Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2014/02/ ... el-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Vermont wants to require any GMO food products to be labeled, basically validating concerns over GMOs that overwhelming scientific consensus (American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, among others) says aren't valid.

So when can I expect the science squad to accuse Vermont's liberal government of being anti-science? When will Bill Nye be complaining about the irreparable damage this will do to children who might other wise grow up to win nobel prizes?

I mean, needlessly panicking consumers into buying more expensive organic food they may not be able to afford is obviously not nearly as bad as someone having the audacity to not accept evolution as the sole progenitor of life, but it would be nice to get 1/10th the outrage that creationists evoke.

Pwns wrote:http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2014/02/ ... el-policy/

So Vermont wants to require any GMO food products to be labeled, basically validating concerns over GMOs that overwhelming scientific consensus (American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, among others) says aren't valid.

So when can I expect the science squad to accuse Vermont's liberal government of being anti-science? When will Bill Nye be complaining about the irreparable damage this will do to children who might other wise grow up to win nobel prizes?

I mean, needlessly panicking consumers into buying more expensive organic food they may not be able to afford is obviously not nearly as bad as someone having the audacity to not accept evolution as the sole progenitor of life, but it would be nice to get 1/10th the outrage that creationists evoke.

Is your stance that genetically modified food is good for us and has no negative impacts?

I don't know if it validates any scientific research. I'm all for as much labeling as possible and allowing the customer to make a decision. They aren't asking for a Surgeon General's warning right? Just a label saying - contains GMO?

I don't have any issue with GMO crops. I don't eat any because my wife doesn't like them and she does the shopping, but I personally don't care.

danefan wrote:I don't know if it validates any scientific research. I'm all for as much labeling as possible and allowing the customer to make a decision. They aren't asking for a Surgeon General's warning right? Just a label saying - contains GMO?

I don't have any issue with GMO crops. I don't eat any because my wife doesn't like them and she does the shopping, but I personally don't care.

Doesn't LIKE them? Or doesn't TRUST them?

danefan wrote:I don't know if it validates any scientific research. I'm all for as much labeling as possible and allowing the customer to make a decision. They aren't asking for a Surgeon General's warning right? Just a label saying - contains GMO?

I don't have any issue with GMO crops. I don't eat any because my wife doesn't like them and she does the shopping, but I personally don't care.

Think about it this way: Food being altered from it's natural state will have some adverse affect, correct?

Over the course of 90 days, the rats on the GM-corn diet grew fatter and ate more food than the rats on the non-GM diet. The researchers also noticed that rats got fatter when they ate fish that had been raised on GM corn.

http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy- ... eight-gain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is the problem with properly labeling food? What is the problem with providing sunshine and truth? IF GMO's are good, then the suppliers who use GMO products should be VERY happy to have their products labeled as such.

I am ALL for full disclosure...and I hate when someone wants to hide a secret when I am trying to purchase something.

Why would anyone be against providing information to their customers?

Why are some people so afraid of people being able to make informed choices?

Cluck U wrote:What is the problem with properly labeling food? What is the problem with providing sunshine and truth? IF GMO's are good, then the suppliers who use GMO products should be VERY happy to have their products labeled as such.

I am ALL for full disclosure...and I hate when someone wants to hide a secret when I am trying to purchase something.

Why would anyone be against providing information to their customers?

Why are some people so afraid of people being able to make informed choices?

People still won't listen or pay attention.

Cluck U wrote:What is the problem with properly labeling food? What is the problem with providing sunshine and truth? IF GMO's are good, then the suppliers who use GMO products should be VERY happy to have their products labeled as such.

I am ALL for full disclosure...and I hate when someone wants to hide a secret when I am trying to purchase something.

Why would anyone be against providing information to their customers?

Why are some people so afraid of people being able to make informed choices?

Why are you all of a sudden in favor of government mandating how the private sector markets their products?

Pwns wrote:http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2014/02/ ... el-policy/

So Vermont wants to require any GMO food products to be labeled, basically validating concerns over GMOs that overwhelming scientific consensus (American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, among others) says aren't valid.

So when can I expect the science squad to accuse Vermont's liberal government of being anti-science? When will Bill Nye be complaining about the irreparable damage this will do to children who might other wise grow up to win nobel prizes?

