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

[canndo]

There is ABSOLUTE proof that GMO crops cost less to produce, they have 90% of the US market for corn. Do you think 90% of US farmers chose a crop that lowers their profit?

I think that you misunderstand the modern agricultural model. The production of corn is subsidized (along with other crops). The seed manufacturer makes money, the fertilizer company, the chemical company and everyone around the farmer makes a nice little profit, the farmer? unless he is big ag, doesn't make so much.

 

[canndo]

for someone who spams relentlessly about how awesome GMOs are, you sure seem to shit your tighty whities at the thought of them simply informing the consumer of what they are eating.

the label actually enhances your ability to choose, by the way.

mental defectives abound in this forum.

Desert Dude is not a mental defective. He is an iconoclast and has picked this as his current aguing point. I find it refreshing and challenging as opposed those who are retracing the "global warming is a hoax" arguments for the ten thousanth time. He has asked questions that have had me scramble to my research for answers. Some I have not yet managed to find.

Liberals, especially those with hippy blood in their veins, have this quirk, they tend to be fearful of what they don't understand, and they refuse to kneel at the altar of comprehension when it comes to such things.

Now you know I don't think that the decemination of GMOs into the wild is a wise idea and I am not very happy that we are eating them without much research as to the consequences but I had an argument on a GMO page about sugar.

it was exactly this "why are you frightened of table sugar"? "it is made with gmo beets", "well I suppose, but sugar is a chemical"

I was given a diagram of how sugar is extracted from beets and an explaination that there is no mechanism for removing the "bad" DNA from fruits or vegetables and thus - the sugar must be bad.

"but... but.... I continued, it is a chemical, a single molecular structure with no room for DNA, are you claiming that perhaps the sugar has been adulterated or that there is a degree of impurities, and those impurities contain the portion of the DNA or the herbicide/insecticide that you fear?"

"You don't understand Sir. GMO's are bad and they aren't taking them out of the fruits and vegetables".

I gave up. These people have swallowed the non-GMO koolaid and unless they are willing to accept, or perhaps study some fundamentals, they will forever shun in superstitioin. I believe that this is what Desert dude is doing - exposing, or attempting to expose superstition.

 

[canndo]

No one makes GMO oats, according to the article, so for the most part you are correct. The sugars and whatnot are what will be non-GMO.

The box will also say: May contain GMO.

SUGAR, cannot, by virtue of it's being a single chemicla with a specific molecular weight, be either GMO or NON GMO. It is, sucrose and it makes no difference where it comes from. Cheerios led a PR invasion into our growing GMO craze. The breakfast cereal war is a raging battle, General Mills did well and it cost them the ink on the box, perhaps they can get a few extra pennies for their product. I saw a container of lox, lovely pink slivers of wild caught salmon - it said "gluten free". Is this any different than my other purchase that day, of "gluten free paint remover"?

 

[cannabineer]

Gluten-free paint remover? Is there really such a product?

 

[Doer]

I really want that....in pink.

 

[desert dude]

Desert Dude is not a mental defective. He is an iconoclast and has picked this as his current aguing point. I find it refreshing and challenging as opposed those who are retracing the "global warming is a hoax" arguments for the ten thousanth time. He has asked questions that have had me scramble to my research for answers. Some I have not yet managed to find.

Liberals, especially those with hippy blood in their veins, have this quirk, they tend to be fearful of what they don't understand, and they refuse to kneel at the altar of comprehension when it comes to such things.

Now you know I don't think that the decemination of GMOs into the wild is a wise idea and I am not very happy that we are eating them without much research as to the consequences but I had an argument on a GMO page about sugar.

it was exactly this "why are you frightened of table sugar"? "it is made with gmo beets", "well I suppose, but sugar is a chemical"

I was given a diagram of how sugar is extracted from beets and an explaination that there is no mechanism for removing the "bad" DNA from fruits or vegetables and thus - the sugar must be bad.

"but... but.... I continued, it is a chemical, a single molecular structure with no room for DNA, are you claiming that perhaps the sugar has been adulterated or that there is a degree of impurities, and those impurities contain the portion of the DNA or the herbicide/insecticide that you fear?"

