General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGMO free sugar makes about as much sense as organic cigarettes imo.
Can anyone explain it to me?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)You can still tell your friends about how you won't eat GMO's.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)the preferred smoke of trust fund hipsters
http://natshermancigarettes.com/Cigarette101.cfm
REP
(21,691 posts)Too old to be a hipster; wrong type of family to have a trust fund.
American Spirit is another cigarette made without sugared tobacco; they're actually the hipster brand.
Blues Heron
(5,938 posts)use of pesticides.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch
http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)that it is true.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Which has been emasculated by Big Ag's legislative influence and their cynical use as marketing tools.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The "Organic sugar" push is mainly about reducing pesticide use.
It may not affect the refined end product much or at all, but it's an attempt to help the wider environment where the sugar is produced.
The "Non-GMO" label is a consumer statement against the genetic modification of sugar-beets.
The US sugar beet industry coordinated an industry-wide conversion to genetically modified sugar beets, thus eliminating a non-GMO alternative for food manufacturers and consumers. Meanwhile, production of GM sugar beet seed is likely to contaminate organic and conventional vegetable seed production in Oregons Willamette Valley.
Both labels serve as a marketing tool, of course, which IMO is totally legitimate. Like it or loathe it, consumers are making their voices heard about the manipulation of the American food supply by Big Ag.
In case anyone is wondering, that battle has been lost, the horse has left the barn - at least partially because of Citizens United.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Distinction without a difference. Sorry but that argument just doesn't fly.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)you are not interested in dialogue - nor the exchange of ideas - only your agenda.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Not honest, it seems to be a trait of the Big Agra shill.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Shilling for nothing is getting old!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)1) It is intellectually lazy.
2) It is dishonest, because you actually do not know if the name fits. You just are hoping it does.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And that's what GliderGuider offered. Oh, and, again. He was debunked.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Why is that I wonder? Maybe start your own thread if you have something to say? Just a suggestion.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch
http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630
And the truth is that non-GMO sugar appears to be worse for the environment.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch
http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch
http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And that's not even addressing the other environmental destruction associated with sugar cane.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Avoiding pesticide residue on fruits and veggies
Chensheng (Alex) Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), discusses the problem of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables in a new video on the website of Environmental Working Group (EWG), a leading environmental health research and advocacy organization. The video appears in conjunction with the release of EWGs Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce 2013.
In the video, Lu cites his 2008 study that monitored pesticide levels in children who normally ate non-organic fruits and vegetables but who were given only organic over a five-day period. During that five-day period, most of the pesticides [in the childrens urine] disappeared, Lu said. We believe the most vulnerable population would be small infants and children, because of their small body weight. Possible negative health effects from pesticides include impaired mental development or problems with motor skills.
Lu recommends that families seek information about which fruits and vegetables have the highest pesticide residue levelsEWGs Shoppers Guide lists a dirty dozen on its website, for exampleso they can decide when to buy organic instead of regular.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Anyone who wants farmers to go back to the more dangerous pesticides and herbicides and more frequent spraying of non-GMO sugar beets is not ethical, in my book.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)They just didn't test for those products in your long-debunked, and completely out-of-context link. And why would you promote the type of deforestation that would be needed to do that, on top of it?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Are you really going to pretend otherwise?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:57 AM - Edit history (2)
Say what?
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-pesticides/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron
http://www.beeculture.com/catch-the-buzz-organic-pesticides-still-kill-bees/
http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/06/17/save-the-bees-ban-these-two-toxic-pesticides-immediately/
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Not only do they allow the use of pesticides, they allow the use of synthetic pesticides. So not only is "organic" nothing more than a marketing term, it doesn't even mean organic.
§205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production
§205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)used in non-organic foods.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Some of the pesticides used by the organic industry are far more toxic to people and the environment than their synthetic counterparts.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But you certainly make a convincing argument to the contrary.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.htmlORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES
Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?
A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.
It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.
When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.
WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?
