Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Posted: 5/14/2022 9:51:49 AM EDT
John Stossel
Sat, May 14, 2022, 3:00 AM
Activists have convinced Americans "organic" food is better — healthier, better-tasting, life-extending.

As a result, poor parents feel guilty if they can't afford to pay $7 for organic eggs.

This misinformation is spread by people like Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. She says organic food is clearly better: "The nutrition is a huge difference."

But it isn't. Studies find little difference.

If you still want to pay more for what's called "organic," that's your right. But what's outrageous is this group of scientifically illiterate people convinced the government to force all of us to pay more.

Congress has ruled GMOs (genetically modified food) must be labeled. Busybodies from both parties supported the idea.

Politicians like Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said, "It doesn't cost any more. This idea that ... this ... will raise food prices is ridiculous."

It's McGovern who is ridiculous. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the GMO labeling will cost from $598 million to $3.5 billion.

"But the public wants GMOs labeled," say advocates. "Surveys show that."

Of course they do.

Ask people if DNA in food should be labeled, and most say yes. Yet DNA is in everything.

Polling is a stupid way to make policy
The idea of modifying a plant's DNA may sound creepy, but people have cross-bred plants and animals for years.

"The corn we have today, there's nothing natural about that," I say to Baden-Mayer in my new video. "What native people ate, we'd find inedible."

Baden-Mayer laughs at that.

"You're saying indigenous corn is somehow inferior because you've seen it dried and it has tiny little kernels?" she asks.

"Yes," I reply. I've tried to eat it.

"That's another myth of the industry," she responds. "People like you believe that."

I sure do. I also believe it's good that genetic modification lets us alter nature more precisely, gene by gene. That's better and safer than the more haphazard crossbreeding that's been done for years.

This new precision lets scientists make plants that save lives.

Let's talk about 'golden rice'

In poor parts of the world, half a million people per year go blind due to lack of vitamin A in their diets. Many die.

Scientists have created a new genetically modified rice that contains vitamin A. This "golden rice" could save those people.

"I've heard of golden rice," sneers Baden-Mayer. "That was a project that all of the chemical companies invested in."

I sneer right back.

"Golden rice hasn't succeeded partly because scientifically ignorant fools like you convinced the world that it's harmful!"

"I knew at a certain point you would resort to name-calling," she replies. "But it doesn't change the science on this."

Sadly, in some countries, people listen to advocates like her and believe that Americans want to poison them. One group of GMO fearful protesters invaded a golden rice field in the Philippines, ripping up all the plants.

Thousands will die or go blind, needlessly, because the organic cult spreads misinformation.

At least educated skeptics now understand that they were wrong about GMOs.

The New York Times points out that many "quietly walked back their opposition" to GMOs. "The science is clear," says a former opponent in The Wall Street Journal. "They're perfectly safe."

The Philippines recently approved golden rice.

But the hardcore zealots will never be convinced.

Baden-Mayer claims GMOs cause cancer.

"We're using more GMOs than ever," I point out. "There's less cancer now. Life spans keep increasing."

"Compared to when, 100 years ago?" she scoffs.

Absolutely, yes. We live about 25 years longer than Americans did 100 years ago. Even compared to 10 or 20 years ago, we live longer.

The National Academy of Sciences calls GMOs safe. So do the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA.

But no amount of science will convince people like Baden-Mayer. "The GMO issue just has not been investigated enough," she says.

Organic promoters are wrong on the costs and wrong on the science.

Sadly, they've won the battle of public opinion.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-stossel-gmo-labeling-cost-090054676.html
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 9:57:02 AM EDT
[#1]
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 9:57:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bohr_Adam] [#2]
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:00:24 AM EDT
[#3]
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:04:07 AM EDT
[#4]
lol

Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:04:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
People are crazy.

View Quote

Sometimes there’s money in crazy.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:05:25 AM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


That's gotta be my favorite indicator of a world gone crazy,

Gotta buy organic tobacco. Can't buy that stuff that is bad for you.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:08:46 AM EDT
[#7]
I will say when it comes to wheat, people with gluten issues can eat ancient strains of wheat like Sonora and Turkey Red wheat. Which is all non-gmo, heritage style wheat.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:18:36 AM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
People are crazy incredibly misinformed and ignorant.

View Quote
FIFY
Only some people are legit crazy.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:18:47 AM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BLKVooDoo:
I will say when it comes to wheat, people with gluten issues can eat ancient strains of wheat like Sonora and Turkey Red wheat. Which is all non-gmo, heritage style wheat.
View Quote


Modern wheat has shit do do with GMO.

Tell us all about the GMO wheat in the marketplace.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:19:03 AM EDT
[#10]
It's very strange how the organic label work. Gov abandons it's job of managing food quality and gives authority to local organic committee. These committees sole authority does not rest on education or votes. Solely on back 1960's someone set up a organic club and who ever gets passed down the power. Doesn't matter how organic or not organic a farmers crop is what that committee decides is what can be labeled organic. Of course the majority of the population would never be able to afford from a nonsensical system like that. It's complete 1960's socialist/mafia fairyland nonsense.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:19:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: JamesTheScot] [#11]
Originally Posted By dcabq:
John Stossel
Sat, May 14, 2022, 3:00 AM
Activists have convinced Americans "organic" food is better — healthier, better-tasting, life-extending.

As a result, poor parents feel guilty if they can't afford to pay $7 for organic eggs.

This misinformation is spread by people like Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. She says organic food is clearly better: "The nutrition is a huge difference."