"You don't understand Sir. GMO's are bad and they aren't taking them out of the fruits and vegetables".

I gave up. These people have swallowed the non-GMO koolaid and unless they are willing to accept, or perhaps study some fundamentals, they will forever shun in superstitioin. I believe that this is what Desert dude is doing - exposing, or attempting to expose superstition.

There might be a bit of iconoclast in me, but I don't think my GMO position is iconoclastic. Every major food regulatory agency has concluded that GMOs are safe, so for me to agree with them is hardly iconoclastic. On top of that, it is just common sense. DNA is DNA, whether from a fish or a tomato. Eating DNA is normal for all who want to live and not starve.

I eat fish, and all manner of vegetables, sometimes in the same meal. If you can show me how eating a Cod fillet with a salad on the side is a healthy choice, while eating a tomato that has a cod fish gene inserted is somehow harmful then you will make some headway in convincing me that GMOs are harmful.

On top of that the anti-GMO side is literally over flowing with bull shit and superstition. The Seralini study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair) is cited continually and it was shown to be totally fraudulent. Many seem to believe that Monsanto inserted a "suicide gene" into their GM seeds, and that too is total bullshit. After watching the endless argument in the "Monsanto GMed pot" thread that DNAxxx started, I have come to the conclusion that the anti-GMO side is filled with liars. I have never seen a single study that shows GMOs to be harmful. I can somewhat sympathize with the "it's just icky" position that some people have because we all have irrational thoughts sometimes, but I don't understand it.

You seem to think there is no evidence that GMO crops offer an economic advantage to farmers. How you can hold this thought in your head with the additional knowledge that 90% of US farmers use GM corn seeds is incomprehensible. On top of that, you have some farmers intentionally stealing GM seeds. When 90% of a group do something, there is no doubt that they are getting a yield on their investment. You can't just waive your hands and say they get subsidies, and the ag business gets subsidies, etc. Farmers get whatever subsidies their political friends steal for them whether they grow GM plants or heirloom plants. If heirloom plants were cheaper to bring to market 90% of farmers would use them.

Your citation of the "sugar" debate highlights the irrationality of the anti-GMO crowd. You're right, sucrose is a single molecule and has no DNA in it. I happen to think that sucrose is bad to eat because it causes obesity and diabetes but that has nothing to do with GMOs.

 

[doublejj]

Producers have done a poor job of marketing GMO's.
I just got home from the market, and had another short conversation with the mgr about the availability of more organic/non-gmo items. He told me that is the #1 request he gets............... it's working!

 

[desert dude]

Producers have done a poor job of marketing GMO's.
I just got home from the market, and had another short conversation with the mgr about the availability of more organic/non-gmo items. He told me that is the #1 request he gets............... it's working!

I just went to the market yesterday to buy stuff for dinner. "Organic" cilantro was $1.99 for a bunch (probably about two ounces), non-organic cilantro was $0.79 for a larger bunch. It looks to me like "organic" anything costs about twice as much as regular produce. Guess which product is gonna win that market.

I would guess very few people ask the store manager GMO items because it just does not occur to them. I will make it a point to corral the store manager to specifically request genetically modified products from now on. I want a cross between corn and octopus, eight ears to a stalk!

 

[desert dude]

Anti-GMO luddites in the Philippines destroyed an experimental plot of golden rice recently. I guess their motto is "fuck the children, let them die".

"On August 8, 2013 an experimental plot of golden rice being grown in the Philippines was uprooted by protesters.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][42][/SUP] Mark Lynas, a famous former anti-GMO activist, reported in Slate that the vandalism was carried out by a group of activists led by the extreme-left KMP, to the dismay of other protesters."



Golden rice is a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of rice.[SUP][1][/SUP] The research was conducted with the goal of producing a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage of dietary vitamin A,[SUP][2][/SUP] a deficiency which is estimated to kill 670,000 children under the age of 5 each year.[SUP][3][/SUP]

...