I mean, needlessly panicking consumers into buying more expensive organic food they may not be able to afford is obviously not nearly as bad as someone having the audacity to not accept evolution as the sole progenitor of life, but it would be nice to get 1/10th the outrage that creationists evoke.

Strange argument ^ stance..?
If science is on your side then put it on the label with pride



We use science to alter our food and make it brighter and larger..!!!!
We're awesome

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2014/02/ ... el-policy/

So Vermont wants to require any GMO food products to be labeled, basically validating concerns over GMOs that overwhelming scientific consensus (American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, among others) says aren't valid.

So when can I expect the science squad to accuse Vermont's liberal government of being anti-science? When will Bill Nye be complaining about the irreparable damage this will do to children who might other wise grow up to win nobel prizes?

I mean, needlessly panicking consumers into buying more expensive organic food they may not be able to afford is obviously not nearly as bad as someone having the audacity to not accept evolution as the sole progenitor of life, but it would be nice to get 1/10th the outrage that creationists evoke.

Strange argument ^ stance..?
If science is on your side then put it on the label with pride



We use science to alter our food and make it brighter and larger..!!!!
We're awesome

And more resilient. Sure, they is probably a correlation between the increase in obesity and the widespread use of GMO products but this is 'Merica.

Ibanez wrote: Think about it this way: Food being altered from it's natural state will have some adverse affect, correct?


http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy- ... eight-gain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which study is that? It doesn't give a name or a journal. There is a comprehensive review of longitudinal GMO studies that show there are no adverse effects in mice.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1511006399" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Grizalltheway wrote:
Why are you all of a sudden in favor of government mandating how the private sector markets their products?

That's what I was thinking. Why force companies to put labels on food that are essentially meaningless? You give the impression that something might be wrong with the food when there isn't. And you know that a lot of people are spooked by genetic engineering because of what they read in fiction and see in movies.

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:I don't know if it validates any scientific research. I'm all for as much labeling as possible and allowing the customer to make a decision. They aren't asking for a Surgeon General's warning right? Just a label saying - contains GMO?

I don't have any issue with GMO crops. I don't eat any because my wife doesn't like them and she does the shopping, but I personally don't care.

Doesn't LIKE them? Or doesn't TRUST them?

Doesn't like because she doesn't trust them. Then again we eat almost entirely organic, growing just about everything we can and buy our meats in bulk direct from local farmers.

The irony of the whole situation (which sometimes fails to be obvious to my wife) is that we can afford to do the things above because one of my major clients when I was in private practice was the predominant player in the bio-tech/GMO business.

Shoot - I even modified some corn DNA myself once.....

Pwns wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Think about it this way: Food being altered from it's natural state will have some adverse affect, correct?


http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy- ... eight-gain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which study is that? It doesn't give a name or a journal. There is a comprehensive review of longitudinal GMO studies that show there are no adverse effects in mice.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1511006399" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Grizalltheway wrote:
Why are you all of a sudden in favor of government mandating how the private sector markets their products?

That's what I was thinking. Why force companies to put labels on food that are essentially meaningless? You give the impression that something might be wrong with the food when there isn't. And you know that a lot of people are spooked by genetic engineering because of what they read in fiction and see in movies.

I don't think its meaningless. Its information. Why is information bad? How about we educate consumers and let them make their own choices on food.

I wonder if there's a chance that Monsanto funds positive GMO studies like big energy funds anti global warming and clean coal science?

kalm wrote:I wonder if there's a chance that Monsanto funds positive GMO studies like big energy funds anti global warming and clean coal science?

They "lobby" and do "R&D" like everyone else.

danefan wrote:

kalm wrote:I wonder if there's a chance that Monsanto funds positive GMO studies like big energy funds anti global warming and clean coal science?

They "lobby" and do "R&D" like everyone else.

I wonder if they have any influence with the FDA?

kalm wrote:

danefan wrote:
They "lobby" and do "R&D" like everyone else.

I wonder if they have any influence with the FDA?

I don't think the FDA has any time to deal with the "Food" aspect of their charge given the $1 trillion-a-year Drug industry they also have to watch.

kalm wrote:I wonder if there's a chance that Monsanto funds positive GMO studies like big energy funds anti global warming and clean coal science?