For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.
Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".
As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.
The hypocrisy is astounding, really. Anti-science advocates say that companies are trying to push untested synthetic pesticides on people... All the while they are pushing untested pesticides on people. More hypocrisy is that, while saying big ag is pushing carcinogens on people... it turns out that the 'organic' pesticides they pushed were carcinogenic too.
I'd have more respect for this group if they had the honesty to admit to their hypocrisy, but they don't.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)chemical. You need to work on your terminology if you are going to discuss science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)PS:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-pesticides/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)on so called organic food; that food seems to be pesticide free. Funny how that works.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And now she claims pesticides are not allowed on "organic" food.
I don't even know what to say to that.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)where convention food is not.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program
Where you got the idea that "convention food" isn't regulated is anyone's guess, but you might want to check your shorts.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are funny.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)
It also is not about pesticide use, it is about pesticide residues. Not the same thing.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)For all that round-up ready cane?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The source of the sugar is irrelevant. It's all the same stuff.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)market now contains genetically modified beet sugar.
i prefer organic non gmo cane sugar that has not been sprayed with pesticides and rat poison. you?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)It's impossible to know the source for any sucrose because it is all exactly the same stuff. Anyone that says otherwise doesn't know science or is a con-artist.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)from a diabetics urine or cane sugar because it is "all the same" molecule. suit yourself.
a molecule of sugar is a molecule of sugar - but it's source is important to me.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And that preference harms the earth and farmers.
That's not cool.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)According to two reports released this month by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), it is common to find glyphosate, better known as Roundup, in rain and rivers in the Mississippi River watershed.
Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we know very little about its long term effects to the environment, says Paul Capel, USGS chemist and an author on this study. This study is one of the first to document the consistent occurrence of this chemical in streams, rain and air throughout the growing season. This is crucial information for understanding where management efforts for this chemical would best be focused.
While communities that depend on the Mississippi River for drinking water treat and purify the water for human uses, nothing is done for the fish and wildlife that also depend on the River. The costs of cleaning up excessively polluted water are usually incurred by local communities and taxpayers.
Pesticides and fertilizers are commonly used by large-scale farms but thats no reason they should end up in the Mississippi River. Conservation programs in the Farm Bill pay farmers to do things like set up native barriers to streams that line their farms, preventing overflow into waterways.
http://1mississippi.org/roundup-found-in-mississippi-river/
"It is out there in significant levels. It is out there consistently," said Paul Capel, environmental chemist and head of the agricultural chemicals team at the U.S. Geological Survey Office, part of the U.S. Department of Interior.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Anything you put on a crop is going to find it's way into the watershed. This is also true of chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, ozone, boric acid, sulfates, carbonates, oxides, silicates of zinc, iron, copper sulfate, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, cobalt, manure ash, strychnine, lead salts, nicotine sulfate (from tobacco dust) and arsenic all of which are used by the organic industry.
Do you think this is a problem? I'm not really counting on an answer here since you never seem to provide any, but French organic farmers seem to think so since they have abandoned organic farming specifically due to the environmental concerns of organic practices.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And why do you want the, to be used again?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)growers who fancy themselves organic growers to sell their adulterated and contaminated products use pesticides - but they cannot put an "organic" label on their product if there are more than minute traces of pesticides.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Organic 101: ENSURING ORGANIC INTEGRITY THROUGH INSPECTIONS http://blogs.usda.gov/2014/02/26/organic-101-ensuring-organic-integrity-through-inspections/
When first arriving at an organic operation, the inspector is looking for things like buffer zones from neighboring farms to ensure that the organic integrity of crops is maintained. The inspector then visits the fields and asked questions about pest management, soil fertility, and other factors. They also look at storage and preparation areas to make sure everything meets the organic requirements.
One of the most important responsibilities of the inspector is to examine records that document farming practices. Specifically, the inspector will audit invoices, records of material applications, organic sales, harvest, and yield. The inspector can explain the organic regulations but is not allowed to provide advice on how to farm or how to overcome identified barriers to certification. This separation between the farmer and the certifier maintains the independent third party nature of the transaction.
During the visit, the inspector may also collect samples for residue testing. Certifying agents use test results to identify and address instances in which organic products may have unintentionally come in contact with prohibited substances and to detect and deter fraud.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Kinda funny how you claim pesticide residue isn't tested when it is, and then you claim organic farms are "government inspected" when they aren't.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)You know this is true because we have been there before. Your bullshit meter is definitely a projection!!
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration confirmed on Thursday that it would begin testing for residues of the controversial herbicide glyphosate on foods sold in the U.S. for the first time this year. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is widely sprayed on American farms, and is the most-used agricultural chemical in the world. It has been labeled probably carcinogenic to humans by the United Nations International Agency for Research on Cancer, though a European food safety agency has disputed those claims.
The FDA says IT DIDN'T TEST food for glyphosate in the past because the available methods would have been very cost- and labor-intensive to implement.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The reason the FDA doesn't test for glyphosate is because there has never been a need to test for glyphosate. The USDA certifies pesticides within allowable limits which aren't being exceeded. The only reason it's working on testing them is to disprove the nutbags who keep suggesting otherwise, kinda like the CDC appeased the anti-vax nutbags until everyone realized they were nuttier than squirrel shit.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)We have shown
that consumers who buy organic fruits and vegetables are exposed to just one-third
as many residues as theyd eat in conventionally-grown foods, and the residues
are usually lower as well," said Edward Groth III, Senior Scientist at
CU and one of the papers co-authors.
http://consumersunion.org/news/cu-research-team-shows-organic-foods-really-do-have-less-pesticides/
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19087390
"Our regulations do not address food safety or nutrition."
-- National Organic Program
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)There is a huge raspberry and vegetable farm in my area - they use zero pesticides - they send in the turkeys to eat the bugs.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)...or they are lying to you, or you just made this all up.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)and they are very regulated. The majority of organic pesticides are not synthetic. Most organic farmers that I know in my area try to use zero pesticides.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Along with alcohol, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, ozone, boric acid, sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, cobalt, manure ash, strychnine, lead salts, nicotine sulfate (from tobacco dust) and arsenic.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch
http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... don't buy any.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch
http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/sweet_irony_the_environmental_impacts_of_gmo_sugar_science_denial-172630
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Official GM crop cultivation bans:
Africa (2)
The picture on GM cultivation bans across Africa is not clear due to the current pressure being put on many African governments by the Biotech industry and the Gates Foundation to lift long-standing bans on the import of unmilled GMO seeds or unmilled GMO food aid, however two countries do still have full legal bans on GM crop cultivation:
Algeria (since 2000)
Madagascar (since 2002)
Asia (4)
Turkey,
Kyrgyzstan
Bhutan
Saudi Arabia
Americas (4)
Belize
Peru
Ecuador
Venezuela
Europe (28)
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
Germany
France
The Netherlands
Malta
Cyprus
Greece
Bulgaria
Russia
Serbia
Croatia
Italy
Denmark
Hungary
Moldova
Latvia
Lithuania
Austria
Poland
Slovenia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Luxembourg
Ukraine (although there is massive GM contamination in the country)
Norway
Switzerland
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Google BookmarkShare to Facebook32.8KShare to TwitterShare to PrintMore AddThis Share options1.5K
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Can you name the anti-GMO logical fallacy you just used?
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)It is not as simple as saying, "then don't buy any." They are attempting to interfere in the marketplace which could result in me paying more for something and I would not make that choice.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Due to price supports pushed by FL, LA and northern States I am not sure of(beets you know) we pay way more for sugar than we should and provide an incentive to continue degrading the S. Florida environment. Oh yeah, and making some super rich folks even richer.
Please push to help end sugar price support.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)So I get hit several ways when the market is interfered with this way.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But I think you are agreeing with me? You want to end price supports?
