why are we being fed by a poison expert

[Dutch01]

The reality is that big business will continue there ways and YOU have the right and the ability to not support or buy their products.

 

Art

You are right when you say the machine will keep marching on, no matter if we complain, no matter if it is ethical.

 

I take issue with your statement above though. Monsanto is spending many millions of dollars lobbying our government against labeling, so that I can't make an informed choice as you describe. I don't have millions of dollars to fight them, but I pay taxes to a government that is supposed to protect me from this type of action, and so far they have failed the citizens (consumers) in this case. That is corrupt.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Dutch01

[manitoubass2]

Not everyone puts money over ethics either.

This is exactly the point!

 

??? gbaygiant and dutch

[Joeytier]

You are right when you say the machine will keep marching on, no matter if we complain, no matter if it is ethical.

I take issue with your statement above though. Monsanto is spending many millions of dollars lobbying our government against labeling, so that I can't make an informed choice as you describe. I don't have millions of dollars to fight them, but I pay taxes to a government that is supposed to protect me from this type of action, and so far they have failed the citizens (consumers) in this case. That is corrupt.

The fact of the matter is that just because something is labelled, does not mean it is an informed decision, since the vast majority of the populations scientific literacy is less than zero, and associate gmos with some boogeyman stigma that isn't founded on anything scientific. While we're at it, why don't we put 'contains Cyanide'stickers on apples and 'contains formaldehyde' stickers on pears. There's also a staggering number of people who think organic food is pesticide free and don't realize that the organic food industry is worth billions and has plenty to gain by misleading a gullible public into labelling the boogeyman gmos. There are plenty of reasons to not label them, and corporate lobbying is not the whole story.

 

There is some serious tin foil hat material around this subject. Multi-billion dollar oil companies couldn't even come close to influencing scientific consensus on climate change yet a bio-tech company worth a tiny fraction of that has somehow managed to buy scientific favour the world over. Give me a break.

[Joeytier]

Why are we being fed by a poison expert? Johnson and Johnson made agent orange at the same time Monsanto was, and I use their baby oil on my 9 month old daughter. I must be a real sicko eh?

[Dutch01]

The fact of the matter is that just because something is labelled, does not mean it is an informed decision, since the vast majority of the populations scientific literacy is less than zero, and associate gmos with some boogeyman stigma that isn't founded on anything scientific. While we're at it, why don't we put 'contains Cyanide'stickers on apples and 'contains formaldehyde' stickers on pears. There's also a staggering number of people who think organic food is pesticide free and don't realize that the organic food industry is worth billions and has plenty to gain by misleading a gullible public into labelling the boogeyman gmos. There are plenty of reasons to not label them, and corporate lobbying is not the whole story.

 

There is some serious tin foil hat material around this subject. Multi-billion dollar oil companies couldn't even come close to influencing scientific consensus on climate change yet a bio-tech company worth a tiny fraction of that has somehow managed to buy scientific favour the world over. Give me a break.

Do you believe, as a consumer, that I have the right to know if my food is GMO or not?. I believe I have a right to know. Monsanto does not.

[aplumma]

You are right when you say the machine will keep marching on, no matter if we complain, no matter if it is ethical.

 

I take issue with your statement above though. Monsanto is spending many millions of dollars lobbying our government against labeling, so that I can't make an informed choice as you describe. I don't have millions of dollars to fight them, but I pay taxes to a government that is supposed to protect me from this type of action, and so far they have failed the citizens (consumers) in this case. That is corrupt.

Good points till the end. they failed some of the citizens but did a service for many others by not posting the info some feel should be there.

