Looks like its not going to pass in Colorado and Oregon.
Finally Science and Evidence prevails!
Yeah cuz I reAlly want to ingest a plant genetically modified which causes bugs that eat it for their stomaches to explode. FDA is always legit. How about just letting humans eat 100 percent natural plants? Is that so hard? Hey, they even say BPA is safe, so it must be right?
Looks like its not going to pass in Colorado and Oregon.
Finally Science and Evidence prevails!
Looks like its not going to pass in Colorado and Oregon.
Finally Science and Evidence prevails!
Strange that the two states that voted to legalize marijuana voted this down. Don't they want GMO free weed to smoke?
If it is so good, why not put it in the label?
Because no fucker would buy it.
That's the bottom line.
Good or bad, educated or not. Many people don't want to put this stuff in their bodies.
In the land of the free, aren't you supposed to have freedom of choice?
What is so wrong with allowing people to choose whether they eat this stuff or not? As you say - if it's so great - people should be scrambling to buy the stuff.
What is so wrong with allowing people to choose whether they eat this stuff or not? As you say - if it's so great - people should be scrambling to buy the stuff.
??? There are plenty of places you can go to buy food that has no GMO. Nobody is forcing people to eat it unawares.
So if you are wealthy, you can avoid GM and if you are not, you cannot.
GMO's will kill you.There’s no scientific evidence that GMOs pose health risks. Zero.
GMO's will kill you.And while we are at it: a highly touted 2012 study suggesting that GMO corn caused tumors in rats was later retracted.
So your choice is to eat expensive organic produce from specialist stores and have no choice elsewhere?Only an uneducated moron would purposely avoid GM. May as well start praying to Jeebus as well.
So if you are wealthy, you can avoid GM and if you are not, you cannot.
(http://nutritionfruition.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/salad-dressing.jpg)
And while we are at it: a highly touted 2012 study suggesting that GMO corn caused tumors in rats was later retracted.There still the question of the economic motivations of the companies developing these strains.
http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking-gm-maize-to-rat-tumours-is-retracted-1.14268
Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted
There still the question of the economic motivations of the companies developing these strains.Which is why they should be respected. If I put millions of dollars toward developing an apple, as Universities do, they should have the rights to the profits and the patent which is the seed.
I don't care about health, but patents are no laughing matter.
Which is why they should be respected. If I put millions of dollars toward developing an apple, as Universities do, they should have the rights to the profits and the patent which is the seed.They'res a degree to which that can be trusted. Corporations especially ones with massive RND budgets have a vested interest in manipulating the markets.
California had this on the ballot last election and it got shot down. What bothers me is the measure to ensure Doctors are drug tested got voted down. What the fuck! Don't people want sober doctors?
I believe they shot this down because they would probably lose 1/4 of the doctors in the State. Or any State who had this. So many Doctors and nurses are using assorted drugs...Really because the cost of labeling would be shift to the consumers.
I believe they shot this down because they would probably lose 1/4 of the doctors in the State. Or any State who had this. So many Doctors and nurses are using assorted drugs...
It wasn't just that, it had like three parts and that was just one part. One of the other parts was boosting the max malpractice award from like 250k to 1.1million.Now that I would support. Doctors are the second leading cause of death, (could be the first in some studies) due to misdiagnosis, wrong medication, wrong surgery, wrong care provided. 250,000 is not enough in my opinion when it comes to malpractice.
Looks like its not going to pass in Colorado and Oregon.
Finally Science and Evidence prevails!
Why is the restriction of information a good thing? Nobody's stopping people who choose to eat it...it's people who don't want to eat who lose. Why should GMO products not be forced to compete in the market place?Its pointless information. Companies can choose to label them if the want to or not. Why should they be forced especially when there is zero scientific evidence prompting the necessity to do so? Why not require other harmless labels then such as food coloring free or carrot juice free? See how stupid all of it is?
Its pointless information. Companies can choose to label them if the want to or not. Why should they be forced especially when there is zero scientific evidence prompting the necessity to do so? Why not require other harmless labels then such as food coloring free or carrot juice free? See how stupid all of it is?
Labeling something implies that if its labeled, it must be bad.
There’s no scientific evidence that GMOs pose health risks. Zero.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked (http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked)
and 20 years later people will drop down dead like flies..From what and how?
