Why dumb people should not vote - Washington votes no to GMO labeling

[Apple Of Sodom]

Why does an egg plant going to india need federal approval?

Are you fucking with me? Because India has a federal government. It is kinda like how we work here.

That is not being an educated consumer.

So I can assume butter has hydrogenated oils in it? While some brands do have oils and some do not?

Do you know how those hydrogenated oils were made? Where they come from? How are the hydrogen ions introduced?

GMO is a method, not an ingredient. The ingredient is listed. Does it list how your pure salt was mined? Or how the cow was milked and what anti-biotics went into the cow before it produced the milk?

 

[theeedude]

Funny you state it that way because the people in the lab only did the same thing. They just didn't wait millions of years to get the same result from nature. You are right, its no better than nature, but what good is waiting for a natural solution to hunger when everyone is dead.

Or the easy answer, stop having so many kids and we wouldn't need to research ways to speed up nature in order to feed the world. But of course, I had to bring up the 800lb gorilla in the room.

It's not same thing. Nature introduces small random mutations, than weeds out bad ones through evolution. GMO introduces big mutations and skips that weeding out through evolution step, instead we are left to trust some lab guys with a big profit motive to weed out the bad ones or tell us they did.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Read the parts about how these companies are developing GMO strains for 3rd world countries and being blocked by non-GMO crowds.

I get it, GMOs can be a good thing and those advocating against it are winning the battle of messages.

But I don't feel sorry for these companies when basically they are being beaten in message delivery by grassroots luddites with few resources.

I think the pro-GMO crowd knows the well has been poisoned. GMO is synonymous with frankenfood and scary illness out of stupidity. THAT is why they are fighting it, not because it is bad.

GMO has been ruined in Europe sure, but the American well has not been poisoned. The American consumer could EASILY be pushed to like GMO, heck we almost bought the marketing behind "clean coal."

The fundamental problem is that these companies don't want to fight a battle of messages. They want to shut down the opposition and operate in the dark.

Well too bad, it is the 21st century you can't do shit like that. Either operate in the open and spend the money to fix the GMO brand (or save it before it is ruined in America) or go out of business. If your plan is to have a business model out of the Gilded Age you have no sympathy from me.

If I was in charge of marketing for these companies, the first thing I would do is reframe the argument. You are correct GMO has a negative connotation so never use it again. Call your products GIO (Genetically Improved Organisms) and reboot the brand.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you know how those hydrogenated oils were made? Where they come from? How are the hydrogen ions introduced?

GMO is a method, not an ingredient. The ingredient is listed. Does it list how your pure salt was mined? Or how the cow was milked and what anti-biotics went into the cow before it produced the milk?

Labeling allows the consumer to decide what they eat.

What possible reason could their be not to label foods?

 

[Brainonska511]

It's not same thing. Nature introduces small random mutations, than weeds out bad ones through evolution. GMO introduces big mutations and skips that weeding out through evolution step, instead we are left to trust some lab guys with a big profit motive to weed out the bad ones or tell us they did.

Clearly, you've never heard of transposable elements. Entire genes can hop around or be duplicated. It isn't just random mutation.

 

[xBiffx]

It's not same thing. Nature introduces small random mutations, than weeds out bad ones through evolution. GMO introduces big mutations and skips that weeding out through evolution step, instead we are left to trust some lab guys with a big profit motive to weed out the bad ones or tell us they did.

Say we do it your way and wait on nature. What about the billions who die because we don't want to mess with nature? Guess we should have let smallpox run its course too, amiright? Nature will work it out after all.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

We shouldn't mess with nature. These plants evolved over millions of years to weed out bad genes and select for good ones. Some guy in lab looking to make a quick buck is not going to do better.

Then we shouldn't develop anti-biotics, or vaccines, or anything else following that reasoning. I mean, why vaccinate against small pox? Nature evolved us to protect ourselves better than some guy in a lab looking to make a quick buck...

These plants didn't know they needed to feed 1 billion starving people in arid places that have low yields, or in warm places where bugs destory 30% of a crop.

Maybe we shouldn't use pesticides at all.

If you support use of pesticides and modern farming methods, selective breeding or anything that nature hasn't done itself then your argument falls apart.

Speaking of a quick buck... do you think that is all people think about? Do you think when someone develops a gene for a potato so it doesn't have to sit covered in pesticides for days in a 3rd world country is really looking to make money? Or maybe they are trying to make the world a slightly better place and care about people who are starving. Some people give money to charities; brilliant people give their minds to charitable causes.