But it isn't. Studies find little difference.

If you still want to pay more for what's called "organic," that's your right. But what's outrageous is this group of scientifically illiterate people convinced the government to force all of us to pay more.

Congress has ruled GMOs (genetically modified food) must be labeled. Busybodies from both parties supported the idea.

Politicians like Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said, "It doesn't cost any more. This idea that ... this ... will raise food prices is ridiculous."

It's McGovern who is ridiculous. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the GMO labeling will cost from $598 million to $3.5 billion.

"But the public wants GMOs labeled," say advocates. "Surveys show that."

Of course they do.

Ask people if DNA in food should be labeled, and most say yes. Yet DNA is in everything.

Polling is a stupid way to make policy
The idea of modifying a plant's DNA may sound creepy, but people have cross-bred plants and animals for years.

"The corn we have today, there's nothing natural about that," I say to Baden-Mayer in my new video. "What native people ate, we'd find inedible."

Baden-Mayer laughs at that.

"You're saying indigenous corn is somehow inferior because you've seen it dried and it has tiny little kernels?" she asks.

"Yes," I reply. I've tried to eat it.

"That's another myth of the industry," she responds. "People like you believe that."

I sure do. I also believe it's good that genetic modification lets us alter nature more precisely, gene by gene. That's better and safer than the more haphazard crossbreeding that's been done for years.

This new precision lets scientists make plants that save lives.

Let's talk about 'golden rice'

In poor parts of the world, half a million people per year go blind due to lack of vitamin A in their diets. Many die.

Scientists have created a new genetically modified rice that contains vitamin A. This "golden rice" could save those people.

"I've heard of golden rice," sneers Baden-Mayer. "That was a project that all of the chemical companies invested in."

I sneer right back.

"Golden rice hasn't succeeded partly because scientifically ignorant fools like you convinced the world that it's harmful!"

"I knew at a certain point you would resort to name-calling," she replies. "But it doesn't change the science on this."

Sadly, in some countries, people listen to advocates like her and believe that Americans want to poison them. One group of GMO fearful protesters invaded a golden rice field in the Philippines, ripping up all the plants.

Thousands will die or go blind, needlessly, because the organic cult spreads misinformation.

At least educated skeptics now understand that they were wrong about GMOs.

The New York Times points out that many "quietly walked back their opposition" to GMOs. "The science is clear," says a former opponent in The Wall Street Journal. "They're perfectly safe."

The Philippines recently approved golden rice.

But the hardcore zealots will never be convinced.

Baden-Mayer claims GMOs cause cancer.

"We're using more GMOs than ever," I point out. "There's less cancer now. Life spans keep increasing."

"Compared to when, 100 years ago?" she scoffs.

Absolutely, yes. We live about 25 years longer than Americans did 100 years ago. Even compared to 10 or 20 years ago, we live longer.

The National Academy of Sciences calls GMOs safe. So do the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA.

But no amount of science will convince people like Baden-Mayer. "The GMO issue just has not been investigated enough," she says.

Organic promoters are wrong on the costs and wrong on the science.

Sadly, they've won the battle of public opinion.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-stossel-gmo-labeling-cost-090054676.html
View Quote


I’m not exactly sure how GMO labeling “is going to cost $________”.

I generally like Stossel for his willingness to take on the left’s sacred cows.

I eat GMO stuff and I rarely pay extra for organic. But everything has label. Companies voluntarily label things to promote their brand. They voluntarily put their stuff in boxes with colorful print and words on it. So I’m curious how we arrive at the idea that “labeling for X causes $Y”.

If he’s talking about lost sales, then I don’t care. If the consumer chooses to pay more for non-GMO or organic and disregards other offerings, that’s just the marketplace of idea at work. It’s on the producer to sway the marketplace about the virtues of his product and he can sue for libel or slander if he’s being lied about.

Unless we’re all suddenly in favor of a ministry of truth now. Are we? We can’t be against one that would target rightwing fake news but then be for one that targets left wing fake news.

I’d also be against any regulation that requires people or organizations to buy/use organic or non-GMO. I think that’s where “the science” has to come in and show “no net return” on using organic and non-GMO. But again, he tosses out that dollar figure without much basis for where/how it’s calculated.

Also, the whole “organic is more nutritious” thing is probably misused by both sides. What do we normally mean by nutritious? The primary claimed benefit of organic is that the consumer isn’t exposed to chemicals to which long term exposure can cause other health issues. Claiming an organic apple is more nutritious or that a conventionally farmed apple is just as nutritious sorta side steps the actual issue with organic.

Similarly, with GMO, there are two layers of GMO. There’s selective breeding hybridization which no one should have issue with. Then there’s genetic manipulation where genetic material is spliced in from other organisms. I’m not overly concerned about the latter. I eat GMO stuff. But I also don’t mind requiring that you tell me you’re feeding me that on a label (that you’re already printing to entice me to buy your product) so I can make that choice for myself.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:20:31 AM EDT
[#12]
poor parents feel guilty if they can't afford to pay $7 for organic eggs.
View Quote


No they don't
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:21:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bohr_Adam] [#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


I’m not exactly sure how GMO labeling “is going to cost $________”.

...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By dcabq:
John Stossel
Sat, May 14, 2022, 3:00 AM
Activists have convinced Americans "organic" food is better — healthier, better-tasting, life-extending.

As a result, poor parents feel guilty if they can't afford to pay $7 for organic eggs.

This misinformation is spread by people like Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. She says organic food is clearly better: "The nutrition is a huge difference."

