Yes!.....Cheerios to go non-GMO......

[Doer]

BT does not worry me at all because I am not an insect in the larval stage:


Are you quite sure about that?

 

[kpmarine]

what conspiracy? i just said all the facts aren't in yet. that's not conspiratorial.

At what point would you consider said facts to be in?

 

[doublejj]

At what point would you consider said facts to be in?

When they start putting the "facts" on the label, thank you.

 

[canndo]

This is typical. Since you can't win a debate by shrill emotion tampering, the liberal immediately turns to scorn and insult. He tells, made up, exaggerations of what is suppose to be shame, I guess. Drag out some stupid stereotypes to make a non-point. Just substitute shrill with insults and try that. Such a base pattern we see all over Liberal Land.

But, these are people that what us to believe they would not go after our families to make us see THEIR way. But, they do. All children are bombarded with anti-Constituational messaging these days. Patriots are spat on again. Self reliance is laughed at, like the Ducks, but sometimes we get to laugh back.

No one wins debates in these forums, you know that.

Sterotypes? I am simply drawing from statments made on this website. and "liberal immediately turns to scorn and insult. He tells, made up, exaggerations of what is suppose to be shame, I guess" - seems pretty much like trotting out a sterotype, and construction of a "non-point".

The fact is that on this site, I have seen a number of people maintain that they are healty because they take care in what they do and ingest. These same people boast that they don't care about eating GMO foods and furthermore know little of the process - so which is it? do they take care or not?

 

[canndo]

Personally, BT does not worry me at all because I am not an insect in the larval stage:

No complaints were made after eighteen humans ate one gram (g) of commercial B.t. preparation daily for five days, on alternate days. Some inhaled 100 milligrams (mg) of the powder daily, in addition to the dietary dosage (6). Humans who ate one g/day of B.t.k. for three consecutive days were not poisoned or infected (12).

Since it was one of the first biological control agents registered for use against insects in the U.S., B.t. had to undergo a testing program which was more thorough than that which the EPA currently requires for biological pesticides. As a result, there are no data gaps in the toxicity information required by the EPA for registration purposes. A wide range of studies have been conducted on test animals, using several routes of exposure. (The highest dose tested was 6.7 x 10 to the 11th spores per animal.) The results of these tests suggest that the use of B.t. products can cause few, if any, negative effects. B.t. did not have acute toxicity in other tests conducted on birds, dogs, guinea pigs, mice, rats, humans, or other animals. When rats were injected with B.t.k., no toxic or virus- like effects were seen. No oral toxicity was found in rats, mice or Japanese quail fed protein crystals from B.t. var. israelensis (19).

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/bt-ext.html

Great work! I don't have much of a problem eating BT, I do have a problem with what it might do to the environment - it killing non-targeted insects and all. But this is about humans right? Got any of the same sort of studies on Glyphosate? Hmmm?

 

[canndo]

Just put it on the label.....thank you
P.S. Ill even pay more for the ink to print "NonGMO"

Put what on the label? how does one label an ear of corn that is, in all but the most technical sense.... corn? On the other hand, as Desert Dude said, the NonGMO products ARE labeled, that isn't the problem. What should be labeled is not the absence of something foreign but the presence of it. "contains GMO products". Same problem however - that isn't enough information. Is sugar made from GMO beets any different than sugar made from regular Beets? If BT crops, designed to have systemic pesticides that are "natural" in and of themselves really have no efffect upon humans then the labeling is not for safety purposes but for philosophical ones.

None of this is as easy as it seems.

 

[doublejj]

What ever the purpose is, how can labeling be such an issue? It should be a no-brainer, just put it on the label, then I'll decide for myself what's important or not. Just put it on the label, thank you.

 

[canndo]

What ever the purpose is, how can labeling be such an issue? It should be a no-brainer, just put it on the label, then I'll decide for myself what's important or not. Just put it on the label, thank you.

I am all for labeling. I also don't believe the Monsanto line that labeling might serve to confuse people (among other absurdities), but there are problems with labeling. What exactly do you label? 90 percent of all corn, is Round up Ready. Much of that corn is fed to hogs, cattle, chickens and even farm raised fish. Now given that it is possible that the genetics carry on, what do you label? Do you label the corn starch that is in your hot pocket? The potato portion of your chicken pot pie?

WE are at the point where nothing we eat is not at least tainted by gmo crops.

I have recently given up potatoes, I was sadly shocked at what was done to the once proud potato in the interest of industry. The potato is modified with BT genetics (fine, as I said I don't worry too much about that one), but it is also filled with herbicides which it absorbs like a sponge, and then it is sprayed with another chemical that stops the eyes from sprouting. The poor potato is now a lump of unknown and possibly dangerous chemicals, how are you going to label that let alone label anything that potato goes into?

 

[doublejj]

I am all for labeling. I also don't believe the Monsanto line that labeling might serve to confuse people (among other absurdities), but there are problems with labeling. What exactly do you label? 90 percent of all corn, is Round up Ready. Much of that corn is fed to hogs, cattle, chickens and even farm raised fish. Now given that it is possible that the genetics carry on, what do you label? Do you label the corn starch that is in your hot pocket? The potato portion of your chicken pot pie?