Because they have caused the devastation of the Florida Everglades. I can't speak to what sugar beets have done. But the few small farmers in Louisiana could grow other profitable crops.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Lots of people I know eat very little sugar and also eat organic.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... Into paying more money for food for no good reason. So what!
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)These chickens, although expensive, are the most delicious tasting chickens I've ever had in my life - very popular at the Santa Fe Farmer's market. I would prefer to pay more for a chicken who ate fresh chicory, millet, wheatgrass, etc. then one who lived in a crowded cage eating glyphosate GMO corn.
SAME WITH THE SUGAR BEETS
I would rather buy sugar from an organic farm than buy sugar where
Farm Workers Are Exposed to High Levels of Pesticides
A recent report from Farmworker Justice highlighted just how bad the pesticide exposure has become.2 Up to 20,000 farm workers are poisoned by pesticides each year, according to data from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
VALUE LIFE AND THE ENVIRONMENT
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)The FDA is going to be testing eggs soon . Eggs are supposed to be one of the foods with the highest levels of glyphosate along with wheat, corn and soy. The animals get the worst of the food supply and most eat GMO's big time. EVEN THE ORGANIC EGGS ARE CONTAMINATED WITH GLYPHOSATE because of the drift.
Milk, corn, eggs and soybeans are on the list of foods the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) intends to test for glyphosate residue. SOY AND CORN ARE THE MOST WIDELY USED IN ANIMAL FEED and are among the crops routinely sprayed with variants of Roundup, a herbicide developed by Monsanto in the 1970s. Glyphosate is now off-patent and widely used around the world, with Monsanto promoting Roundup Ready crops genetically modified for immunity to the chemical.
The agency is now considering assignments for Fiscal Year 2016 to measure glyphosate in soybeans, corn, milk, and eggs, among other potential foods, FDA spokeswoman Lauren Sucher told Civil Eats, an American food news publication.
https://www.rt.com/usa/332819-fda-test-glyphosate-monsanto/
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Get a clue.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)multivitamin that I take at 9000% the RDA level, so that I can levitate to work each morning.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You mean they grow those things in a lab?
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)And GMO is just a different kind of plant breeding but you won't get far with that one either. Choose your battles.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)All other forms of plant breeding rely on unpredictable random mutations to thousands of genes created in an artificial environment. One in particular relies on exposing seeds to ionizing radiation in order to literally create mutant seeds which are fully eligible for organic certification (nothing more natural than that, eh?).
Meanwhile GMO modifies only one gene at a time with fully predictable results.
To counter these realities, people bring up half fast points like playing god and that other forms of plant breeding are really "natural".
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Organic cigarettes would be additive free. The american spirit brand is one that claims not to include these additives.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)There's people that would pay a premium for it.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)Gluten free sugar is a eye roller. Gluten free water is a mouth dropper.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)corporate intellectual property dependent on corporate owned pesticides and fertilizers, etc.
Then the GMO cross pollinates with the non-GMO crop of the neighbouring farm and now the neighbouring farmer has a crop dependent on the corporate exclusively owned pesticides etc.
Monsanto has framed the debate on the cloudy issue of whether the GMO food is risky to eat when the replacement of natural crops with patented crops licensed and owned by Monsanto is the more insidious risk.
GMO-free sugar is better than GMO sugar for reasons that have nothing to do with the red-herring debate about the relative health and safety of the two sugar products and everything to do with farmers' access to non-GMO contaminated crops grown naturally and without the aid of pesticides and herbicides developed and marketed to go along with the GMO crop.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You really should fact check the rest of the anti-GMO cliches you offered up, as well.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)GMOs as I have.
Put aside your puff pieces and try reading some research:
Liability for Damage Caused by GMOs: An Economic Perspective
Genetically Modified Organisms: Who Should Pay the Price for Pollen Drift Contamination?