But it isn't. Studies find little difference.

If you still want to pay more for what's called "organic," that's your right. But what's outrageous is this group of scientifically illiterate people convinced the government to force all of us to pay more.

Congress has ruled GMOs (genetically modified food) must be labeled. Busybodies from both parties supported the idea.

Politicians like Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said, "It doesn't cost any more. This idea that ... this ... will raise food prices is ridiculous."

It's McGovern who is ridiculous. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the GMO labeling will cost from $598 million to $3.5 billion.

"But the public wants GMOs labeled," say advocates. "Surveys show that."

Of course they do.

Ask people if DNA in food should be labeled, and most say yes. Yet DNA is in everything.

Polling is a stupid way to make policy
The idea of modifying a plant's DNA may sound creepy, but people have cross-bred plants and animals for years.

"The corn we have today, there's nothing natural about that," I say to Baden-Mayer in my new video. "What native people ate, we'd find inedible."

Baden-Mayer laughs at that.

"You're saying indigenous corn is somehow inferior because you've seen it dried and it has tiny little kernels?" she asks.

"Yes," I reply. I've tried to eat it.

"That's another myth of the industry," she responds. "People like you believe that."

I sure do. I also believe it's good that genetic modification lets us alter nature more precisely, gene by gene. That's better and safer than the more haphazard crossbreeding that's been done for years.

This new precision lets scientists make plants that save lives.

Let's talk about 'golden rice'

In poor parts of the world, half a million people per year go blind due to lack of vitamin A in their diets. Many die.

Scientists have created a new genetically modified rice that contains vitamin A. This "golden rice" could save those people.

"I've heard of golden rice," sneers Baden-Mayer. "That was a project that all of the chemical companies invested in."

I sneer right back.

"Golden rice hasn't succeeded partly because scientifically ignorant fools like you convinced the world that it's harmful!"

"I knew at a certain point you would resort to name-calling," she replies. "But it doesn't change the science on this."

Sadly, in some countries, people listen to advocates like her and believe that Americans want to poison them. One group of GMO fearful protesters invaded a golden rice field in the Philippines, ripping up all the plants.

Thousands will die or go blind, needlessly, because the organic cult spreads misinformation.

At least educated skeptics now understand that they were wrong about GMOs.

The New York Times points out that many "quietly walked back their opposition" to GMOs. "The science is clear," says a former opponent in The Wall Street Journal. "They're perfectly safe."

The Philippines recently approved golden rice.

But the hardcore zealots will never be convinced.

Baden-Mayer claims GMOs cause cancer.

"We're using more GMOs than ever," I point out. "There's less cancer now. Life spans keep increasing."

"Compared to when, 100 years ago?" she scoffs.

Absolutely, yes. We live about 25 years longer than Americans did 100 years ago. Even compared to 10 or 20 years ago, we live longer.

The National Academy of Sciences calls GMOs safe. So do the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA.

But no amount of science will convince people like Baden-Mayer. "The GMO issue just has not been investigated enough," she says.

Organic promoters are wrong on the costs and wrong on the science.

Sadly, they've won the battle of public opinion.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-stossel-gmo-labeling-cost-090054676.html


I’m not exactly sure how GMO labeling “is going to cost $________”.

...


You seem focused on the packaging. The issue is the supply chain.

And it's just silly to act as if "no one should have issue with" "selective breeding hybridization," when that is specifically what has made wheat poisonous to many people today. Yet, as the poster above demonstrates, we've let ourselves be so brainwashed we associate that with GMOs.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:21:27 AM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BLKVooDoo:
I will say when it comes to wheat, people with gluten issues can eat ancient strains of wheat like Sonora and Turkey Red wheat. Which is all non-gmo, heritage style wheat.
View Quote


Can you define wha you mean by non-GMO?
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:23:47 AM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

Modern wheat has shit do do with GMO.

Tell us all about the GMO wheat in the marketplace.
View Quote


What do you mean?

Seriously. There’s a huge disconnect in the use of “GMO” in this arena of discussion. People think they are disagreeing/agreeing when in fact they aren’t because their individual definitions are different.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:24:26 AM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9SZg1hhLL0
View Quote
I bet a genetically modified donut that nutjob has all of her COVID shots.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:25:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bohr_Adam] [#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


What do you mean?

Seriously. There’s a huge disconnect in the use of “GMO” in this arena of discussion. People think they are disagreeing/agreeing when in fact they aren’t because their individual definitions are different.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

Modern wheat has shit do do with GMO.

Tell us all about the GMO wheat in the marketplace.


What do you mean?

Seriously. There’s a huge disconnect in the use of “GMO” in this arena of discussion. People think they are disagreeing/agreeing when in fact they aren’t because their individual definitions are different.


Name one commercial GMO wheat seed on the market. One.

Last time we have a thread on this, I waster far too much time looking this up. There were zero.

Zero.

Modern wheat the result of years of selective breeding, the old fashioned way.

Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:29:33 AM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:


No they don't
View Quote


But even if they did, so what?

So Stossel is now for a nanny state that coddles poor parents because of their irrationality and feelz?

I get so tired of the double standards we (both sides) employ in political debate.

Too bad you feel bad because you can’t buy organic eggs. Too bad you feel bad because I used a pronoun based on your presumed genitalia.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:42:31 AM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


You seem focused on the packaging. The issue is the supply chain.