From what and how?
probably AIDS due to continued phaggotry ... nothing to do with GMOROFLMAO YES!
Its pointless information. Companies can choose to label them if the want to or not. Why should they be forced especially when there is zero scientific evidence prompting the necessity to do so? Why not require other harmless labels then such as food coloring free or carrot juice free? See how stupid all of it is?
Labeling something implies that if its labeled, it must be bad.
Looks like its not going to pass in Colorado and Oregon.
Finally Science and Evidence prevails!
It's not pointless information. It's information that large numbers of people want to have...and obviously food companies are afraid to put out. Labels contain all sorts of information about what's in the product because society has decided that information is pertinent to people's choice of products and they've crafted laws that require companies to disclose that information Is that "bad"? If it is, tough shit, that's the rules of the market place.1. It is pointless because there is no point to label it. There is zero evidence of any danger and it says absolutely nothing about the product.
Whether people's fears of GMO seems moronic to you is irrelevant. Once you decide you know what's in the best interest of other people the next step is to use force to exert your authority and those people's freedom's are diminished. Intelligent people should be kicking down the walls of the prisons people are in...not bullying them in.
Monsanto lobbyists and propagandists win again.The only propaganda is from complete morons like you who argue not based in evidence or scientific fact, but fear, myth and bullshit. Looks like the propagandists lost actually.
Really because the cost of labeling would be shift to the consumers.
Cost of labelling?Those are ingredients. A GMO is not an ingredient. I support food labels that disclose ingredients. I fail to see the analogy here.
Foods are already labelled. We need labelling for colors, preservatives - are you against those too?
There’s no scientific evidence that GMOs pose health risks. Zero.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked (http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked)
Those are ingredients. A GMO is not an ingredient. I support food labels that disclose ingredients. I fail to see the analogy here.
Cost of labelling?Plenty of studies out there that calculate the cost:
Foods are already labelled. We need labelling for colors, preservatives - are you against those too?
he means, what does it matter? Adding a line of text to a label doesnt cost anything.Not true at all. Its a lot more involved than that.
Plenty of studies out there that calculate the cost:
http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf
That midpoint annual estimate is $800 for a family of four, or $ 3.9 billion statewide.
Labeling though has real costs attributable to
more expensive ingredients and the process of maintaining
product identity and the labeling
process itself, among others.
and
will be paid for largely by
food consumers in the mandatory labeling states.
Adonis u wastin time my boy we waste time because we lack ability to break from natures ways final warning“...I give you the mausoleum of all hope and desire...I give it to you not that you may remember time, but that you might forget it now and then for a moment and not spend all of your breath trying to conquer it. Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought. The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.”
That is a ridiculous study.There are more studies than that and the cost is not debatable. It WILL cost consumers more regardless of consumer behavior.
The costs he's coming up with have nothing to do with labelling but with the companies NOT using GM Ingredients and the supply chain having to provide alternative products.
This is based on the presumption that people would not want to eat the stuff. So you have a CHEAPER product (because GM foods are cheaper to produce and you'd presume some of the cost saving is passed on) yet consumers would ignore the price advantage and go for a more expensive non-GM product.
Whether that is the case, remains to be seen but the bottom line is it's only going to push up prices IF people decide not to eat it.
Why are they not confident in their produce?
The only propaganda is from complete morons like you who argue not based in evidence or scientific fact, but fear, myth and bullshit. Looks like the propagandists lost actually.
There are more studies than that and the cost is not debatable. It WILL cost consumers more regardless of consumer behavior.
Where is your study that shows otherwise and more importantly, where are your studies that show GMO is harmful and that GMO labeling is beneficial?
The costs are absolutely debatable. You show a paper by an economist and confuse that with fact?I do know. I do not have to use opinion genius, we only have to look at facts and the OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. You are the one using opinions and bullshit to cloud your judgement, not I.
Basically, the increases in costs come from the presumption that in a free market with open information, people would generally choose not to eat the food. That is being extrapolated to imply additional cost. Those extrapolations are not very solid in my opinion.
The people behind GM have decided that they cannot compete openly and they have funded studies to make people fear labelling. These studies are the result of that.