Do reputable groups like the National Science Foundation and American Medical Association say that there isn't enough evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change? Monsanto and oil companies can fund research and propaganda, but can they influence these groups?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:What is the problem with properly labeling food? What is the problem with providing sunshine and truth? IF GMO's are good, then the suppliers who use GMO products should be VERY happy to have their products labeled as such.

I am ALL for full disclosure...and I hate when someone wants to hide a secret when I am trying to purchase something.

Why would anyone be against providing information to their customers?

Why are some people so afraid of people being able to make informed choices?

Why are you all of a sudden in favor of government mandating how the private sector markets their products?

If you stretched your mind instead of trying to stretch weak arguments, you might actually start to get a reputation as an intelligent poster. Instead, you are stuck on stupid. Wait, Chizz would want me to say, "THAT post is stupid," instead of "YOU are stupid."

So, that post, of yours, is stupid.

I don't mind local government being involved in providing guidelines involving information regarding safety issues.

danefan wrote:I don't know if it validates any scientific research. I'm all for as much labeling as possible and allowing the customer to make a decision. They aren't asking for a Surgeon General's warning right? Just a label saying - contains GMO?

I don't have any issue with GMO crops. I don't eat any because my wife doesn't like them and she does the shopping, but I personally don't care.

Show her this video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl5GXArC134[/youtube]

As someone who has recently been quite involved in farming due to my distillery biz....many people would be shocked what farmers (REAL farmers, not backyard farmers) have to do to/for their crops if they are using non-GMO. Knowing what I know, I'll take GMO crops any day.
Same goes for organic, which is the biggest marketing crock-o-shit since New Coke

danefan wrote: I don't think its meaningless. Its information. Why is information bad? How about we educate consumers and let them make their own choices on food.

Would you also support the labeling of non-organic products? I don't have a problem with voluntary labeling of non-GMO foods just as I don't have a problem with voluntary labeling of organics, but there needs to be some basis for forced labeling. Labeling non-organics would be like labeling GMOs...basically there are no documented health benefits of eating organic or non-GMO, so I don't see the purpose in forcing labeling on things not pertinent to actual health.

Pwns wrote:

danefan wrote: I don't think its meaningless. Its information. Why is information bad? How about we educate consumers and let them make their own choices on food.

Would you also support the labeling of non-organic products? I don't have a problem with voluntary labeling of non-GMO foods just as I don't have a problem with voluntary labeling of organics, but there needs to be some basis for forced labeling. Labeling non-organics would be like labeling GMOs...basically there are no documented health benefits of eating organic or non-GMO, so I don't see the purpose in forcing labeling on things not pertinent to actual health.

I kind of agree with this. Labelling is great if it's actually giving good information. Putting the caloric information as well as vitamin and mineral contribution on foods is great and useful. However, we don't have an educated consumer class when it comes even to that, and we certainly don't have it when it comes to "organic" and "GMO" or anything else. Heck, people still shudder when you say there are "chemicals" in their foods, just because they aren't educated enough to make a determination if that's bad or not. Labels are only as good as the education of the consumer to properly understand what that label means. When a good chunk of people will think "frankenfood" when they hear "GMO", that's a good indication that the consumer is far from educated enough to make a quality judgement on what that label actually means.

Pwns wrote:

kalm wrote:I wonder if there's a chance that Monsanto funds positive GMO studies like big energy funds anti global warming and clean coal science?

Do reputable groups like the National Science Foundation and American Medical Association say that there isn't enough evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change? Monsanto and oil companies can fund research and propaganda, but can they influence these groups?

Yes, it's quite possible they can, and from both sides although one side has much more money and power.

Another question, have the NSF and AMA dismissed all dangers from GMO's?

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:
Do reputable groups like the National Science Foundation and American Medical Association say that there isn't enough evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change? Monsanto and oil companies can fund research and propaganda, but can they influence these groups?

Yes, it's quite possible they can, and from both sides although one side has much more money and power.

Another question, have the NSF and AMA dismissed all dangers from GMO's?

Interesting hurdle to have to overcome - proving the absence of any danger or effect. It's hard to prove the negative.