 

As far as money over ethic we all do who are you kidding. If your job pays you above minimum wage which is what a organic farmer can make you all have chosen a more lucrative paying job. If you drive a car an extra mile to get to a job you are hurting the eco sphere.If you have a boat and do not eat every fish you catch, the list goes on. We can't have it both ways. My point is only either protest by example but don't say I don't like the bad but only the advantages that come from the evil. I am not pure I feel the same way you all do but to rant against profit and big company is not fair. I have stocks in many big companies because they make a profit. I have zero dollars in a company that loses money due to morality....bad decisions yes. I don't expect people to be honest here and fess up that they have stock in companies that are bad for the eco system or that they drive an extra 100 miles a week to go to a job that will better support their family. We all have a different level of what is an acceptable pay off for us to look the other way on issues that are important to some and not so important to others. None of this is to change anyones mind it is me arguing the other side of the coin.

 

Art

[KLINKER]

Sweet potatoes have been found to have naturally genetically modified, as more DNA studies are finding genetic modification to be a naturally occurring thing we find people have been eating GMO for thousands of years.......AND THEY ALL DIED.

[Dutch01]

Sweet potatoes have been found to have naturally genetically modified, as more DNA studies are finding genetic modification to be a naturally occurring thing we find people have been eating GMO for thousands of years.......AND THEY ALL DIED.

This is misleading. Selective breeding is a form of gmo, that is correct. But you cannot selectively bred two incompatible species. In a lab, you can add pig dna to a fish. Try getting a pig to selectively breed with a salmon.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Dutch01

[DRIFTER_016]

Try getting a pig to selectively breed with a salmon.

 

I know some pigs that'll breed with anything that has a pulse!!! BA DUM DUM!!!!

[KLINKER]

No it's not selective breeding, it is DNA from bacteria that found it's way into the sweet potato. when they do a Genone search of DNA, bacteria DNA shows up, and from what they were saying it's in us too. Possibly having something to do with immune system. Look it up, interesting read.

[Dutch01]

No it's not selective breeding, it is DNA from bacteria that found it's way into the sweet potato. when they do a Genone search of DNA, bacteria DNA shows up, and from what they were saying it's in us too. Possibly having something to do with immune system. Look it up, interesting read.

I will look that up, thanks.

[netminder]

This is misleading. Selective breeding is a form of gmo, that is correct. But you cannot selectively bred two incompatible species. In a lab, you can add pig dna to a fish. Try getting a pig to selectively breed with a salmon.

This is also misleading. You're not breeding the species, your breeding the desired trait. You're only selecting the bit of DNA that is responsible for the desired trait.

[GbayGiant]

Back Peddling..

 

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/694222403606/

[Dutch01]

This is also misleading. You're not breeding the species, your breeding the desired trait. You're only selecting the bit of DNA that is responsible for the desired trait.

I didn't say they were breeding the species. I said they can add DNA from one animal to another animal in a lab. That's neither incorrect nor misleading.

[Dutch01]

I'm not sure I understand the resistance in here.

 

If you like gmo food or own Monsanto stock, that's your business. I'm not trying to restrict your options. I'm trying to even HAVE options.

 

I would like to elect not to eat gmo food when given the option. This is a personal preference that I am entitled to have. However, a corporation with a market cap of over $55B is working hard and spending a lot of money to make sure I can't have a choice.

 

Stop defending this tactic. It isn't right. Europe has seen the light and is way ahead of us on consumer protection where gmo is concerned.

 

I can hear the response from the Monsanto lovers already - "move to Europe then".

[GbayGiant]

It's ok if you are not sick yet and heavily invested in it.

Maybe the cash you make will save your life?!

[netminder]

I don't think it's something you need to fear. It would be nice if its labelled, but that would only add to the fear mongering. I'm more concerned with the laundry list of additives you find on the ingredients list on processed foods. I don't think GMO has anything to do with the increased occurrence of any sort of ailment, but I'm fairly confident all the additives and preservatives people are eating in their processed foods play a huge role in it.

 

And by the way, Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on GMOs. You're still being misleading.