As for whether GM is harmful or not, I have no opinion either way. It is an emotive issue. You don't KNOW if they are harmful or not. You have an opinion based on what you choose to read. It's like new drugs, they seem to be OK and then later on they will be withdrawn because they cause harm. Look at statins.
I believe the only way we will truly know if they are harmful or not will be over the years of human consumption.
I do know that personally, I'd like to opt out of the trial.
I am confused on why results like this get attributed to "Monsanto >:("
Does Monsanto employ a majority of the voting population? Are they secretly paying people to vote no to labeling?
Or maybe the majority (correctly) thinks that this is an unnecessary waste of money.
To be honest, I'm surprised to read there are not health risks associated to eating plants whose pollen have insecticide properties.
Here are the choices of the consumer in this regard:
(1) Eat a GMO plant that has been modified to repel insects
(2) Eat a non-GMO plant covered in pesticides or alternatively in bug shit
Easy choice for me but maybe I am oversimplifying.
“...I give you the mausoleum of all hope and desire...I give it to you not that you may remember time, but that you might forget it now and then for a moment and not spend all of your breath trying to conquer it. Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought. The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.”thats retarded lots of things to learn and lots of time wasted on bs posts take a break from posting learn electricity
I do know. I do not have to use opinion genius, we only have to look at facts and the OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. You are the one using opinions and bullshit to cloud your judgement, not I.
(http://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/nas.png)
Here are the choices of the consumer in this regard:
(1) Eat a GMO plant that has been modified to repel insects
(2) Eat a non-GMO plant covered in pesticides or alternatively in bug shit
Easy choice for me but maybe I am oversimplifying.
No - you have opinion only.(http://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/aaas3.png?w=627)
Would you give your pregnant wife Thalidamyde?
Would you take statins?
These were also found to be safe.
And while we are at it: a highly touted 2012 study suggesting that GMO corn caused tumors in rats was later retracted.
http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking-gm-maize-to-rat-tumours-is-retracted-1.14268
Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted
(http://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/sot.png?w=627)
(http://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/international.png)
(http://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/fas.png?w=627)
(http://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/ugash.png?w=627)
(http://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/icsu.png?w=627)
(http://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/isf1.png?w=627)
Confirmation bias.You are ridiculous.
How's that corn on the cob taste bro?
(http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/two-heads.jpg)
I like my corn with agent orange on the side
(http://images.amcnetworks.com/blogs.amctv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/two-heads-transplants.jpg)
Strange that the two states that voted to legalize marijuana voted this down.
1. It is pointless because there is no point to label it. There is zero evidence of any danger and it says absolutely nothing about the product.
2. What on our current labels is unnecessary but required? I see nothing on the current label that supports your claim.
3. You are trying to use force by law to make companies put meaningless and unfounded and pointless information on products that will only cost consumers more, regardless of GMOs or not and for what a notion not based on any science or evidence. May as well require food labels to state they don`t contain any Jesus in them.
It's not meaningless and pointless to a large number of people. While a can of corn won't "contain Jesus" in it...it might contain GMO ingredients. So it is accurate to compel companies to label those ingredients. It's no different then companies having to label food products if they contain soy, nuts or meat treated with antibiotics. There are people who choose not to eat those products. Labeling them provides people the ability to know that they contain or don't contain those items.That is some backwards logic you got there.
You're confusing the levels. You obviously believe there's no harmful effects from eating GMO products. While you may be right you're limiting other's ability to not choose those products. GMO products should be subject to the same market forces as any other product. If those producers are concerned about how GMO products are received in the market then its on them to campaign and advertise the safety of their product. If they are unable to convince enough people to stay profitable as a business then GMO products get consigned to the dustbin of history along with many other 'well intentioned' but unsellable items.
What you're advocating is social engineering and the use of government force to compel others. Where an "elite" group of scientists or intellectuals dictate to society what the "lesser" can choose to know. It sounds like a great theory as long as your aligned with those 'elites'. Eventually, all power corrupts and you could find yourself on the receiving end of information starvation. I imagine you'd be advocating a different perspective then...
Maximum freedom of information promotes maximum freedom of choice. This is the clear answer for people who love liberty.
We need Dark Matter labels on our food and how many atoms are in each candy bar. You might not thing those things are harmful, but we have a right to know.
Soccer moms everywhere will blog about it soon enough.I think we should replace Congress with Soccer Moms. They always know best.