Potrykus has enabled golden rice to be distributed free to subsistence farmers.[SUP][44][/SUP] Free licenses for developing countries were granted quickly due to the positive publicity that golden rice received, particularly in Time magazine in July 2000. Golden rice was said to be the first recombinant DNA tech crop that was unarguably beneficial. Monsanto Company was one of the first companies to grant free licences.[SUP][45]

[/SUP]

The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at US$10,000. Therefore, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of golden rice genetics does not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties need to be paid. In addition, farmers are permitted to keep and replant seed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

 

[doublejj]

50 years ago today, first tobacco warnings........http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=10&from=en-us_msnhp>1=42010#/video/1bcf5301-9a41-c335-d99a-fe88ae0339b0

 

[joe macclennan]

Gluten-free paint remover? Is there really such a product?

 

[canndo]

There might be a bit of iconoclast in me, but I don't think my GMO position is iconoclastic. Every major food regulatory agency has concluded that GMOs are safe, so for me to agree with them is hardly iconoclastic. On top of that, it is just common sense. DNA is DNA, whether from a fish or a tomato. Eating DNA is normal for all who want to live and not starve.

I eat fish, and all manner of vegetables, sometimes in the same meal. If you can show me how eating a Cod fillet with a salad on the side is a healthy choice, while eating a tomato that has a cod fish gene inserted is somehow harmful then you will make some headway in convincing me that GMOs are harmful.

On top of that the anti-GMO side is literally over flowing with bull shit and superstition. The Seralini study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair) is cited continually and it was shown to be totally fraudulent. Many seem to believe that Monsanto inserted a "suicide gene" into their GM seeds, and that too is total bullshit. After watching the endless argument in the "Monsanto GMed pot" thread that DNAxxx started, I have come to the conclusion that the anti-GMO side is filled with liars. I have never seen a single study that shows GMOs to be harmful. I can somewhat sympathize with the "it's just icky" position that some people have because we all have irrational thoughts sometimes, but I don't understand it.

You seem to think there is no evidence that GMO crops offer an economic advantage to farmers. How you can hold this thought in your head with the additional knowledge that 90% of US farmers use GM corn seeds is incomprehensible. On top of that, you have some farmers intentionally stealing GM seeds. When 90% of a group do something, there is no doubt that they are getting a yield on their investment. You can't just waive your hands and say they get subsidies, and the ag business gets subsidies, etc. Farmers get whatever subsidies their political friends steal for them whether they grow GM plants or heirloom plants. If heirloom plants were cheaper to bring to market 90% of farmers would use them.

Your citation of the "sugar" debate highlights the irrationality of the anti-GMO crowd. You're right, sucrose is a single molecule and has no DNA in it. I happen to think that sucrose is bad to eat because it causes obesity and diabetes but that has nothing to do with GMOs.

Of course we still differ. The mechanics of big ag/big government makes the concept of real profit more than a little hazey, but that is neither here nor there - I assure you that any saving that the farmer garners will never be passed on to the consumer.

as far as studies are concerned, we both know that the FDA allows the manufacturer to produce and consumate their studies, so it is highly unlkikely that they will concoct a study that will cast GMO's in a bad light. Also, none of these studies, in the interest of profit, are more than a few months in duration. It is entirely possible that it will take years for these GMO products to show their delitarious nature. We simply don't know, and I don't like to continue to eat things that I just don't know about.

As far as dna simply being dna, this is not entirely correct. that dna can be implanted in the bacteria of the gut and those newly altered bacteria can easily continue to produce the toxins that the parent plant were producing. Furhtermore. the fact that the DNA may not be harmful but does induce more and more pesticides, being that they are not harmful to the plant themselves is another cause for concern. This is not as black and white as the eloy vs the morelocks mentality that the left likes to portray.

 

[canndo]

Producers have done a poor job of marketing GMO's.
I just got home from the market, and had another short conversation with the mgr about the availability of more organic/non-gmo items. He told me that is the #1 request he gets............... it's working!

why would they care? they are marketing them to the farmers and not the consumers - there is no benefit to those consumers. One of the biggest problems of the whole mess.