[DRIFTER_016]

I don't think it's something you need to fear. It would be nice if its labelled, but that would only add to the fear mongering. I'm more concerned with the laundry list of additives you find on the ingredients list on processed foods. I don't think GMO has anything to do with the increased occurrence of any sort of ailment, but I'm fairly confident all the additives and preservatives people are eating in their processed foods play a huge role in it.

 

And by the way, Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on GMOs. You're still being misleading.

 

Yes, but that laundry list of additives is ON the label for us to see.

We have the choice to not buy that product if there is something in it we don't want to put in our bodies.

All we ask is that if the product contains GMO organisms we the consumer should have the right to choose whether we purchase it or not.

In order to do this it needs to be on the label. Just like red dye #5, mono sodium glutamate or any of the other additives in our food.

[aplumma]

It's ok if you are not sick yet and heavily invested in it.

Maybe the cash you make will save your life?!

Or maybe the profits can be reinvested and new produces can be brought to market like Celebrex. (Celebrex is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug used to treat pain or inflammation) which has personally made my brothers life livable again due to lime disease.

 

 

Art

[aplumma]

Warning 100% of the corn raised in the USA is GMO modified.

 

This public announcement has been brought to you by Monsanto

 

 

 

Art

[Dutch01]

I don't think it's something you need to fear. It would be nice if its labelled, but that would only add to the fear mongering. I'm more concerned with the laundry list of additives you find on the ingredients list on processed foods. I don't think GMO has anything to do with the increased occurrence of any sort of ailment, but I'm fairly confident all the additives and preservatives people are eating in their processed foods play a huge role in it.

 

And by the way, Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on GMOs. You're still being misleading.

I'm using Monsanto as a catchall, and at no point have I said they are the only company in the field. Making that your point of contention is being pedantic.

 

Why does Monsanto get to decide what I can and can't know?

 

Should I have the right to know or not, that is the question.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Dutch01

[Dutch01]

 

Yes, but that laundry list of additives is ON the label for us to see.

We have the choice to not buy that product if there is something in it we don't want to put in our bodies.

All we ask is that if the product contains GMO organisms we the consumer should have the right to choose whether we purchase it or not.

In order to do this it needs to be on the label. Just like red dye #5, mono sodium glutamate or any of the other additives in our food.

Thank you! I don't think that's too much to ask.

[GbayGiant]

Or maybe the profits can be reinvested and new produces can be brought to market like Celebrex. (Celebrex is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug used to treat pain or inflammation) which has personally made my brothers life livable again due to lime disease.

 

 

Art

Not if you get sick first

Can't spend it 6 feet under

Edited May 27, 2016 by GbayGiant

[manitoubass2]

Or maybe the profits can be reinvested and new produces can be brought to market like Celebrex. (Celebrex is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug used to treat pain or inflammation) which has personally made my brothers life livable again due to lime disease.

 

 

Art

Great for him!

 

But that has a downside as well.

 

1)its horrible on your stomach

 

2)more importantly iys non selective in reducing inflammation. Which means it inhibits positive inflammation as well(ie slower healing times,other autoimmune disorders)

[aplumma]

Not if you get sick first

Can't spend it 6 feet under

Do you honestly think that GMO is going to kill you before the many other things both natural and unnatural will? I mean alcohol either you drinking it or another person drinking it is much higher on my worry list. Smoke, Microwaves, my list is most likely 100 other things that are going to take me out first. I guess I could stop enjoying life and get myself bubble wrapped, sell the motorcycle collection, the old cars, tractor, chainsaw and anything sharper than a pencil would possible keep me from feeding the worms at a premature age. lol

 

Live on the edge, take the chances and die with no regrets is my motto. I can honestly say life should have killed me a long time ago with all of the dumb things I did and the adrenaline poisoning that goes along with it.

 

While celebrex is a tough drug the alternative is low mobility in the shoulders and lifting capacity of 25 lbs. The damage was done on a poor diagnosis and 10 years of joint damage. He has now moved to another drug that is less invasive/destructive and has good results. The medical advances funded by profits are amazing.

 

Art