And it's just silly to act as if "no one should have issue with" "selective breeding hybridization," when that is specifically what has made wheat poisonous to many people today. Yet, as the poster above demonstrates, we've let ourselves be so brainwashed we associate that with GMOs.
View Quote


1. Unpack how organic/GMO labeling is a supply chain issue. I’ll listen.

2. My point about hybridization is that it’s always been happening. It happens naturally. So “modern” wheat causes more problems for gluten sensitive people than “ancient” wheat? So what? Ancient wheat was modern wheat at one point. And there’s room in the marketplace for both. Just accurately label it so the consumer can choose.

The thing about the label “GMO” is that there is a lot of confusion in the marketplace about what it means. Pro-GMO advocates would define hybridization among naturally compatible strains as being GMO to protect gene splicing between plants and animals, for example. While the vast majority of anti-GMO advocates don’t have a problem with hybridization among naturally compatible strains.

You see the same thing with the claim of “heirloom” varieties in horticulture. Everyone’s favorite heirloom was at some point the new fangled hybrid on the market. There are people selectively breeding tomatoes for the fresh market (picked ripe today to be eaten ripe today) thanks in part to the intersection of foodie/organic interests which ironically are creating new “hybrids” which harken back to an eating experience that’s more “heirloom”.

We just need to tighten up what we mean by these words so people can communicate effectively.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:46:17 AM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

Name one commercial GMO wheat seed on the market. One.

Last time we have a thread on this, I waster far too much time looking this up. There were zero.

Zero.

Modern wheat the result of years of selective breeding, the old fashioned way.

View Quote


Jeez! That’s my eff’ing point.

You guys are using different definitions of GMO.

Quite looking for fight where there isn’t one, FFS.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:51:01 AM EDT
[#21]
I enjoy over eating, and not performing any sort of meaningful physical activity, so I’m going to blame “Big Agri” and their science on me getting fat and being unhealthy.  
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 10:59:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: webman] [#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
I bet a genetically modified donut that nutjob has all of her COVID shots.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
I bet a genetically modified donut that nutjob has all of her COVID shots.


I believe she is actually anti-vax (in the truest sense) - at least publicly.  Considering she's a lawyer with the last name Baden-Mayer, it is hard to say what her real angle is, though.


Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:

So Stossel is now for a nanny state that coddles poor parents because of their irrationality and feelz?



Considering he criticized congress for pushing mandatory GMO labeling, I'd say no...
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 11:01:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bohr_Adam] [#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


1. Unpack how organic/GMO labeling is a supply chain issue. I’ll listen.

2. My point about hybridization is that it’s always been happening. It happens naturally. So “modern” wheat causes more problems for gluten sensitive people than “ancient” wheat? So what? Ancient wheat was modern wheat at one point. And there’s room in the marketplace for both. Just accurately label it so the consumer can choose.

The thing about the label “GMO” is that there is a lot of confusion in the marketplace about what it means. Pro-GMO advocates would define hybridization among naturally compatible strains as being GMO to protect gene splicing between plants and animals, for example. While the vast majority of anti-GMO advocates don’t have a problem with hybridization among naturally compatible strains.

You see the same thing with the claim of “heirloom” varieties in horticulture. Everyone’s favorite heirloom was at some point the new fangled hybrid on the market. There are people selectively breeding tomatoes for the fresh market (picked ripe today to be eaten ripe today) thanks in part to the intersection of foodie/organic interests which ironically are creating new “hybrids” which harken back to an eating experience that’s more “heirloom”.

We just need to tighten up what we mean by these words so people can communicate effectively.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


You seem focused on the packaging. The issue is the supply chain.

And it's just silly to act as if "no one should have issue with" "selective breeding hybridization," when that is specifically what has made wheat poisonous to many people today. Yet, as the poster above demonstrates, we've let ourselves be so brainwashed we associate that with GMOs.


1. Unpack how organic/GMO labeling is a supply chain issue. I’ll listen.

2. My point about hybridization is that it’s always been happening. It happens naturally. So “modern” wheat causes more problems for gluten sensitive people than “ancient” wheat? So what? Ancient wheat was modern wheat at one point. And there’s room in the marketplace for both. Just accurately label it so the consumer can choose.

The thing about the label “GMO” is that there is a lot of confusion in the marketplace about what it means. Pro-GMO advocates would define hybridization among naturally compatible strains as being GMO to protect gene splicing between plants and animals, for example. While the vast majority of anti-GMO advocates don’t have a problem with hybridization among naturally compatible strains.

You see the same thing with the claim of “heirloom” varieties in horticulture. Everyone’s favorite heirloom was at some point the new fangled hybrid on the market. There are people selectively breeding tomatoes for the fresh market (picked ripe today to be eaten ripe today) thanks in part to the intersection of foodie/organic interests which ironically are creating new “hybrids” which harken back to an eating experience that’s more “heirloom”.

We just need to tighten up what we mean by these words so people can communicate effectively.


Requiring GMO labeling requires GMO separation.

No community that is currently "GMO free" and can thus command a premium (because the public has already been propagandized against GMO) can afford to let any one farmer try out (or continue to use) any new tech that would suddenly "contaminate" the community. The alternative would have to be massive new investment in how crops are harvested, processed, and distributed. Right now, it all goes to the same place.

It's a backdoor tactic to stifle technological development and penalize farmers currently using it.