WE are at the point where nothing we eat is not at least tainted by gmo crops.

I have recently given up potatoes, I was sadly shocked at what was done to the once proud potato in the interest of industry. The potato is modified with BT genetics (fine, as I said I don't worry too much about that one), but it is also filled with herbicides which it absorbs like a sponge, and then it is sprayed with another chemical that stops the eyes from sprouting. The poor potato is now a lump of unknown and possibly dangerous chemicals, how are you going to label that let alone label anything that potato goes into?

The sooner we get busy labeling GMO's, the sooner less will be grown. It will be a self correcting problem over time. Firm pressure relentlessly applied, will achieve the desired result.

 

[canndo]

textbook transference.

you accuse everyone who disagrees with your superstitious fear of GMO's (and any other leftist strawman which pops up) of being "scoffers" hypocrites and fools, while you hypocritically scoff at their position while embracing every foolish idiotic narrative you are given by the left.

Classic Schmoesby.

I think I heard that same line of argument about tobacco in the 60's.

 

[Doer]

No one wins debates in these forums, you know that.

Sterotypes? I am simply drawing from statments made on this website. and "liberal immediately turns to scorn and insult. He tells, made up, exaggerations of what is suppose to be shame, I guess" - seems pretty much like trotting out a sterotype, and construction of a "non-point".

The fact is that on this site, I have seen a number of people maintain that they are healty because they take care in what they do and ingest. These same people boast that they don't care about eating GMO foods and furthermore know little of the process - so which is it? do they take care or not?

This is no kind of debate and never was. We are only discussing. I enjoy holding up a mirror for all partisans on all issues. It is just not so simple. You wish. I am cursed to want to know all sides.

Debate has rules and a moderator, and you are trying to win, in front of judges. So, you are right. I don't debate. Stereotype is met with stereotype.

I hold a mirror. Can you see?

 

[desert dude]

The sooner we get busy labeling GMO's, the sooner less will be grown. It will be a self correcting problem over time. Firm pressure relentlessly applied, will achieve the desired result.

Since you say it like that, I oppose labeling.

 

[tightpockt]

False.

demonstrably false.

only one guy i know of was sued by monsanto for growing their patent cultivars, and he was doing it deliberately, for his own profit, in direct violation of the contract he signed.

copying DVDs and selling them on the street is illegal too.

What kind of myopic self absorbed logic is that? It only happened to one guy that you know of so it only happened once total? That's like saying cigarettes aren't really THAT bad for you..I only know of one person who's gotten cancer.
Let me guess...devoted fox news follower?

 

[desert dude]

What kind of myopic self absorbed logic is that? It only happened to one guy that you know of so it only happened once total? That's like saying cigarettes aren't really THAT bad for you..I only know of one person who's gotten cancer.
Let me guess...devoted fox news follower?

So, you "just know" that Monsanto is suing thousands of farmers annually in their quest to own the world's food supply, but it is not publicly known because courts don't keep records of their cases?


http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx

Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it’s really a small number. Of these, we’ve proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto’s favor.

 

[Dr Kynes]

What kind of myopic self absorbed logic is that? It only happened to one guy that you know of so it only happened once total? That's like saying cigarettes aren't really THAT bad for you..I only know of one person who's gotten cancer.
Let me guess...devoted fox news follower?

whay kind of dipshit assumes there are many when i can only find ONE (and i follow ag issues cloesly)

why dont YOU search for the info?

heres the parameters:

Monsanto sues a guy, over growing their patented cultivars, and wins.

there are ZERO cases of monsanto suing and winning against anyone except in the case of a broken contract with monsanto, which stipulates the grower will NOT save seeds and re-plant their cultivar.

ONE GUY was breaking his contract and replanting monsanto's roundup ready soya cultivar, in violation of his contract. THAT'S IT!

no "Organic Farmers" have been sued over wind blown pollen, and no home gardeners have been sued over "Tainted Genetics".

the whole line of attack is pure bullshit.

let me guess... retarded glue sniffing mongoloid with a goiter the size of a grapefruit and terminal microcephally?

 

[doublejj]

Since you say it like that, I oppose labeling.

And that's why I demand labeling......because you don't get to decide what's good for me, I do!.....as it is right now, if it don't say Non-GMO, I won't buy it. If they label it, I can decide for myself......

 

[desert dude]

And that's why I demand labeling......because you don't get to decide what's good for me, I do!.....as it is right now, if it don't say Non-GMO, I won't buy it. If they label it, I can decide for myself......

Your stated goal is to abolish the practice of genetically modified crops, so you want to decide what I eat and as you said you don't get to decide what's good for me, I do.

 

[canndo]

This is no kind of debate and never was. We are only discussing. I enjoy holding up a mirror for all partisans on all issues. It is just not so simple. You wish. I am cursed to want to know all sides.

Debate has rules and a moderator, and you are trying to win, in front of judges. So, you are right. I don't debate. Stereotype is met with stereotype.

I hold a mirror. Can you see?

most times I can compensate for my own liberal bias

 

[UncleBuck]

At what point would you consider said facts to be in?

not sure, but they currently aren't.

 

[kpmarine]

not sure, but they currently aren't.

Well that's not a very defensible stance. One cannot satisfy a burden of proof that you cannot frame.