 

[xBiffx]

Labeling allows the consumer to decide what they eat.

What possible reason could their be not to label foods?

The information is useless in comparing the health and nutritional value of a food? When trying to decide on what potato chip or what butter to buy, this information doesn't tell you anything about those reasons.

Its like asking if your car was manufactured in the US or not. Doesn't change the fact that it is a car and why you are buying it. It only changes some other, non related decision to owning a car.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Labeling allows the consumer to decide what they eat.

What possible reason could their be not to label foods?

1) The well has been poisoned
2) It is a fucking method, not an ingredient. REQUIRING it would be stupid because we don't require other methods to be on packaging.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Labeling allows the consumer to decide what they eat.

What possible reason could their be not to label foods?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...gton-state-voters-reject-gmo-labeing/3450705/

The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them "functionally equivalent" to conventionally grown crops.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Instead we are left to trust some lab guys with a big profit motive to weed out the bad ones or tell us they did.

You seem to be stuck on this caricature of some evil scientist in a lab coat watching the dollars role in. It doesn't help your cause.

Read the fucking PBS article. GMO is very much rooted in saving lives, feeding the starving, and making farming easier and healthier in third world countries.

Will people get rich off of it? Sure. But that isn't why a lot of them are doing it.

 

[Texashiker]

1) The well has been poisoned
2) It is a fucking method, not an ingredient. REQUIRING it would be stupid because we don't require other methods to be on packaging.

As a consumer, I have a basic right to know what is going in my body.

Whether it is red dye #40, or hydrogenated oils, or GMO, I have a right to know.

 

[xBiffx]

As a consumer, I have a basic right to know what is going in my body.

Whether it is red dye #40, or hydrogenated oils, or GMO, I have a right to know.

Nope. You gave up that so called right (if you ever had it) the moment you put faith into other people making your food for you.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Speaking of a quick buck... do you think that is all people think about? Do you think when someone develops a gene for a potato so it doesn't have to sit covered in pesticides for days in a 3rd world country is really looking to make money? Or maybe they are trying to make the world a slightly better place and care about people who are starving. Some people give money to charities; brilliant people give their minds to charitable causes.

Wait now, hold on a minute. You are mixing things.

Sure there are those IN ACADEMIA that has created GMO foods to help the world and battle hunger. They have focused on the problems of the third world and made the optimal modifications.

But the COMPANIES making GMO products are in it for a buck, not some sense of charity. If they are "just doing it to help our peeps" they wouldn't need lobbyists and they wouldn't need to hide in the dark. They would be propped up by greenies like CostCo that "not all corporations have to be evil." But they aren't because they aren't charities. They are a business in it for money.

 

[xBiffx]

Wait now, hold on a minute. You are mixing things.

Sure there are those IN ACADEMIA that has created GMO foods to help the world and battle hunger. They have focused on the problems of the third world and made the optimal modifications.

But the COMPANIES making GMO products are in it for a buck, not some sense of charity. If they are "just doing it to help our peeps" they wouldn't need lobbyists and they wouldn't need to hide in the dark. They would be propped up by greenies like CostCo that "not all corporations have to be evil." But they aren't because they aren't charities. They are a business in it for money.

Plenty of people attached to charities get rich every year. Does that detract from the necessity for the service those charities provide? Hell, many of the richest people I know work for non profit organizations such as cancer research.

No company is going to provide a service/product for free. That is, doing it without benefiting themselves as well.

 

[Texashiker]

Nope. You gave up that so called right (if you ever had it) the moment you put faith into other people making your food for you.

It is impossible for people to raise all the food they need. Even on a farm people are still going to need to buy some kind of food.

My wife and I have chickens, and we have not bought a grocery store egg in almost 2 years.

Next year I hope to have a large enough flock where we can start butchering our chickens and get away from grocery store chicken meat.

One of the reasons why we raise our own chickens is how hatchery chickens are treated. Some people might call this ethics, or values. I simply do not approve of the way chickens are held in cages. To keep a chicken in a cage is cruel and inhumane.

Next spring we hope to plant our own corn, beans, potatoes,,, and get away from as many grocery store products as we can. But we are still going to buy our bread.

If a consumer wishes to boycott, or simply not buy a product, shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

 

[xBiffx]

It is impossible for people to raise all the food they need. Even on a farm people are still going to need to buy some kind of food.