"organic" and "GMO" are both BS arbitrary definitions, but the former is designed to protect a market to reward more expensive processing, and the latter is designed to stigmatize the alternative "mainstream" market and force it either to adopt more expensive practices (GMO and non-GMO) processing or cease further technological development, all based on scam scare tactics to make you pay 4x more for a potato.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 12:19:51 PM EDT
[#24]
studies also say covid vaccine is safe.
point is, do what YOU feel is right.
stop worrying about what others think. feel better eating organic? do it.
feel better eating gmo? do it.
just stfu about it already
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 12:50:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By webman:

I believe she is actually anti-vax (in the truest sense) - at least publicly.  Considering she's a lawyer with the last name Baden-Mayer, it is hard to say what her real angle is, though.

Considering he criticized congress for pushing mandatory GMO labeling, I'd say no...
View Quote


Fair enough. But why bring up a point about poor parents’ feelz.

Because if peoples’ feelz is a point in favor of this thing, why isn’t it a point in favor of all the things?

That’s what I mean about double standards. Keep your intellectual argument pure.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 12:57:11 PM EDT
[#26]
The non-GMO growers want the labels so they can charge more. They are the ones lobbying the Govt. The Govt actually doesn't give a hoot. They still tax it.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 12:58:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sr9tc:
studies also say covid vaccine is safe.
point is, do what YOU feel is right.
stop worrying about what others think. feel better eating organic? do it.
feel better eating gmo? do it.
just stfu about it already
View Quote


Voluntary labeling as a sort of "brand" to differentiate yourself on the market is one thing. Forcing everyone else to adopt the mark of Cain or Scarlett letter who doesn't kowtow to the "Organic" sector and its propaganda is a completely other thing.

Nobody is stopping anyone from voluntarily labeling products with "does not contain GMO." Of course, this is usually only possible when it's a product that does not contain ingredients where there is a GMO product on the market or unless it's already "organic."

And, make no mistake, this isn't about consumer choice. It's about perpetuating and capitalizing on the idea that "the government wouldn't make them put that in there if it wasn't an issue." It's about manipulating choice. And it's as guaranteed to drive up prices as raising minimum wage. But, the warnings, like always, will be ignored.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:06:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Requiring GMO labeling requires GMO separation.

No community that is currently "GMO free" and can thus command a premium (because the public has already been propagandized against GMO) can afford to let any one farmer try out (or continue to use) any new tech that would suddenly "contaminate" the community. The alternative would have to be massive new investment in how crops are harvested, processed, and distributed. Right now, it all goes to the same place.

It's a backdoor tactic to stifle technological development and penalize farmers currently using it.

"organic" and "GMO" are both BS arbitrary definitions, but the former is designed to protect a market to reward more expensive processing, and the latter is designed to stigmatize the alternative "mainstream" market and force it either to adopt more expensive practices (GMO and non-GMO) processing or cease further technological development, all based on scam scare tactics to make you pay 4x more for a potato.
View Quote


If everything is GMO because of lack of processing separation, and everything is therefore labeled GMO, then I’m not seeing the problem. The consumer can either buy or not.

If some enterprising people want to build a pure supply chain to meet a nonGMO consumer demand, let them.

I suspect what we both fear is that consumer demand becomes a Nader-esque consumer advocacy which would then pressure the .gov to force the private sector through regulation or force the tax-payer to pay for development of pure supply chains.

But I think the line to be drawn is at labeling. The consumer has a right to be informed about what’s available. The consumer doesn’t have a right to have whatever whim crosses their mind made available to them. So labeling doesn’t necessarily require independent supply lines. Just draw the line at labeling.

You make a fair point about definitions. But at the same time, there’s never a cure for low-information consumers. We still let them vote for people who make policy. If someone wants to buy non-GMO or organic because of what they think it means rather than what it actually means in terms of labeling regulations, so be it. I’m all about people educating themselves. But I’m not about denying all people access to information because low information people will act without doing their due diligence.

I don’t like governments trying to hide information from people. I don’t like merchants trying to hide information from people.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:14:50 PM EDT
[#29]
Disease and bug-resistant vegetables are pretty cool, so are pesticides and herbicides. Chemical fertilizers work demonstrably better than organic. Poultry and livestock that receive antibiotics tend to be sick less often and not die as much.

There’s nothing “wrong” with organic foods but you’re just paying more for lower quality food overall.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:19:06 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


And, it’s even gluten free!
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:24:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JamesTheScot] [#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HammerHammer:
Disease and bug-resistant vegetables are pretty cool, so are pesticides and herbicides. Chemical fertilizers work demonstrably better than organic. Poultry and livestock that receive antibiotics tend to be sick less often and not die as much.

There’s nothing “wrong” with organic foods but you’re just paying more for lower quality food overall.
View Quote


Meh, the things you are describing aren’t necessarily benefits that inure to the consumer other than in price.

A consumer sitting at the table over a steak from a cow that was given antibiotics or not isn’t likely to make any meaningful difference in terms of what most people would assume you mean by “quality”. The eating experience on the fork isn’t going to be discernible. The non-organic proponent is going to point to the price tag and the organic proponent is going to point to the long-term (alleged) health benefits.

But that just highlights the problems in this arena. There is a lot of emotional thinking which occurs.

People who think the people have a right to know about everything the .gov is doing and then vote will suddenly flip and think people can’t be trusted to use intelligently use food label information about the product they are selling them.

If I’m going to err, I’ll always err on the side of disclosure rather than secrets.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:25:00 PM EDT
[#32]
I don't believe anything in that article. No it won't cost that much to do, they already have all the info on how their own products are made. Stick it in tiny print under the ingredients. And no poor people don't give a shit about organic. Most of them don't even shop the peripheries, they buy pasta and don't read health labels.