 

[canndo]

Anti-GMO luddites in the Philippines destroyed an experimental plot of golden rice recently. I guess their motto is "fuck the children, let them die".

"On August 8, 2013 an experimental plot of golden rice being grown in the Philippines was uprooted by protesters.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][42][/SUP] Mark Lynas, a famous former anti-GMO activist, reported in Slate that the vandalism was carried out by a group of activists led by the extreme-left KMP, to the dismay of other protesters."



Golden rice is a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of rice.[SUP][1][/SUP] The research was conducted with the goal of producing a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage of dietary vitamin A,[SUP][2][/SUP] a deficiency which is estimated to kill 670,000 children under the age of 5 each year.[SUP][3][/SUP]

...


Potrykus has enabled golden rice to be distributed free to subsistence farmers.[SUP][44][/SUP] Free licenses for developing countries were granted quickly due to the positive publicity that golden rice received, particularly in Time magazine in July 2000. Golden rice was said to be the first recombinant DNA tech crop that was unarguably beneficial. Monsanto Company was one of the first companies to grant free licences.[SUP][45]

[/SUP]

The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at US$10,000. Therefore, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of golden rice genetics does not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties need to be paid. In addition, farmers are permitted to keep and replant seed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Here is where I have a problem - anything that may actually improve the quality or nutritional aspects of a food might just be a good thing. confined GMOs that produce medicines would be a good thing as well. GMO's can't be painted with the same evil brush.

 

[desert dude]

Of course we still differ. The mechanics of big ag/big government makes the concept of real profit more than a little hazey, but that is neither here nor there - I assure you that any saving that the farmer garners will never be passed on to the consumer.

as far as studies are concerned, we both know that the FDA allows the manufacturer to produce and consumate their studies, so it is highly unlkikely that they will concoct a study that will cast GMO's in a bad light. Also, none of these studies, in the interest of profit, are more than a few months in duration. It is entirely possible that it will take years for these GMO products to show their delitarious nature. We simply don't know, and I don't like to continue to eat things that I just don't know about.

As far as dna simply being dna, this is not entirely correct. that dna can be implanted in the bacteria of the gut and those newly altered bacteria can easily continue to produce the toxins that the parent plant were producing. Furhtermore. the fact that the DNA may not be harmful but does induce more and more pesticides, being that they are not harmful to the plant themselves is another cause for concern. This is not as black and white as the eloy vs the morelocks mentality that the left likes to portray.

All the anti-GMO types have to do is produce one study that shows GMO crops are harmful. I have seen none. All I have seen is hand waving and platitudes.

If bacteria in the gut can take up DNA from the stuff you eat, a point I do not concede, they can get the same DNA from the fish you eat, or the plant you eat, i.e. the source of the worrisome DNA that was spliced into the GMO you are worried about eating.

If you understand how markets work then you know that, in the absence of monopolies, reduced production costs WILL be passed on to consumers. If the farmer saves a buck in production costs he will try to pocket the entire dollar but the market won't allow that because of competition.

 

[Dr Kynes]

if you cannot distinct GMO crops from non GMO crops then how did they get a patent?

Also, what's the big deal about putting something on the label? For me it's not a question of is it harmful or not... I would just rather not take my chances. basically, GMO just creeps me out and I'd like to know what I'm eating. If you don't care either way I don't see how a label effects you AT ALL. We've been getting by for thousands of years with grain that doesn't contain fish DNA.

they are patented because they have a designer DNA chain.

these unique sequences are there for a purpose, and they perform a function.
THAT is what is patented, not the basic species of wheat, corn or soy. just their addition to the genome.

further, the crops being discussed do NOT contain fish genetic sequences, that was the Flav-R-Savr tomatoe which FLOPPED because it's flavour was insipid, and it was ruinously expensive, not because it was dangerous to your health.

you are displaying your ignorance.


the demanded label warning of the potential presence of "GMO's" doesnt effect me at all, it is designed to convince ignorant chumps (like yourself) that GMO's are dangerous and scary so you will avoid products with the GMO warning label.

packets of bread, flour, crackers, and other products "MAY CONTAIN GLUTEN!!!" but they didnt have to spell that out until recently, because idiots were concerned that dipshits might inadvertently assume that the wheat flour sack they purchased was gluten free because it didnt have a big scary warning label.