My wife and I have chickens, and we have not bought a grocery store egg in almost 2 years.

Next year I hope to have a large enough flock where we can start butchering our chickens and get away from grocery store chicken meat.

One of the reasons why we raise our own chickens is how hatchery chickens are treated. Some people might call this ethics, or values. I simply do not approve of the way chickens are held in cages.

Next spring we hope to plant our own corn, beans, potatoes,,, and get away from as many grocery store products as we can. But we are still going to buy our bread.

If a consumer wishes to boycott, or simply not buy a product, shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

You just outlined several choices that you have made. Your choice is still there, as is your consumer right to that choice.

And yes, a consumer can do whatever they want. This has nothing to do with consumer rights. They still can choose freely.

 

[nehalem256]

I get it, GMOs can be a good thing and those advocating against it are winning the battle of messages.

But I don't feel sorry for these companies when basically they are being beaten in message delivery by grassroots luddites with few resources.

Actually isn't the whole point of this thread complaining that those companies won the message delivery battle as evidenced by the vote in Washington.

GMO has been ruined in Europe sure, but the American well has not been poisoned. The American consumer could EASILY be pushed to like GMO, heck we almost bought the marketing behind "clean coal."

The fundamental problem is that these companies don't want to fight a battle of messages. They want to shut down the opposition and operate in the dark.

Well too bad, it is the 21st century you can't do shit like that. Either operate in the open and spend the money to fix the GMO brand (or save it before it is ruined in America) or go out of business. If your plan is to have a business model out of the Gilded Age you have no sympathy from me.

If I was in charge of marketing for these companies, the first thing I would do is reframe the argument. You are correct GMO has a negative connotation so never use it again. Call your products GIO (Genetically Improved Organisms) and reboot the brand.

So your argument is that corporations should be forced to waste millions or billions in advertising so that American's won't be swayed by fear mongering?

 

[Texashiker]

They still can choose freely.

How can I choose not to buy gmo when it is not labeled?

My only real option is to grow my own corn next year. But not everyone has that option.

However, corn is in so many of our foods it is almost impossible to get away from.

 

[xBiffx]

How can I choose not to buy gmo when it is not labeled?

My only real option is to grow my own corn next year. But not everyone has that option.

However, corn is in so many of our foods it is almost impossible to get away from.

You can choose to make your own food if you are so worried about what goes into it. Point is, you aren't because you have no idea today where the ingredients for the food you eat today come from. That is, unless you are making all your own food? I take it you aren't so this is just a bullshit game about hating GMO's organizations specifically and not the food that contains some of the biproducts from a GMO company's product.

 

[glenn1]

This must be the OP

 

[nehalem256]

How can I choose not to buy gmo when it is not labeled?

My only real option is to grow my own corn next year. But not everyone has that option.

However, corn is in so many of our foods it is almost impossible to get away from.

Foods certified as organic cannot contain GMOs.

Seems pretty easy to get non-GMO foods to me.

 

[TreVader]

A basic human right to know what we are eating has been voted down by the people of Washington state.

Early surveys showed 66 percent of the people were in favor of the law.

After dumping millions of dollars in advertising by the opposition, the approval rate dropped to 46 percent.

A republic only works when we have an educated voting populace. If we do not even know what we are eating, there is no hope for anything else.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

You are so stupid. Do you know what is "genetically modified?" EVERYTHING YOU EAT. Human agriculture dates back thousands of years and guess what they were doing? Modifying genes through breeding.

The only difference here is we can actually make better selections and improve different grains and vegetables quickly. You're just so backward you don't understand that everything that humans cultivate is GM. You're understanding of genetics is based on 28 days later and X-Men.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Plenty of people attached to charities get rich every year. Does that detract from the necessity for the service those charities provide? Hell, many of the richest people I know work for non profit organizations such as cancer research.

No company is going to provide a service/product for free. That is, doing it without benefiting themselves as well.

Well yeah, I am not denying philanthropy exists and you can make money at a non-profit.

But these companies are not non-profits. If the world is saved while they make money that is a side benefit, not the root motivation.

If the primary motivation at these companies was just improving the world then they would have a much better public perception.

 

[BoberFett]

My wife and I buy organic milk.

You were talking about butter. Do you buy organic butter? If so, seems to me you've solved your own GMO problem by BUYING SOMETHING THAT IS LABELED AS NOT HAVING GMO.