And this is very bad for the organic movement since most organic is BS to begin with. You might find a wedge where only non-organic and truly organic eggs are the only thing in stock. You will see $2 eggs and $12 eggs only so no more half way organic stuff for $5. 'Organic' producers are perfectly happy with the current murkiness of what to label organic.

Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:26:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Yea, people think they know more than they do.  Try to play god and fuck shit up.  I'm sorry but no.  I'm glad the labels are there.  I'd like to know if someone was fucking around.  Seen enough shit be safe until it was found to have never been safe.  

I think letting people decide for themselves what they eat is the only moral option.  Bitching about labels with information is fucking retarded.

I normally like his work and appreciate what he does but I disagree on this one.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:27:16 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


If everything is GMO because of lack of processing separation, and everything is therefore labeled GMO, then I’m not seeing the problem. The consumer can either buy or not.

If some enterprising people want to build a pure supply chain to meet a nonGMO consumer demand, let them.

I suspect what we both fear is that consumer demand becomes a Nader-esque consumer advocacy which would then pressure the .gov to force the private sector through regulation or force the tax-payer to pay for development of pure supply chains.

But I think the line to be drawn is at labeling. The consumer has a right to be informed about what’s available. The consumer doesn’t have a right to have whatever whim crosses their mind made available to them. So labeling doesn’t necessarily require independent supply lines. Just draw the line at labeling.

You make a fair point about definitions. But at the same time, there’s never a cure for low-information consumers. We still let them vote for people who make policy. If someone wants to buy non-GMO or organic because of what they think it means rather than what it actually means in terms of labeling regulations, so be it. I’m all about people educating themselves. But I’m not about denying all people access to information because low information people will act without doing their due diligence.

I don’t like governments trying to hide information from people. I don’t like merchants trying to hide information from people.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Requiring GMO labeling requires GMO separation.

No community that is currently "GMO free" and can thus command a premium (because the public has already been propagandized against GMO) can afford to let any one farmer try out (or continue to use) any new tech that would suddenly "contaminate" the community. The alternative would have to be massive new investment in how crops are harvested, processed, and distributed. Right now, it all goes to the same place.

It's a backdoor tactic to stifle technological development and penalize farmers currently using it.

"organic" and "GMO" are both BS arbitrary definitions, but the former is designed to protect a market to reward more expensive processing, and the latter is designed to stigmatize the alternative "mainstream" market and force it either to adopt more expensive practices (GMO and non-GMO) processing or cease further technological development, all based on scam scare tactics to make you pay 4x more for a potato.


If everything is GMO because of lack of processing separation, and everything is therefore labeled GMO, then I’m not seeing the problem. The consumer can either buy or not.

If some enterprising people want to build a pure supply chain to meet a nonGMO consumer demand, let them.

I suspect what we both fear is that consumer demand becomes a Nader-esque consumer advocacy which would then pressure the .gov to force the private sector through regulation or force the tax-payer to pay for development of pure supply chains.

But I think the line to be drawn is at labeling. The consumer has a right to be informed about what’s available. The consumer doesn’t have a right to have whatever whim crosses their mind made available to them. So labeling doesn’t necessarily require independent supply lines. Just draw the line at labeling.

You make a fair point about definitions. But at the same time, there’s never a cure for low-information consumers. We still let them vote for people who make policy. If someone wants to buy non-GMO or organic because of what they think it means rather than what it actually means in terms of labeling regulations, so be it. I’m all about people educating themselves. But I’m not about denying all people access to information because low information people will act without doing their due diligence.

I don’t like governments trying to hide information from people. I don’t like merchants trying to hide information from people.


These are definitions deliberately designed to misinform consumers and demonize modern agriculture (while compelling/disincentivizing advancement). The government shouldn't be playing that game.

If some other advocacy group decided to demonize another practice, like the use of, say a certain brand of tractor, they could similarly make absurd cases and demand labeling to validate no such tractors were used.

Would you be OK with that?

Let's say John Deere is accused of supporting child labor because some advocacy group claims they source parts from some sweatshop in Indonesia.

Now the government mandates "this product contributes to child labor" on all packaging unless the distributors develop a process to validate no John Deere products are used in the supply chain.

Mind you, the definition and claim is coming from an advocacy group, and there is no actual evidence to support this.

This is the game they are playing.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:34:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


Meh, the things you are describing aren’t necessarily benefits that inure to the consumer other than in price.

A consumer sitting at the table over a steak from a cow that was given antibiotics or not isn’t likely to make any meaningful difference in terms of what most people would assume you mean by “quality”. The eating experience on the fork isn’t going to be discernible. The non-organic proponent is going to point to the price tag and the organic proponent is going to point to the long-term (alleged) health benefits.

But that just highlights the problems in this arena. There is a lot of emotional thinking which occurs.

People who think the people have a right to know about everything the .gov is doing and then vote will suddenly flip and think people can’t be trusted to use intelligently use food label information about the product they are selling them.

If I’m going to err, I’ll always err on the side of disclosure rather than secrets.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By HammerHammer:
Disease and bug-resistant vegetables are pretty cool, so are pesticides and herbicides. Chemical fertilizers work demonstrably better than organic. Poultry and livestock that receive antibiotics tend to be sick less often and not die as much.

There’s nothing “wrong” with organic foods but you’re just paying more for lower quality food overall.


Meh, the things you are describing aren’t necessarily benefits that inure to the consumer other than in price.