Protip: if you are allergic to wheat gluten then you should be able to deduce what products you should avoid. thats YOUR responsibility, not the baker down the block who's cookies and muffins always contain the terrifying gluten-monster.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Of course we still differ. The mechanics of big ag/big government makes the concept of real profit more than a little hazey, but that is neither here nor there - I assure you that any saving that the farmer garners will never be passed on to the consumer.

of course they will, through competition.

if i grow 50 billion bushels of corn and sell it all at the market rate, that will drive corn cost to the floor, which doesnt bother me, i got 50,000,000 bushels to sell. i'm good, even if the per bushel profit for my crop is a penny.

other farmers however will get BONED as the bottom falls out of the market, and i guarantee nest year they wont be growing corn, they will grow turnips or beets, or carrots instead.
so next harvest comes along, and i grew 50 billion bushels of barley instead, dropping the bottom out of the barley market, so now theres a corn shortage and the price of corn skyrockets.
next harvest, everybody grorws corn because the price is high, and once again the bottom drops out of the market from another corn glut.

THAT is what the subsidy/allotment programs are designed to prevent.
until the rise of the agricultural conglomerates, it worked well, but unfortunately the Ag Conglomerates have teams of accountants and lawyers studying every angle so they can game the system and squeeze bonus profits out of the subsidies, while dodging the allotments.

when the system is working properly, subsidies guarantee a decent price for your crop, ensuring adequate production, and allotments guard against over-production, preventing gluts. "Farmers" didnt break the system, and blaming "Their crooked friends in washington" is ridiculous. the small farmer has almost no support on capitol hill, and ZERO lobbying power.

the villains are crooked politicians taking bribes from giant ag conglomerates, which will abandon agriculture in droves if the subsidies are reformed to protect the system from their abuses.

as far as studies are concerned, we both know that the FDA allows the manufacturer to produce and consumate their studies, so it is highly unlkikely that they will concoct a study that will cast GMO's in a bad light. Also, none of these studies, in the interest of profit, are more than a few months in duration.

some of the studies have been continuing for decades.
GMO's are not widgets which, once designed, are finished. they are alwyas looking for a new angle, better methods, and new advantages.

It is entirely possible that it will take years for these GMO products to show their delitarious nature. We simply don't know, and I don't like to continue to eat things that I just don't know about.

then seek out Non-GMO products. it's not that hard to find. when there is a demand for it, somebody will produce it.
i actually LIKE non-GMO products. it is the one area where the little guy can turn a profit. unfortunately much of the "Non-GMO" crops are coming from CHINA now, which of course means it may be "Non-GMO" or it may not, it may be grown "Organically" or it may be full of lead and strontium.

if you think china has a good track record for truthful labeling you havent been paying attention.

As far as dna simply being dna, this is not entirely correct. that dna can be implanted in the bacteria of the gut and those newly altered bacteria can easily continue to produce the toxins that the parent plant were producing.

?????????????????????????

Furhtermore. the fact that the DNA may not be harmful but does induce more and more pesticides, being that they are not harmful to the plant themselves is another cause for concern. This is not as black and white as the eloy vs the morelocks mentality that the left likes to portray.

GMO crops do not "induce more pesticides" they are designed to REDUCE pesticide use, not increase it.

if you mean Roundup Resistance, that also does not "Induce" more use of herbicides, it simply ALLOWS herbicides to be used, which in some cases is essential.
if your feilds are invaded by weeds, your costs for fertilizer, water and harvest go up.
using herbicides to kill unwanted weeds helps control costs, and give bigger harvest, but if you dont have a weed problem you DONT HAVE TO SPRAY.
you keep saying GMO crops NEED more pesticides and herbicides a but that is entirely false.

pesticides and herbicides arent cheap. having roundup-resistant crops does not REQUIRE the use of roundup.
if it is not needed, it is not used.

