way that makes its opposing competitors appear as NOT 'organic' nor 'natural' with intent to infer of what the other is NOT falsely?

I don't know about the 'crap' part but I know for sure that a lot of those labels are intended to separate a fool from their money by charging them more for something that is no cleaner or healthier than most brand-name or generic items found in the average grocery store. Hopefully the laws and regulations for this are tougher in Canada than in the US but if sellers are going to label their product as such they should have to prove it with proper quality control records to show that it is what they say it is.

No different than if GMO has to be labelled so people can avoid if they choose, "natural" & "organic" should have a proof label on it so customers don't get suckered by a scam.

Not correct. 'Organic', especially 'USDA Certified Organic' has some specific limitations to get that label. Produce must be grown in fields that have had no chemical fertilizers or pesticides/herbicides for 7 years. All produce must be non-GMO. All animals must not have hormones or antibiotics, and must be fed plant based diets.

You can tell the difference in look, feel and smell between a chicken breast or sirloin steak from Plant Organic vs from Safeway.

That said, a lot of the stuff in supermarkets labelled 'Organic' is a scam. It really needs to be 'USDA Organic', or even better bought at a Farmers Market. You can really tell the difference in a tomato or strawberry from there compared to a supermarket.

[BartSimpson]

herbie herbie:

They throw out the meat on it's expiry date because if they discounted it you'd buy that instead of the high prices stuff.

They throw it out instead of discounting it or donating it because the liabilities are so high if someone gets sick from eating it that it's not worth the money they might recover by doing so.

[Tricks]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Consumers should be given the choice to buy GMO-food or not. It should be labelled, I can't see how any libertarian can disagree with that.

Then add to this that no one should call food that aren't GMOs as "organic" or "natural"!

This anti-GMO campaign is about competing "alternative" frauds attempting to dislodge their competition, not to actually get people to understand the truth.

It is about truth in advertising. We have a basic and self-evident right to know what we are eating. How anybody would even dare to dispute that assertion is astonishing and yet the accomplices of the GM industry conspire to keep this going at every level.

I don't need to know if the food is organic etc. I do need to know if it is GM. GM is the one that's modified for crying out loud.

As I said, everything in the grocery store aside from things with organic splattered across it are likely derived in part by GMOs. So stick to organic and you can satisfy your unnecessary fear.

[Tricks]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Thanos Thanos:

You have a right to now and to make your purchasing decisions as you see fit. That being said the anti-science campaign of hysterics aimed a GMO products, and ones that have been irradiated with harmless x-rays that kill dangerous bacteria, is one of the more reprehensible things that both the conspiracist right-wing and the holistic organic left-wing has done over the last decade or so.

How can I know if food is not even labelled appropriately? Genetic modification is not a trivial change by any standard and, of course, the companies involved and their political lackeys are fully aware of that which is why they fight tooth and nail to maintain the current bizarre situation.

Because there is no reason to. There is no basis in science that GMOs are dangerous for human beings. So what does putting a label on it do besides perpetuating the myth that they're "bad". You'd be giving into the fear of people who don't know better. How about instead we help them to know better. All it would do is reduce choice because of a profoundly uneducated public. which would likely increase costs of all of our food, and cause issues for a lot of farmers.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

Claiming GMOs are dangerous is just as anti-science as claiming climate change isn't real.

Whoa.

I disagree in both cases.

I disagree because the science in both issues has been so heavily tainted by money and politics that the truth is indiscernible.

I don't KNOW that GMO foods are dangerous and all I've heard so far are a bunch of specious claims that are often loaded with terms like 'frankenfood' which betray bias on the part of the people making the claims.

Likewise with climate studies there's religious alarmists, die-hard deniers, and a milieu of serious skeptics and serious scientists in the middle who are struggling to separate the science from the propaganda...and their voices are a mere squeak in a stadium full of screaming people from opposing teams.

But I hate to say the ship has sailed on reason here. These issues are all now become purely emotional and for some people their fervor invested into these issues has moved past science to become a form of a religion substitute.

I'm not surprised you disagree.

A elementary knowledge (my level) of the digestive process tells me that anything we eat is broken down into simple bits that our body uses and re-organizes to meet our needs. Any RNA or DNA expressed as 'genes' that a GMO might have don't make it past the stomach.

Therefore, nothing but hype.

As for environmental costs, that is a different argument.

I absolutely agree that DNA/RNA from GMO foods will not survive the digestive tract but I do allow for the possibility that modified foods may result in unintended consequences. Unintended consequences can be indigestible and perhaps toxic proteins, allergens, and other compounds that are not obvious in short term studies but that surface after long term exposure.

So while my first blush on GMO's is aligned with your view I also allow for research that may sway my views and alter my opinions. The science of GMOs is new and therefore the scientific scrutiny of them is also new.

And where we've seen so many "miracles" of science in our lifetime that turned out to be not so wonderful after all then wisdom instructs me to be open minded on the topic.