A consumer sitting at the table over a steak from a cow that was given antibiotics or not isn’t likely to make any meaningful difference in terms of what most people would assume you mean by “quality”. The eating experience on the fork isn’t going to be discernible. The non-organic proponent is going to point to the price tag and the organic proponent is going to point to the long-term (alleged) health benefits.

But that just highlights the problems in this arena. There is a lot of emotional thinking which occurs.

People who think the people have a right to know about everything the .gov is doing and then vote will suddenly flip and think people can’t be trusted to use intelligently use food label information about the product they are selling them.

If I’m going to err, I’ll always err on the side of disclosure rather than secrets.


Where does it end?

This product may have been processed using machinery exposed to nuts.

This product may have been produces using no-till technology involving intensive pesticide use.

This produce may have been produced using water from non-replenishing resources.

This product may have been produced using underpaid illegal labor.

This product may been produced using soil known to the state of california to contain worms.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:35:56 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
These are definitions deliberately designed to misinform consumers and demonize modern agriculture (while compelling/disincentivizing advancement). The government shouldn't be playing that game.

If some other advocacy group decided to demonize another practice, like the use of, say a certain brand of tractor, they could similarly make absurd cases and demand labeling to validate no such tractors were used.

Would you be OK with that?

Let's say John Deere is accused of supporting child labor because some advocacy group claims they source parts from some sweatshop in Indonesia.

Now the government mandates "this product contributes to child labor" on all packaging unless the distributors develop a process to validate no John Deere products are used in the supply chain.

Mind you, the definition and claim is coming from an advocacy group, and there is no actual evidence to support this.

This is the game they are playing.
View Quote


1. I don’t buy that everything with which I disagree is deliberately evil. So I don’t accept automatically any conclusion that the definitions are “deliberately designed to misinform”. You actually have proof of that claim?

2. But even if they were. So what? What are you going to do about it? You think you can stop that label train when you couldn’t stop the definition train?

I don’t disagree with you over the issues with the definitions. But that’s solved by either fixing the definitions or getting people educated about what the definitions actually mean.

Claiming that the consumer is too stupid to be trusted with information and thus entitled to be kept in the dark is somewhere I just can’t go. That’s where Twitter and Facebook go too far.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:40:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


Jeez! That’s my eff’ing point.

You guys are using different definitions of GMO.

Quite looking for fight where there isn’t one, FFS.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

Name one commercial GMO wheat seed on the market. One.

Last time we have a thread on this, I waster far too much time looking this up. There were zero.

Zero.

Modern wheat the result of years of selective breeding, the old fashioned way.



Jeez! That’s my eff’ing point.

You guys are using different definitions of GMO.

Quite looking for fight where there isn’t one, FFS.


That’s the GD way.

In general, some people can eat some food that others can’t, often for genetic reasons. Truth in labeling and stopping forcing HFCS and soy into everything and letting would fix a lot of problems.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:42:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


1. I don’t buy that everything with which I disagree is deliberately evil. So I don’t accept automatically any conclusion that the definitions are “deliberately designed to misinform”. You actually have proof of that claim?

2. But even if they were. So what? What are you going to do about it? You think you can stop that label train when you couldn’t stop the definition train?

I don’t disagree with you over the issues with the definitions. But that’s solved by either fixing the definitions or getting people educated about what the definitions actually mean.

Claiming that the consumer is too stupid to be trusted with information and thus entitled to be kept in the dark is somewhere I just can’t go. That’s where Twitter and Facebook go too far.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
These are definitions deliberately designed to misinform consumers and demonize modern agriculture (while compelling/disincentivizing advancement). The government shouldn't be playing that game.

If some other advocacy group decided to demonize another practice, like the use of, say a certain brand of tractor, they could similarly make absurd cases and demand labeling to validate no such tractors were used.

Would you be OK with that?

Let's say John Deere is accused of supporting child labor because some advocacy group claims they source parts from some sweatshop in Indonesia.

Now the government mandates "this product contributes to child labor" on all packaging unless the distributors develop a process to validate no John Deere products are used in the supply chain.

Mind you, the definition and claim is coming from an advocacy group, and there is no actual evidence to support this.

This is the game they are playing.


1. I don’t buy that everything with which I disagree is deliberately evil. So I don’t accept automatically any conclusion that the definitions are “deliberately designed to misinform”. You actually have proof of that claim?

2. But even if they were. So what? What are you going to do about it? You think you can stop that label train when you couldn’t stop the definition train?

I don’t disagree with you over the issues with the definitions. But that’s solved by either fixing the definitions or getting people educated about what the definitions actually mean.

Claiming that the consumer is too stupid to be trusted with information and thus entitled to be kept in the dark is somewhere I just can’t go. That’s where Twitter and Facebook go too far.


Nobody is being kept in the dark. Assume any product may contain any of all sorts of technology applied to it unless it specifically states otherwise. Understand that such technologies are regulated and can't be used without approval. Either accept that or buy niche products like "organic" that have very narrow and strict supply chain rules.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:42:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Where does it end?

This product may have been processed using machinery exposed to nuts.

This product may have been produces using no-till technology involving intensive pesticide use.

This produce may have been produced using water from non-replenishing resources.

This product may have been produced using underpaid illegal labor.

This product may been produced using soil known to the state of california to contain worms.
View Quote


Health and safety of the consumer related to ingesting/exposing their body to the product.

Ignoring the ridiculous one about worms, I just knocked out 50% of your slippery slope argument. If we include the worms, I’d have to hear the claim about how it affects health and safety of the person eating/using whatever it is.

Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:44:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HammerHammer:
Disease and bug-resistant vegetables are pretty cool, so are pesticides and herbicides. Chemical fertilizers work demonstrably better than organic. Poultry and livestock that receive antibiotics tend to be sick less often and not die as much.

There’s nothing “wrong” with organic foods but you’re just paying more for lower quality food overall.
View Quote


Disease and bug resistant vegetables are that way because they contain natural pesticides.  Those natural pesticides cause problems with some, but not all people.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:47:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


Health and safety of the consumer related to ingesting/exposing their body to the product.

Ignoring the ridiculous one about worms, I just knocked out 50% of your slippery slope argument. If we include the worms, I’d have to hear the claim about how it affects health and safety of the person eating/using whatever it is.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Where does it end?

This product may have been processed using machinery exposed to nuts.

This product may have been produces using no-till technology involving intensive pesticide use.

This produce may have been produced using water from non-replenishing resources.

This product may have been produced using underpaid illegal labor.

This product may been produced using soil known to the state of california to contain worms.


Health and safety of the consumer related to ingesting/exposing their body to the product.

Ignoring the ridiculous one about worms, I just knocked out 50% of your slippery slope argument. If we include the worms, I’d have to hear the claim about how it affects health and safety of the person eating/using whatever it is.



It's not truth in labeling when it's just not trying to prove a negative. There are all sorts of ways to produce corn, for example. It's a dynamic and competitive environment, but, in the end all sorts of corn gets combined into massive stocks that get bought by companies to sell. All corn would have to have all of those labels unless massive investment in new and distinct supply chains is done. That's where costs are coming.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:47:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT:
That’s the GD way.

In general, some people can eat some food that others can’t, often for genetic reasons. Truth in labeling and stopping forcing HFCS and soy into everything and letting would fix a lot of problems.
View Quote


I’d draw the line at labeling.

Real sugar has made a comeback simply over the market demand for non-HFCS products.

For the .gov to actually ban something (ie. “stop forcing it into things”), there should be overwhelming proof of the generalized risk of harm.

Peanuts kill people. But I’m good with labeling products rather than a blanket ban on peanuts.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 1:55:47 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:


I’d draw the line at labeling.

Real sugar has made a comeback simply over the market demand for non-HFCS products.

For the .gov to actually ban something (ie. “stop forcing it into things”), there should be overwhelming proof of the generalized risk of harm.

Peanuts kill people. But I’m good with labeling products rather than a blanket ban on peanuts.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesTheScot:
Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT:
That’s the GD way.

In general, some people can eat some food that others can’t, often for genetic reasons. Truth in labeling and stopping forcing HFCS and soy into everything and letting would fix a lot of problems.


I’d draw the line at labeling.

Real sugar has made a comeback simply over the market demand for non-HFCS products.

For the .gov to actually ban something (ie. “stop forcing it into things”), there should be overwhelming proof of the generalized risk of harm.

Peanuts kill people. But I’m good with labeling products rather than a blanket ban on peanuts.


There is legitimate reason to be concerned about ingredients.

This is about expecting a peanut seller to have a system to validate the lack of any given method or technology that any random advocacy group claims might be bad.

To pretend this isn't an attempt to use the weight of government regulation to demonize and reduce the use of a technology otherwise accepted by regulators as safe is just ignorant.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 2:01:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Nobody is being kept in the dark. Assume any product may contain any of all sorts of technology applied to it unless it specifically states otherwise. Understand that such technologies are regulated and can't be used without approval. Either accept that or buy niche products like "organic" that have very narrow and strict supply chain rules.
View Quote


Sure they are. Producers are afraid they’re losing the battle on GMO and they want to hide in the “may or may not” weeds on it.

It’s the fall back position in the marketplace of “we’re losing the PR war on whether GMO is bad or not”.

They don’t realize that when every option on the shelf says “contains GMO”, the consumer gets desensitized to it or gets curious about what it means.

Either way, that probably ends up in a win for GMO producers. Because anyone who gets desensitized to it stops caring and anyone who gets curious enough to hit up google is going to quickly run into the debate over definitions and benefits ... just like they do with organic.

People who selectively buy organic to the extent of doing without a product when the shelf is empty of the organic option may be fools, but they almost universally have researched the issue. They just decided with conviction which horse to bet their health on.  You can’t stop that.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 2:03:00 PM EDT
[#45]
3.5 billion additional?  Who cares?

3.5 billion compared to what?  With a stroke of a pen we can “give” 33 billion to Ukraine.  3.5 billion doesn’t even factor.
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 2:07:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Name one commercial GMO wheat seed on the market. One.

Last time we have a thread on this, I waster far too much time looking this up. There were zero.

Zero.

Modern wheat the result of years of selective breeding, the old fashioned way.

View Quote


Bioceres HB4 will be the first, and Monsanto MON718000 is in the works.  You’re not wrong but it’s coming
Link Posted: 5/14/2022 2:16:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hendrkj:


Bioceres HB4 will be the first, and Monsanto MON718000 is in the works.  You’re not wrong but it’s coming
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hendrkj:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Name one commercial GMO wheat seed on the market. One.

Last time we have a thread on this, I waster far too much time looking this up. There were zero.

Zero.

Modern wheat the result of years of selective breeding, the old fashioned way.



Bioceres HB4 will be the first, and Monsanto MON718000 is in the works.  You’re not wrong but it’s coming


It won't ever come if these labeling laws get passed. No local coop will allow that stigma risk. You had better be your own wholly autonomous wheat producer.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top