 

[joe macclennan]

of course they will, through competition.

if i grow 50 billion bushels of corn and sell it all at the market rate, that will drive corn cost to the floor, which doesnt bother me, i got 50,000,000 bushels to sell. i'm good, even if the per bushel profit for my crop is a penny.

other farmers however will get BONED as the bottom falls out of the market, and i guarantee nest year they wont be growing corn, they will grow turnips or beets, or carrots instead.
so next harvest comes along, and i grew 50 billion bushels of barley instead, dropping the bottom out of the barley market, so now theres a corn shortage and the price of corn skyrockets.
next harvest, everybody grorws corn because the price is high, and once again the bottom drops out of the market from another corn glut.

THAT is what the subsidy/allotment programs are designed to prevent.
until the rise of the agricultural conglomerates, it worked well, but unfortunately the Ag Conglomerates have teams of accountants and lawyers studying every angle so they can game the system and squeeze bonus profits out of the subsidies, while dodging the allotments.

when the system is working properly, subsidies guarantee a decent price for your crop, ensuring adequate production, and allotments guard against over-production, preventing gluts. "Farmers" didnt break the system, and blaming "Their crooked friends in washington" is ridiculous. the small farmer has almost no support on capitol hill, and ZERO lobbying power.

the villains are crooked politicians taking bribes from giant ag conglomerates, which will abandon agriculture in droves if the subsidies are reformed to protect the system from their abuses.

some of the studies have been continuing for decades.
GMO's are not widgets which, once designed, are finished. they are alwyas looking for a new angle, better methods, and new advantages.

then seek out Non-GMO products. it's not that hard to find. when there is a demand for it, somebody will produce it.
i actually LIKE non-GMO products. it is the one area where the little guy can turn a profit. unfortunately much of the "Non-GMO" crops are coming from CHINA now, which of course means it may be "Non-GMO" or it may not, it may be grown "Organically" or it may be full of lead and strontium.

if you think china has a good track record for truthful labeling you havent been paying attention.



?????????????????????????


GMO crops do not "induce more pesticides" they are designed to REDUCE pesticide use, not increase it.

if you mean Roundup Resistance, that also does not "Induce" more use of herbicides, it simply ALLOWS herbicides to be used, which in some cases is essential.
if your feilds are invaded by weeds, your costs for fertilizer, water and harvest go up.
using herbicides to kill unwanted weeds helps control costs, and give bigger harvest, but if you dont have a weed problem you DONT HAVE TO SPRAY.
you keep saying GMO crops NEED more pesticides and herbicides a but that is entirely false.

pesticides and herbicides arent cheap. having roundup-resistant crops does not REQUIRE the use of roundup.
if it is not needed, it is not used.

most of this is spot on..we agree for once.

 

[cannabineer]

lol

I could ask for the kind that comes in a bottle, but i can anticipate the response.

 

[canndo]

All the anti-GMO types have to do is produce one study that shows GMO crops are harmful. I have seen none. All I have seen is hand waving and platitudes.

If bacteria in the gut can take up DNA from the stuff you eat, a point I do not concede, they can get the same DNA from the fish you eat, or the plant you eat, i.e. the source of the worrisome DNA that was spliced into the GMO you are worried about eating.

If you understand how markets work then you know that, in the absence of monopolies, reduced production costs WILL be passed on to consumers. If the farmer saves a buck in production costs he will try to pocket the entire dollar but the market won't allow that because of competition.

Not if you hold a virtual monopoly on all corn (90 percent), and you are not selling directly to the consumer and... it is FOOD. Not TVs or cars. You go into your Piggly Wiggly and you see corn for a buck an ear, do you go on down to the Safeway because the cobs there are 92 cents? beyod that, most of the corn we eat is in the form of a highly processed product - every manufacturer takes his little cut, the consumer is left with not much at all. That hot pocket might cost a half a mill less because of cheaper GMO corn.

Oh, and I am working on real scientific evdence that GMO products are affecting human life. You point to a single study that has at least been partialy vindicated as your whole basis. Beyond that, we see studies that last 30, 60, 90 days when we didn't know tobacco was an actual cause of cancer till 1996.