At least Voters got one thing right- NO to GMO labeling.

[pedro01]

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.

That is a ridiculous study.

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 True Adonis]

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.”

[The True Adonis]

That is a ridiculous study.

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?

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?

[Mr.1derful]

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.

FDA is filled with Monsanto personnel ready willing and able to rubber stamp Mansanto products without any testing.  Fact.  What does Monsanto and their affiliates have to fear in having to label their products accordingly?  If it's safe, what's to fear?  Lost revenue as the truth of their Frankenstein products comes to light.    The horrific impact on the bee population should be proof enough of what damage these products do.  Now be a good little sheep and eat some GMO food.

[pedro01]

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?

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.

[The True Adonis]

[The True Adonis]

The costs are absolutely debatable. You show a paper by an economist and confuse that with fact?

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 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.

[el numero uno]

I had no idea but it seems like GM crops have been cultivated in the US for almost 20 years now. Just to let you know, most south-america countris are GMO free.

Theorically, they are a potential threat to the enviroment, specially plants with resistance to herbicides. But if so many years have passed without GM crops causing a huge impact on the ecosystem, then I guess they're not as bad as one would think.

However, I have no idea how bad they can be for us after 30-40 years of eating then, and even if it is safe to eat a GM corn or soybean, that doesn't mean any other GM is healthy, genetic engineering doesn't work that way.

To be honest, I'm surprised to read there are not health risks associated to eating plants whose pollen have insecticide properties.

[The True Adonis]

[Hulkotron]

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.

[visualizeperfection]

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.

TEAM MONSANTO - ALL DRUGS

[Hulkotron]

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.

[The True Adonis]

[The True Adonis]

[el numero uno]

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.

GM maize's pollen has genes from a bacteria which is lethal to some insect larvae. I'm surprised to know the insecticides properties are not transmited to the corn you're eating. You know, pollen has to reach the stigma of the flowers, so the seeds (what you're eating) can be formed.

Corncobs are protected by husks, if that's the correct term. So pesticides can't reach that area so easily.

[Marty Champions]

“...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

[pedro01]

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.

No - you have opinion only.

Would you give your pregnant wife Thalidamyde?

Would you take statins?

These were also found to be safe.

[pedro01]

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.

GMO plants are modified to not be killed by certain pesticides. Like the "round up ready" crops.

They are still covered in pesticides.

[The True Adonis]

No - you have opinion only.

Would you give your pregnant wife Thalidamyde?

Would you take statins?

These were also found to be safe.

[Thong Maniac]

I love the "no govt intrusion on my life" conservative, who then agrees with any bullshit the FDa (a govt run organization) says or does. I see it all the time from my conservative family members who think organic is only for "libz" while they cite all sorts of articles from the FDA. Im like "wait, so you now want the govt to tell u what is and what isnt safe to eat"? Right...

[Disgusted]

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

Hahahahahahah of course it was.

[pedro01]

Confirmation bias.

[The True Adonis]

Confirmation bias.

You are ridiculous.

[visualizeperfection]

How's that corn on the cob taste bro?

someone say corn?

[visualizeperfection]

I like my corn with agent orange on the side 

looks more like agent black to me