Seeds of Dispute: Intellectual-Property Rights and Agricultural Biodiversity
Remembering the Big Five: Hawaii's Constitutional Obligation to Regulate the Genetic Engineering Industry
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You have been conned by a scam of the worst kind. Pushing the shill gambit doesn't change that. You are now working to harm the planet and its people. You can change, but you have to actually look at the actual science.
You clearly don't know the first thing about the topic. I asked you to fact check your claims, and you just offered crap links parroting those claims. That only confesses your ignorance of the topic. Whoops.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)A kinda funny one too, because all those legal strategies kinda failed the test back in 2012. Remember a few years back when the anti-GMO crow was full of glee about the organic industry suing Monsanto over crop contamination where they couldn't produce a single case? Predictably a judge threw their case out and the SCOTUS told them to go pound sand. You don't hear about that one so much anymore, but it's well worth repeating.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)"Let me find some pieces that agree with my preconceptions." Ugh.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)A few years back the anti-GMO crowd was all excited about a group of organic farmers and trade groups that were suing Monsanto because GMO might contaminate their crops. The problem was they couldn't cite a single instance where this had actually happened and predictably a judge threw their entire case out.
http://www.osgata.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-MTD-Decision.pdf
Kinda looks like the legal strategies you provided fell flat on it's face and not surprisingly you don't hear much about them anymore.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Funny how that door can swing both ways, especially when your side of the debate is just as interested in profit as the other.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If this self-described expert really did as much research as claimed it would have produced the following results:
Number of times the biotech industry has sued a farmer for inadvertent crop contamination: 0
Number of times the organic industry has unsuccessfully sued the biotech industry for crop contamination: 1
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Much of the organic, non-gmo yuppie feed is produced by the very same big businesses. Kellog, Cargill, Nestle, Miller-Coors, General Mills, ConAgra... they all own "organic" assets worth well into the hundreds of millions.
So, I guess the argument is "buy from big business so you don't buy from the same big business"?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Hybridized patented seeds are non-reusable by design (unlike GMO) and were a significant segment of the market long before GMO ever came around. For instance hybridized and patented corn made up about 90% of the market before GMO. So whatever "insidious risk" you think exists was around well before Monsanto.
Speaking of red herrings, crop cross pollination has been going on for thousands of years. So kinda interesting how you'd want to frame the debate that way, and yes, health and safety concerns are most definitely a red herring, but that nonsense is most definitely being promoted on a daily basis by people who parrot out junk science like widely discredited Seralini rat studies. So you might want to save the finger wagging for them.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)property rights:
Liability for Damage Caused by GMOs: An Economic Perspective
Genetically Modified Organisms: Who Should Pay the Price for Pollen Drift Contamination?
Seeds of Dispute: Intellectual-Property Rights and Agricultural Biodiversity
Remembering the Big Five: Hawaii's Constitutional Obligation to Regulate the Genetic Engineering Industry
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Have you read them yourself? Somehow I get the feeling your reading list is a product of a google search.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Poppycock. This statement as written is flat out false.
First of all, with the largest GMO crop, soybeans - there is almost no cross pollination at all because soybeans are self pollinating.
With corn there can be cross pollination, but where GMO corn is planted the majority of corn is hybrid corn so no one is saving seed anyway.
Second, even if such cross pollination did occur and the neighboring farmer were saving seed for replanting, it would not make him dependent on anything even if a significant part of his crop got contaminated with GMO pollen, which is in itself unlikely. Planting Roundup Ready corn does not mean the farmer HAS to use Roundup. It just means he can and of course that is the reason he bought the Roundup Ready corn seed in the first place.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)That shit gets weaker every time they throw it against the wall.
Eventually it will go by the wayside just like the 9/11 truthers' shit, the anti-vaxxers shit, the 'power lines causes cancer' shit, and all the other garbage perpetuated by the anti-science crowd, which are the same people more often than not. Albeit slowly the public eventually catches on that bullshitters gotta bullshit.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)One could speculate about electromagnetic fields and what not.
Whereas with anti GMO it is hard to see any scientific starting point.