Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

We should be able to choose if we want to continue to be guinea pigs.
1 posted on 07/14/2012 11:38:56 PM PDT by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: quimby

This is good news. If it passes in the giant market of CA, and if an activist judge does not shoot it down, the labeling will become effective nationwide.

Too much hassle to have CA-specific labels.


2 posted on 07/15/2012 12:09:29 AM PDT by UnwashedPeasant (Don't nuke me, bro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: quimby

I’m down with this...


6 posted on 07/15/2012 2:17:36 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: quimby
The problem is, this kind of labelling has nothing to do with health risks. It's all about feeding a scare campaign by the activist groups, many of which are opposed to modern production agriculture, and the organic lobby, which is peddling high cost products and wants to spook consumers about competitors.

If informed consent is the objective, why don't we put a label on all organic products saying "no added nutritional value; fertilized with manure; high risk of e coli and insect parts contamination." But no -- the organic lobby wants consumers to think they're buying a superior product, which is not the case.

Most consumers will buy on price, taste, and nutritional value unless they are scared away. Why feed bogus scaremongers? The cry will go up, "The public has a right to know." Well fine -- base product labelling on demonstrable risk. If the labelling is science based, GM crops (which are thoroughly tested before coming to market) will be so far down the list that they'll never get labelled.

The campaign is about creating a superstition. If you are superstitious, go to the store and buy organic. Personally, I avoid organics. I dislike paying a premium to hucksters, and while I'm not excessively squeamish, I prefer not putting poop on my food. I know that's how food was grown for thousands of years, but we have better methods today.

8 posted on 07/15/2012 5:08:39 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: quimby

I’m curious, maybe someone can help me. Just what is the definition of genetically engineered crops? Aren’t all hybrids genetically engineered? Does this include crops which were modified in fields selectively over several generations to have certain traits (color, taste, growing season)? Are any food crops grown today the same genetically as they were say 1000 years ago?

I’m just confused about what is and is not genetically engineered?


9 posted on 07/15/2012 5:16:31 AM PDT by rigelkentaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: quimby

This is one of the few forms of needed regulation out there.

That is, agribusiness and food processing has long been problematic in putting out even dangerous substances in foods, and used government to conceal the fact.

Much of it started with the Chicago meat packing plants, that had a horrific reputation around the world for making and selling tainted and adulterated products.

Then there was a big scandal over the use of poisonous copper sulfate added to canned peas, to make them greener.

The dairy industry bitterly fought margarine, and in several states required that it could only be sold plain, with dye packets to color it yellow added by the consumer.

Farm produce was fertilized with plant estrogen (very similar to human estrogen), to increase yield and the size of the profitable parts, seeds and fruit. This is still done.

Add to that the *improper* use of antibiotics with animals, that when properly used is good for both producers and consumers, but when improperly used can create drug resistant bacteria.

Then, because GM food is patented, if a GM crop is planted upwind of a non-GM crop and pollinates it, that crop becomes the property of the GM company, based on court decisions.

And once in use, GM pollen rapidly spreads throughout a large region, essentially “infecting” other plants of that type, for better or worse, until there are no non-GM ‘tainted’ crops left.

And the science of GM is still in its infancy, so some potentially disastrous consequences are still possible. One such was the effort to enrich soil with GM bacteria, which was so effective it wiped out the other essential soil bacteria in the (extremely fortunately) isolated soil test bed. Were it to have “gotten loose”, it could have devastated agriculture around the world, making vast amounts of arable soil infertile.


10 posted on 07/15/2012 7:55:58 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson