GMO Food

The GMO Debate Heats Up (Again)

Courts. Federal, state, and local laws. It's difficult to keep up with all of the developments around genetically modified foods.

|

Credit: Dwnld777 | Dreamstime.com

The debate over GMOs has heated up again.

It's been only a month since I last wrote about the issue. But a host of new developments at the federal, state, and local levels have drawn widespread attention.

In Oregon, a heated public hearing took place over a ridiculous and unconstitutional proposed county ordinance, which voters will decide on May 19, that "would ban the cultivation of genetically engineered crops in the county and would require all such crops … to be harvested or destroyed within 90 days of passage." If the law passes, then I predict images of armed officers trampling and destroying farmers' crops could cause a dramatic backlash against anti-GMO advocates. (This may be the place to note—as I have before—that I'm neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO, that principles of food freedom mean people should be free to grow and eat whatever the hell they want, and that people should be equally free to love or hate GMOs.)

Across the country, in slightly less contentious news, a federal court in Vermont this week issued a preliminary ruling in a lawsuit challenging the state's mandatory GMO-labeling law.

The lawsuit, filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which represents many of the nation's food manufacturers, and a handful of fellow plaintiffs, seeks to overturn the law on a variety of grounds. Among GMA's claims is that the law violates the First Amendment because it impermissibly restricts some speech and compels others' speech; that it is too vague to provide adequate notice and due process under the Fifth Amendment; that it violates the Commerce Clause; and that federal law preempts the Vermont statute. (I'd fail a law school exam if I didn't note that the Fourteenth Amendment forms the basis for applying the First and Fifth Amendments to the states.) This week, the court rejected several of these claims—including some of the First Amendment arguments—but allowed the case to proceed on others.

GMA and its fellow plaintiffs had also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the law, which is due to take force in July 2016, from being implemented. But the court rejected the request.

This sounds bad for GMA at face value. Certainly it isn't a win. But it's hardly a loss. The court affirmed that GMA has a good chance to win the case on the merits. What's more, as I've written, I think the group doesn't have a good case: It's got a great case.

"While we are pleased that the District Court found us likely to succeed on several of our claims, we are nevertheless  disappointed by the court's ultimate decision to deny our Motion for Preliminary Injunction to block the implementation of the Vermont GMO labeling law—Act 120—on grounds that the manufacturers had not yet shown a sufficient degree of harm," said GMA spokesman Brian Kennedy in a statement issued after the court's ruling. "We are reviewing this decision and considering our legal options." Those options, I must assume, include asking a federal appeals court to overturn the injunction denial.

If this food-case arc strikes you as familiar, then you're not alone. Two years ago, a federal appeals court denied an injunction to a group of plaintiffs who sued California in hopes of overturning that state's absurd foie gras ban. News reports characterized the ban as having been upheld. And based on the celebrating and claims by animal rights groups that the case was over, it seemed reasonable to assume they'd won.

Except they hadn't won. A court subsequently ruled on the whole case, the ban lost, and foie gras is now legal to buy again throughout California.

The GMO case may follow that same arc. Even if it doesn't follow it exactly, then what happens in Vermont might not matter much.

"Even if the court ultimately rules in Vermont's favor," said attorney Michele Simon of Eat Drink Politics in an email to me this week, "that victory for pro-labeling advocates will be bittersweet because it's sure to amp up the bio-tech and junk food industry's efforts to get a preemption bill passed in Congress, thereby wiping out Vermont['s] and any other state's laws."

Simon's right (or mostly so, as I would characterize supporters of the bill as far more diverse than the "Big Food" umbrella suggests). Congress is indeed working on a bill that would bar states like Vermont from enforcing GMO-labeling laws. And, just this week, that effort picked up steam.

"On Tuesday, the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food, along with 370 other groups—including PepsiCo, Kellogg, and Monsanto—submitted a letter to the House of Representatives urging passage of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act," reports Quartz, "to 'ensure that food labeling in the United States is uniform and science-based.'"

I've given a tepid endorsement to the bill, which I discussed in detail here. Its passage would help prevent, as GMA's Kennedy puts it, "a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that will be costly and confusing for consumers."

GMO-related news is breaking fast and furious. With the looming Oregon vote, possible appeal of the Vermont court ruling, and potential congressional action, there's no slowdown in sight.

NEXT: U.S. treaty obligation to defend Marshall Islands ships

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    …….. http://www.Jobs-Fashion.Com

  2. GMOs are supported by BHO.

    1. Yeah, see? Every intelligent people on the left know that GMOs are safe.

      1. Hillary supports them as well. As did Jimmy Carter.

  3. Eat your vegetables…before they eat YOU!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlIo3_eddrU

    1. SPOILER ALERT

    2. Wow, I must have been drunk when I saw Animal House. I don’t remember that scene.

  4. Scaredy-cats nut cases gotta scaredy-cat nut case.

    1. Hey,you wouldn’t want all those people brown people to grow more and better crops do you? Next thing you know they will want all the things we have,, clean water,,electricity ,,cars,A.C..All the things killing mother earth.

      1. Yeah, right. Peddle your doomsday junk science elsewhere.

  5. Progs really love to destroy crops for some reason.I guess something about the idea of starving people just gets them off.

    1. How would they have benefit concerts and get jobs at the U.N with out them? Huh,Huh?

    2. Progs love destruction period.

      It’s as if they like smashing things.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVLNUlzo1BM

      1. It satisfies two very base instincts. The first is moral superiority, and the second is violence.

        “We get to be violent (yeah, smash shit!!) but we’re morally superior for doing it!!!!!

        They’re cavemen with a veneer of religiosity.

        1. Well, no. Cavemen lived subsistence lives. They knew exactly where food came from, they had to hunt and gather it. Anything that improved that process was welcome.

    3. Look, Ehrlich and Holdren said people were gonna starve, and goddammit, they are gonna starve!!

      1. England was supposed to cease to exist by 2000.

        One of these centuries they may very well be right!

        1. They’ve succeeded at that too. The England of today could never replicate the industrial revolution. They can barely keep the lights on as it is.

          1. Maybe they shouldn’t have contracted with Lucas for all of the fuses?

    4. Progs want soooo badly for their predictions of famine to come true.

      Yeah, I know, that’s horribly evil, but they are progressives so I suppose I’m being redundant.

  6. “WASHINGTON ? The lead attorney representing the Obama administration admitted before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that if the court were to rule in favor of making same-sex marriage a constitutional right, it would create a religious liberty “issue” for faith-based schools and institutions, who could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt statuses….

    “Justice Samuel Alito followed up and asked a pointed question regarding whether religious schools could have their tax-exempt status revoked for not providing same-sex couples with housing. Alito referenced the 1983 Bob Jones University Supreme Court case, which ruled that the Internal Revenue Service could revoke the school’s tax-exempt status for refusing to accommodate interracial married couples with housing….

    “”You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics but it’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli stated. “I ?? I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is, it is going to be an issue.””

    http://www.christianpost.com/n…..t8h6kTd.99

    1. Yeah we caught your sermon last night, Father.

      1. I will almost be worth it to be able to say, “I told you so!”

        1. Emancipating slaves caused problems. Probably should have continued to deny people their liberty to avoid conflict with ancillary liberty strangling government boondoggles.

          Fuck off slaver.

          1. Before I’ll not have my intimate relationships recognized by the government
            I’ll be buried in my grave
            And go home to the Lord and be free

            No…I think you’re just slightly exaggerating.

            1. Go down, Moses
              Way down to Egypt land
              Tell old Pharaoh
              To allow my same-sex partner and myself to file income tax jointly

              1. In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
                With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
                As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men able to have government-recognized relationships with other men;
                While God is marching on.
                Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
                Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.

                1. We love you, the rocky hills,
                  And awesome gorges
                  That never came to know
                  The humiliation of not having Social Security widow’s benefits for gay partners

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPtPjMdtofk

                  1. And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
                    That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
                    A home and a country should leave us no more!
                    Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution
                    No refuge could save the hireling and homophobe
                    From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
                    And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
                    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

                    1. Paul and Silas, bound in jail,
                      Sing God’s praise both night and day
                      And I hope dat trump might get them married
                      In the new Jerusalem

                    2. that was a bit much

                    3. why all this in a GMO thread? Is it because golden rice and homosexuals are both “unnatural”?

                    4. I took this for the morning thread, the equivalent of the weekday A.M. links.

                      “America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding gays on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate heteronormativity-the great sin and shame of America! “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse”; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a heterosexual, shall not confess to be right and just.”

                    5. What does this have to do with GMO crops?

          2. “Emancipating slaves caused problems.”
            No shit, not that Lincoln set out to fee any slaves (unless
            they could ebe immediately shipped to Africa).
            Total cost – 100 years of North South, Black-White hatred, 600,000
            American dead, more than all other wars combined.
            Yeah, I’d say it caused problems, when done the way
            it happened here. I’d love to hear an argument that allowing it to die off naturally after another 10 to 15 years was a worse course of action.

            1. Either you’re being obtuse or have a really poor imagination. A slave might not be eager to take another 10 to 15 years for the team, particularly an older person. Not to mention that you are pulling that 10 to 15 year estimate out of thin air. You have no idea how long it would have taken. It’s the standard political technique of stating made-up “facts” and hoping that your opponent will waste his time rebutting it. Also, it’s disingenuous to claim that the war was responsible for racial hatred. I think things might have already been a bit tense between slaves and people who claimed to own them.

  7. re: “I predict images of armed officers trampling and destroying farmers’ crops could cause a dramatic backlash against anti-GMO advocates.”

    Unfortunately it seems more likely it will encourage them and bring more to their side. They would use video of it elsewhere with commercials that try to claim “look how bad it is, this ‘responsible’ government is destroying it, why isn’t yours?”. Its seems likely to parallel news reports that show large drug busts which fuel the emotions of drug warriors, or new reports of terrorist cells being taken down that fuel those who wish the government to spend more on that.

    Obviously such images would anger libertarians and the scientifically literate subset of the population of course, but unfortunately we are in the minority. Although overall most of the population isn’t anti-GMO at the moment, I suspect much of the population doesn’t hold their views on the topic very strongly because they don’t grasp the science. People’s whose views aren’t held strongly can change them too easily if they decide that the herd of lemmings of the populace thinks differently and they should therefore go along, and video of the government destroying something would suggest to the clueless that GMOs are bad because the government there says they are.

  8. Don’t forget Chipotle’s abominable appearance to the anti-science, anti-GMO activists. Their announcement that they removed GMOs from their food (but not beverages) basically “because concerns” is rank fear-mongering.

    1. I’ve tried Chipotle a couple of times. It’s terrible. No flavor and if it’s busy it’s disgusting. I don’t understand how they are so huge. Why do so many people like it? It sucks.

      1. It’s the build-your-own-burrito appeal. You get to watch them do it and pick what goes on.

        Also the cilantro-lime rice that is the base is pretty tasty. The other ingredients are basic meh, but because it’s built on a base of really good tasty rice it improves the whole dish.

        1. Sounds like Moe’s, except really bland and into pointless signaling.

          1. Never been to a Moe’s. I suspect Chipotle is just better at marketing and franchising. Also Chipotle sounds more Mexican. “Moe’s” sounds like a dive bar.

            1. last of the Moe-hicans 🙁

            2. Very much so. Moe’s is better, imo.

              Chipotle is the Toyota Prius of mexican restaurants. There are numerous other hybrid cars (hybrid Hinda Civic comes to mind) that are just as fuel efficient and good for the environment as the Prius, but are much cheaper. So why is the Prius so much more expensive than the hybrid civic?

              Signalling. Toyota marketed it better to the eco types; they buy it mainly because it shows all their friends how morally superior they are, whereas a civic doesn’t send the same message, even though it is just as good.

        2. I can understand why people from regions where traditional quality Mexican food is available might sneer at Chipotle, but in places like Jersey, well, it’s a good alternative. We just don’t have the same quality Mexican food here. Now, our Pizza is the bomb.

          1. That very last part… Was that a terrorist threat? “See something, say something”. I might have to call the Department of Der Vaterlant Sicherheit…. Sieg Hiel!

    2. I went in this week (I enjoy Chipotle but would go to Moe’s if I had one nearby) and they have a huge sign up that says “We’re happy to announce we’ve gone GMO-Free…because there’s no evidence GMO foods are better for you than natural ones.”

      That’s…an interesting standard. It’s not better, so we’re getting rid of it.

    3. Whatever. It just seems like clever marketing on their part. No problem with people deciding on their own to avoid things even if that is misguided. And if a company wants to exploit that to make money, more power to them.

  9. OT: It’s the weekend. PA Senator proposes law to raise state’s minimum wage to $15 for all employees, including tipped employees. To put it another way, lawmaker raises the costs of hiring low-skilled people so that employers hire fewer low-skilled people.

    1. Probably time to completely cede The Peoples Republik of PA to Team Blue and officially call it a free shit state.

      1. You got the second word right.

    2. Why do you want fast food workers to be forced to work 80 hours a week at zero dollars per hour?

      /minimum wage advocate

  10. I saw a prominent “non-GMO” label on a box of Cheerios last week. Voluntary labeling seems to be the proper way to signal your obeisance to Gaia. But, no, some people want power to enforce
    their notions of what is and isn’t good for the folks in River City. That’s fine for them…until the
    “wrong” folks obtain the power.

    1. This is great stuff… because there are no GMO oats.

      It is the perfect symbol for everything that is stupid in modern society. Whole foods is a terrific place in a lot of ways, but one of the best things about Whole Foods is the ability to see such high concentrations of derp. In addition to the recent proliferation of “Non GMO” labels, there’s the gluten free fad.

      You’ll see gluten free yogurt, gluten free orange juice, gluten free corn chips…. all sorts of products that have never contained wheat or its relatives.

      Watching these fads wash over the country is enlightening. Anyone remember low fat and fat-free? Or Atkins? Or low cholesterol? How about the more recent “anti-oxidants”?

      The level of magical thinking that permeates the heads of the vast majority of people is staggering. Even otherwise well-educated and intelligent people.

      I had a very bright, professional lady telling me about vitamin D at our kids baseball game last week. She understood that you get about a thousand times more vitamin D from 15 minutes of sun than from a supplement. But she said you have to use pH balancing lotion to allow the skin to work. Soap ruins your pH, see, so those enzymes can’t work.

      When I explained that almost all of the body’s enzymes require the same pH to work and if her ideas were true you’d immediately drop over dead she was left stumped. I’m sure she ran off to check it on WholeHealthMD

      1. Gah. My mom reads all of that bullshit. Every couple of months it’s some new fad. I used to try to argue with her, now I just let it go since she’ll believe some new crap in a few weeks anyway.

      2. Precisely. The only thing that had to be non-GMO was whatever oils or corn starch/syrup they were adding.

        That’s why the flavored (Honey-Nut) cheerios aren’t non-GMO, only the plain.

        1. Proof that man-made tastes better.

    2. From now on I’m going to go out of the way to buy GMO foods and specifically avoid buying from anti-GMO companies. Boycot Chipotle. Of course I never go there to begin with but still. Just because fuck them.

      Seriously, science and industry figure out the solution to world hunger, and leftist say ‘hey, let’s do everything in our power to put it down!” Party of science? Party of the poor? The ‘sane’ party?

      1. I don’t even worry about that shit. It’s like the Twizzlers label saying that they’re a “Non-Fat Snack”.

    3. From now on I’m going to go out of the way to buy GMO foods and specifically avoid buying from anti-GMO companies. Boycot Chipotle. Of course I never go there to begin with but still. Just because fuck them.

      Seriously, science and industry figure out the solution to world hunger, and leftist say ‘hey, let’s do everything in our power to put it down!” Party of science? Party of the poor? The ‘sane’ party?

  11. OT: Officer suspected of stealing evidence suspended. No word on whether or not he gets paid during his suspension.

    1. Because the officer has not been charged, the department is contractually required to pay the officer while on leave.

      Sounds like we have our answer!

      1. Whoops… I missed that line.

    2. THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A PAID SUSPENSION!

      smoochez

      hth

  12. Food label battles:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07…..mones.html

    1. The article makes a basic mistake. rBGH was introduced a LOT longer than a decade ago. It’s been around since at least the early 90s, so it’s more like 20-25 years.

      1. Oh wait, that article was from 2003 — so it’s already 12 years out of date.

        1. The article shows that GE pharming corporations have been manipulating the market well before the current crop of pro GMO labelists.

          1. If by “manipulating the market” you mean “producing useful products” and “selling them to willing buyers”.

            1. If you want to use rbst suppositories, have at it. If you want the corn you eat slathered in 2,4-D, I couldn’t care less. If you think a corporation suing another over the “hormone free” label is producing, I will call you out as someone that supports coercion.

              1. They seem to have settled on a totally reasonable compromise that they can label it hormone free as long as they state there isn’t any difference in the milk’s quality.

                1. Why would they need to state there isn’t any difference? Isn’t that one group forcing their desires onto another’s label, which is what most people posting here are objecting to?

                  Oakhurst couldn’t afford the legal fees and capitulated. Unfortunately so because they would have won a jury trial. And it would have given more support for the already supported GMO labeling campaign in this state.

                  1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 2:06PM|#
                    “Why would they need to state there isn’t any difference? Isn’t that one group forcing their desires onto another’s label, which is what most people posting here are objecting to?”

                    No shitbag, your adolescent sophistry has been noted.
                    Fuck off.

                    1. Your lack of logic has been noted. As is your pro crony capitalism position.

  13. Forgive my ignorance, but why would any consumer not be in favor of labeling GMO’s? Anyone? Bueller? Information is good, accurate information is better.

    1. I personally would rather not pay for information on a label that tells me basically nothing.

    2. The biggest major reason is that it would force the cost of identifying and segregating GMO from non-GMO ingredients throughout the production supply upon all consumers, not just the ones who care. The companies that want to produce non-GMO crops – for which some consumers will pay more, should be responsible for doing their own sourcing and identifing non-GMO suppliers. By forcing ALL products to carry a label, that means all food producers will have to identify which suppliers are gmo and non-GMO which will subsequently force the entire food production chain to separate GMO corn from non-GMO corn – increasing required storage space at SILOs and so forth, and thus increasing the cost of food.

      Secondly, whether a particular from is genetically modified or not doesn’t really tell you anything about health risks associated with it. You have to know *what* the modification *is*. Just putting a blanket GMO label on things makes people think there is something wrong with GMO itself, rather than taking the modifications on a case-by-case basis.

      Thirdly, it’s the explicit plan of anti-GMO activists to use these labels to agitate to force supermarkets to remove them from the shelves.

      Finally, what the labels really to is force producers to tell consumers not what they *should* know, but what anti-GMO activist WANT to tell them. They are effectively forcing the costs of their disinformation campaign onto food-production companies.

      1. Okay, thanks. So, it’ll drive up the cost of products containing GMO crops without any meaningful benefit to the consumer while scare mongering about what GMO actually is. Sneaky. Because my assumption – and probably the assumption of most people – is information is a good. And, why not label?

        I don’t eat grain or sugar, so it’s not something on my personal radar.

        1. And, why not label?

          Any food producer can put labels on their foods now.

          The question is not whether GMO producers should label their foods, it’s whether they should be FORCED to label their foods. Which is not a “why not” question for a libertarian, it’s a “why” question.

        2. Producers can label their products non-GMO, so people who want to avoid GMOs can look for non-GMO labels. This puts the cost of segregating out non-GMO suppliers on consumers who care.

          If you eat corn oil or soybean oil (in most vegetable oils), those products probably came from GMO crops.

          Here’s another issue – corn and soybean oil are so proceeded it’s pretty much impossible to identify from the product themselves if they came from GMO or non-GMO corn. There aren’t really any traces of DNA left in the corn oil to test. Physically, these products are identical.

          1. processed, I mean.

            The point being is that’s why you would have to segregate the entire supply chain. You can’t always tell if a product comes from a “GMO” plant, because it’s often physically, chemically, nutritionally indistinguishable. The only way you would know is by tracing it back to the farmer who planted it.

          2. My rudimentary understanding of farming and animal husbandry tells me that we’ve been genetically selecting by more rudimentary means for desired qualities for centuries. So, the anti-GMO stuff seems moronic on its face.

            A modern organically grown apple probably only has a slight relationship to its ancestor of 300 years ago – at least in appearance. They’re bigger, sweeter, redder, greener.

            1. Yes, and you can do undesirable things by cross-breeding too. It’s not how the gene got there that matters, it’s what the gene does.

              Incidentally, most of the wild grasses in Europe are escaped food crops from centuries past. So it’s not like we haven’t created “superweeds” before.

            2. Lady

              A modern, organic Macintosh apple is excatly what a Macintosh apple was from 300 years ago. Seeds from Granny Smiths don’t grow into trees that produce Granny Smith apples.

              1. Okay. Thanks, guys. Good info.

                The NPR article was interesting.

            3. My go-to on this topic is strawberries. The strawberries from my childhood were about 20% the size of strawberries today. And they would get fuzzy grey mold all over them in a day or two. They tasted pretty darned good though.

              Through the 90’s we had bigger, longer-lasting but tasteless strawberries. But they kept on working.

              Now we have strawberries that can be almost as big as a billiard ball that are quite flavorful. And they last for a week or two in the fridge if you are lucky.

              I don’t know how much (if any) of that is due to genetic modification and how much is good old-fashioned cross-breeding, but they are much, much better now.

              1. I haven’t seen the mold resistance you have. If you want to keep the mold off, a quick dip in warm chlorine dioxide sol’n works for a good while, if it’s worth it to you. But you’ve got to make the chlorine dioxide, most conveniently from sodium chlorite & a buffer sol’n.

              2. Per the Calif strawberry growers group there are no commercial GMO strawberries. So we will have to go without glow in the dark strawberries…

                1. So how did strawberries go from thumb sized to fist sized? Hmmm, it seems there are more than one ways to modify a genome.

                  1. Probably ipse dixit.

                    http://specialcollections.nal……wberry.pdf

          3. Mexico has done well with many varieties of native corn which have been grown over the centuries. GM is threatening all of those species of corn and their pollinators so that they can achieve their purpose, control the global food supply and crush independent farmers, spreading ecocide along the way. This is the reason why most of the world is against the American axis of agriterror.. Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Bayer, Sygenta. And believe me, the USDA is one terrorist agency. Their “wildlife services” is corrupt and bribed to the max, it hardly serves wildlife, it is massacring millions of wildlife a year to serve their corporate agribusiness and rancher crooks.

      2. They are effectively forcing the costs of their disinformation campaign onto food-production companies poor people.

        FIFY

      3. Aren’t most crops genetically modified through cross breeding…basic Mendelian stuff?

        1. Yep. Very few organisms that we eat exist in nature. Cows? Chickens? Pigs? Look at them – they’re ridiculous animals. They would not exist (in that state) if not for the interventions of humans. Same with crops. Most fruits were hard, bitter-tasting things until humans used selective breeding to make them bigger and sweeter. This has been going on pretty much since humans invented agriculture.

          But ask an anti-GMO advocate to tell you why GMO crops are more dangerous than those produced by random mutations, and watch them fall apart.

          1. Actually, Akira, fruits have been selectively bred for long shelf lives and attractive colors, at the expense of good taste. That’s why home-gardened strawberries and tomatoes are so much sweeter than groceries.

      4. Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food.. period. You can’t justify not doing this. And it’s a myth that labeling would add heavy cost to the product. The amount of price raise in in the fractions of a cent. It is the explicit plan of the GMO crooks to control the global food supply. They don’t care if your health or the earth’s future is destroyed in the process. When psychotics get into and hide behind politics or the management of corporations, you get the results of psychosis. That’s no exaggeration, all you have to do is look at Hitler’s Germany, ISIS, and many other examples.

        1. Really? Monsanto is the NAZIs?

    3. Information is good, accurate information is better.

      That’s not always the case. Selectively-chosen information, even if accurate, can be misleading. Also, the food producers would not be able to choose how to present the information, it would be determined by the anti-GMO advocates.

      In addition, it is unfair to require GMO foods to be labeled while foods produced by random mutation are not required to be labeled.

    4. Dihydrogen Monoxide. The entire intent is to scare people away from perfectly safe food. These same people wouldn’t be so eager to have their organic food labeled as, “now with more pyrethrins!”

    5. The presence of a label gives consumers the false impression that the labelled thing is dangerous. If you require bottled water to be labelled “WARNING: Contains water!”, the consumer will be less likely to buy bottled water. There’s no reason to force sellers of any product to post warning labels on their product unless that product is proven genuinely dangerous, like tobacco.

    6. Voluntary labeling of GMO is fine. That was people that care will buy those products labelled. It’s using the power of the state to put a big fat GMO “warning” label on things that aren’t actually dangerous that I have a problem with. Just assume anything that doesn’t say GMO free on the back has GMO’s and you have it figured out.

  14. The full text of the bill is hilarious, despite the Orwellian “Benton Food Freedom” title. For example, it establishes plant rights:

    Rights of Natural Communities: Natural communities, such as soils and other terrestrial systems, and aquatic systems such as aquifers, streams, rivers, and wetlands, shall possess the right to exist, persist, maintain themselves and regenerate their own vital cycles, structures, functions and evolutionary processes to the extent necessary to further the creation and protection of Benton County’s local food system. That right shall include the right to be free from genetically engineered organisms and the right to be free from the patenting, licensing, or ownership of their genes within Benton County.

    There’s an “enforcement” section but it’s pretty vague. It doesn’t mention the county govt having the authority to destroy crops, so presumably they would just fine landowners who don’t comply.

    1. So, will they prosecute a fire, tornado, flood, or hurricane if it destroys a natural community?

  15. This may be the place to note?as I have before?that I’m neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO, that principles of food freedom mean people should be free to grow and eat whatever the hell they want, and that people should be equally free to love or hate GMOs.

    I don’t think you fully understand the perilous predicament we have enter into.

    Atomic Weapons vs. Gene Mutated Foods: The image of modern progress brought about solely by perfected mechanisms or technology was punctured in the 1940’s with the explosion of atomic weapons – which brought humanity to the brink of global annihilation. Einstein’s formulas created the bomb. His formulas hinged on the very same ideas of the philosopher Ren? Descartes for their foundation. Descartes developed the underlying geometry that space may be universally or infinitely separated (“Cartesian coordinates”) into distinct points. If we perfectly visualize this, we run the risk of bringing that exact image to life. Einstein’s famous formula (E = mc2), for example, allows us to explode space. Only in hindsight and seeing this result, Einstein expressed the wish of never having taken on the career of a physicist.

    1. Genetic engineering, or the splicing of genes, may be viewed as a still more perilous outcome of a Cartesian-like approach to nature. We can prevent nuclear disaster or hopefully keep nuclear weapons bottled up. But genetic engineering applies a similar philosophy and creates products intentionally released – with potential chain reactions that may not be stoppable. Genetic engineering essentially forms a violence against nature. It takes gene guns and aims them at the heart of each cell or its nucleus, and where the depth of life and consciousness lives. This does violence to that innate consciousness, the life principle in nature, as we impose the mechanical view of genetics. It is much overdue that in the 21st century we become wiser – and learn to rather live in peace and harmony with ourselves and all other living creatures on earth.

      1. It takes gene guns and aims them at the heart of each cell or its nucleus, and where the depth of life and consciousness lives.

        We need an assault chromosome ban. And a limit of ten nucleotides per gene.

        1. We need a retard ban.

          1. I agree, but we also need a ban on using the word “retard” as a insult.

        1. The GMO that Could Have Killed Nearly All Life on Earth

          She had one control with no Klebsiella planticola present at all, one with the natural strain, and one with the genetically engineered strain of the bacteria. And alas, the experiment only took a week before it was quite clear that the GE bacteria killed the host plant mercilessly. See, the thing is that alcohol is very poisonous to plants, they can’t take it at all unless diluted a very great deal; this bacteria on the other hand had been designed to produce the purest and strongest alcohol possible as quickly as possible. So, as the good doctor had suspected, the GE strain of K. planticola quickly killed all of the exposed wheat of alcohol poisoning very quickly. If she had only tested the toxicity of the alcohol on plants as the EPA had, she would clearly come up with the results that alcohol kills plants but we don’t have to put it on them.

        2. She was smart enough to think a bit further, practicing the scientific principle of precaution, and recognize that they were modifying one of the most common bacteria in the world and that if any at all escaped it would quickly multiply as bacteria tend to do (the genetically altered DNA can also spread to bacteria through horizontal transfer, as if it were a bacterial flu of sorts) and could travel very quickly as it could also survive in the digestive systems of many animals, potentially going completely worldwide in a very short period of time.

          One lone scientist potentially saved the world by speaking up and saying,”Maybe we shouldn’t do that,” something thatwould be nice to hear from a great deal more scientists on occasion. Especially after all the disturbing things we’re continuing to uncover about the damages that genetically engineered foods such as most corn, soy, canola, and more. Think first, act second, and thank you Dr. Ingham.

          1. You are like proof that there is something wrong with the brains of anti-GMO types.

            Seek psychological help.

            1. Complete lunatic.

              Reading is fundamental.

              The safety record of genetically engineered plants and foods derived from them is extraordinary. Even after the cultivation worldwide of more than 3 billion acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 14 million farmers) and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food by inhabitants of North America alone, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or a single confirmed adverse reaction.

              The advantages are also remarkable. Every year, farmers planting genetically engineered varieties spray millions fewer gallons of chemical pesticides and substantially reduce topsoil erosion. In addition, many of these varieties are less susceptible to mold infection and have lower levels of fungal toxins, making them safer for consumers and livestock.

              1. Brought to you by the same folks bringing you the Climate Change debacle.

                SCIENCE!

                Oh, wait…

                POLITICS!

                1. Science is great, until it violates your preconceived beliefs about the sanctity of nature. Then it’s an evil conspiracy by Monsanto.

          2. Seems like a benefit. Instead of drinking liquor, we could just eat carbohydraes.

            1. *carbohydrates IIRC, something like this already happened in Japan some time ago.

          3. You seem to be implying there is not regulatory process or testing regime to get a new GMO crop out to market or something. Perhaps you should read up a bit

      2. bleck|5.2.15 @ 10:11AM|#
        “This may be the place to note?as I have before?that I’m neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO, that principles of food freedom mean people should be free to grow and eat whatever the hell they want, and that people should be equally free to love or hate GMOs.”

        You’re a lying piece of crap. If you ‘don’t care’, why spread lies like that?

        1. You’re a lying piece of crap. If you ‘don’t care’, why spread lies like that?

          Look Ma’am, the statement you are referring to came from the author of this article. This is why I placed it in italics.

          1. No, you posted some bullshit about blowing up space.

            1. Newtonian idea that empty space is just a coordinate system is crap. Empty space is not empty, particles spontaneously appear/annihilate each other, Einstein’s space/time is not the same as the Descartes coordinate system model.

              So the aforementioned article is full of shit from the get go.

              1. I’m surprised we didn’t get a helping of ‘quantum mechanics’ tossed in.

                1. Especially since there is so much “spook action at a distance” going on with the anti-GMO crowd.

              2. Probably best not to tell him about the quantum foam. That level of randomness would require some sort of government intervention.

  16. OT, but

    When are we going to get Ron Swanson to make a series of videos lambasting resistance to libertarian policies?
    The character is the manliest man and honestly one of the best faces we could have for advertising

  17. Anti-GMO is the ultimate “I have a comfortable life” protest.

    If you’re poor and/or starving, you wouldn’t care if your food was genetically modified. Indeed, you may only be able to afford to eat well because of the GMO revolution.

    Yeah, I do understand the concern that GMO foods have been rushed to production and may have undiscovered effects on our long term food security (messing with genes to suppress reproductive functions, for example, seems short sighted) but those arguments aren’t really being made and, regardless, can’t be used to force labeling. Instead, they’re making arguments about how GMOs are dangerous to consume, which isn’t backed by science.

    1. We’ve been eating them for 25 years, and nobody has noticed any long term effects yet.

      1. Obesity and diabetes rates in the country that have been eating them for 25 years have dropped significantly over that same time period. /sarc

        1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 1:55PM|#
          “Obesity and diabetes rates in the country that have been eating them for 25 years have dropped significantly over that same time period. /sarc”

          So you spread bullshit on your plants and here?

          1. Sevo

            What is bullshit about my sarcasm?

            1. Yeah, right. When you’re called on it, it’s just a joke, right? And if nobody catches it, why you’ve just succeeded in peddling more crap.
              Clever. For an adolescent.

              1. The OP had “/sarc” at the end. I’m not sure it could be anymore clear.

                1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 7:18PM|#
                  “The OP had “/sarc” at the end. I’m not sure it could be anymore clear.”

                  Uh, since you thereafter make a mockery of the sarc label, you’ve been exposed as a slimy luddite. So, yes, it is clear and not the way you hoped, asshole.

                  1. Posting on a website using a smartphone = luddite? In what alternate reality?

                    1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:08AM|#
                      “Posting on a website using a smartphone = luddite? In what alternate reality?”

                      Posting 18th century bullshit, asshole. Is that clear, luddite?

                    2. Cite missing.

                    3. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:40AM|#
                      “Cite missing.”

                      Intelligence missing.
                      Fuck off, slimeball.

                    4. Amsoc refuses to post cites as well.

                    5. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:04AM|#
                      “Amsoc refuses to post cites as well.”
                      And you’re as stupid as commie kid.
                      Well, maybe more. Fuck off.

                    6. Agsoc and Amsoc. Two (GMO?) peas in a pod.

                    7. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:40AM|#
                      “Agsoc and Amsoc. Two (GMO?) peas in a pod.”

                      Chumby and stupid shit: Two peas in a pod.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    8. You’re both in San Fran. So it seemed apropos.

          2. Oh yeah, given that April 15 is just behind us how much did you make in dividends and capital gains on your Monsanto shares last year?

            1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 2:56PM|#
              “Oh yeah, given that April 15 is just behind us how much did you make in dividends and capital gains on your Monsanto shares last year?”

              Oh, nature-boy! You left out Koch Bros! KKKorporatshuns.
              Fuck off, idjit; you just won the award.

              1. I won the “Sevo Just Strawmanned” Award. Thanks. I was actually being serious. You are very NAP and anti-coercion on every topic I recall you commenting on but GMO. You can grow and eat your GMOs sprayed with chemicals that have lengthy Safety Data Sheets (switch from MSDSs happens in about 43 days so I’m using the new terminology) but you have minimized the taxpayer subsidies for pharming (while hammering entities such as Solyndra) and agreed with Monsanto’s suing of Oakhurst. So a logical conclusion was you have bias based on a finacial gain.

                1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 7:24PM|#
                  “I won the “Sevo Just Strawmanned” Award. Thanks. I was actually being serious. You are very NAP and anti-coercion on every topic I recall you commenting on but GMO. You can grow and eat your GMOs sprayed with chemicals that have lengthy Safety Data Sheets (switch from MSDSs happens in about 43 days so I’m using the new terminology) but you have minimized the taxpayer subsidies for pharming (while hammering entities such as Solyndra) and agreed with Monsanto’s suing of Oakhurst. So a logical conclusion was you have bias based on a finacial gain.”

                  It’s not worth taking this apart; one piece of bullshit after the other. You’re full of shit; fuck off

                  1. Did you just have a Mike Hihn stroke out on that post?

                    1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:11AM|#

                      “Did you just have a Mike Hihn stroke out on that post?”
                      Can you learn to read, shitstain? I pointed out that you had so loaded that post with bullshit, no reasonable person would bother to point out all of it. As a luddite ignoramus, I presume that is beyond your ability to understand; luddites are so attuned to the 18th century.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    2. No true Scotsman. Thanks for that. And for the pro crony capitalism stance.

                    3. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:41AM|#
                      “No true Scotsman.”

                      Stupid luddite.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

            2. The Shill Gambit is not a valid argument.

              1. It is called advocacy and it is germane.

                1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 7:19PM|#
                  “It is called advocacy and it is germane.”

                  It’s called stupidity, slimeball.

                  1. You’ve never addressed this. So its still in play. Like your pro crony capitalism stance.

                    1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:42AM|#
                      “You’ve never addressed this. ”

                      It’s called STUPIDITY, slimeball.
                      There; addressed.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    2. That’s wonderful. I’m still paying for Amsoc’s mortgage and your food.

                    3. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:05AM|#
                      “That’s wonderful. I’m still paying for Amsoc’s mortgage and your food.”

                      I’m more than happy you and commie kid are related.
                      No, you’re not ‘paying for’ my food any more than I’m paying for yours, except I may be doing more of the paying for the luddite labeling of ‘organic’ I have to pay for to satisfy fucking ignoramuses like you.
                      Oh, and get lost.

                    4. Cite where I support labeling? Opps. Idiot. IIRC Calif has no labeling standard so that isn’t affecting you. Oops again. I’m not getting a penny from you but some of my taxes are subsidizing your pet crony industry.

                    5. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:43AM|#
                      “Cite where I support labeling?”

                      Cite where I claimed you did, you pile of shit.
                      Do you think your sophistry somehow justifies your stupidity? Do you think no one here recognizes that you’re cherry-picking data in the hopes of supporting a position that’s been debunked twenty years ago?
                      How stupid are you? What do you think you’re gaining by displaying your stupidity in a public forum?
                      You and the rest of the ‘flat earthers’ are more than welcome to pitch your claims; no one here is going to try to stop you, but no one here is going to stop laughing at your, either.
                      You’re a fucking, pathetic piece of shit, stuck in the ‘romantic’ past, and if you ever got your way, millions would starve to death.
                      You are properly despised; fuck you with some KKKorporate instrument, you slimy piece of shit.

                    6. “…except I may be doing more of the paying for the luddite labeling of ‘organic’ I have to pay for to satisfy fucking ignoramuses like you.”

        2. Obesity and diabetes rate have been rising since long before GMOs came along. Although actually obesity rates are down slightly in recent years.

          And we know why and it has nothing to do with GMOs. It’s about refined sugar and white flour.

          1. Thought refined sugar consumption was way down and replaced by GMO HFCS. Could you provide a cite for refined sugar consumption? From what I found in 1975 diabetes rate was 15%. In 2009 it was 32%. But the US consumption rate of sugar was slightly higher in 1975 than in 2009.

            1. HFCS has nothing to do with GMOs. You can make it from conventional corn or GMO corn in exactly the same way. If anything has promoted the use of HFCS it is farm subsidies that promote the growth of corn, period, GMO or not. Anyway, the difference between fructose and glucose composition in HFCS is only slightly different than that in refined sugar, so it really doesn’t make any difference whether you are eating one or the other, both are equally likely to promote diabetes.

              1. The majority of corn is GMO. Corn (and caustic soda sometimes without mercury) is the raw ingredient for HFCS. The proliferation of HFCS has tracked similiarly with the switch to GMO corn.

                HFCS = sugar? So you have a cite that isn’t a marketing brochure from the corn industry? From what I read cane sugar is 50:50 fructose to glucose and the molecules are bound together. HFCS is more like 55:45 (or greater) and the molecules are unbound, making them much quicker to be absorbed.

                Do you have a cite for both are equally likely to cause diabetes?

                1. The proliferation of HFCS has tracked similiarly with the switch to GMO corn.

                  nonsense. HFCS started being commonly used in the early 80s. GMO corn didn’t hit the market until the early 90s. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. People were producing HFCS with non-GMO corn, and using it in food long before GMOs existed.

                  1. Still waiting for the cites on your substantial equivalence claims.

                    And were using it. It was not wasy to find a cite regarding percentage of GMO corn used for HFCS production. The only one I could find indicated “a majority.” This is in response to “HFCS can be made from non-GMO.” So your statement stands either partially debunked or wholly unsubstantiated.

                    1. No, retard, the fact that HFCS is currently made primarily with GMO corn has nothing to do with whether it CAN be made with non-GMO corn. Correlation =/= causation – I swear you progs need remedial logic classes, all of you. You get fat by eating more than you burn, and you get type II diabetes from being a fat ass who eats kit-kat lasagnas.

                      I’d say you sound like a religious fanatic, but you progs are all about science. /sarc

                    2. Your reading comprehension was about third grade on that. Hazel argued that HFCS could be made with non-GMO corn. My insinuation was that it is now predominantly done with GMO corn (but it was difficult to find a good cite). Which is what you said. But you had no cite. Then you claimed I was taking the opposite position. Thanks for the derp.

                    3. ‘This is in response to “HFCS can be made from non-GMO.”‘

                      The point is that HFCS’s negative health effects have nothing to do with the fact that it is made predominantly with GMO corn. HFCS could be made without GMO corn, it could be made with GMO corn. The two products would be indistinguishable.

                      And since you are so keen on asking for citations, let’s cut the shit – give a single peer-reviewed study that demonstrates any adverse health effects from GMOs.

                    4. Waiting on the cite.

                      HM and I were debating whether HFCS Was equivalent to sugar. I’m still waiting for that to be resolved.

                      The use of harmful chemicals has been my major criticism of GMO pharming. As of yet nobody on Reason is willing to drink Roundup (several GMO articles back it was posted that it was safe/not harmful to do so).

                    5. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:48AM|#
                      “Waiting on the cite.”
                      From someone who is not currently posting and to ignorant sophists like you, that’s ‘scoring a point!’

                      “HM and I were debating whether HFCS Was equivalent to sugar. I’m still waiting for that to be resolved.”
                      HM is long gone and your attempt to claim interest is noted as slimeball tactic, slimeball.

                      “The use of harmful chemicals has been my major criticism of GMO pharming.”
                      Claim used as argument; prove ‘harmful’, and I’m waiting to see you eat a pound of cow shit.

                    6. Seemed like bcbtls wanted to pick up where HM left off. Also, I’m waiting on cites from you. Who is still posting. Slimballish indeed.

                      Why would I eat a pound of cow shit when I don’t use that to grow my food? Fourth (fifth?) time this has been communicated. Do you not know how to read a computer screen. Something about a luddite.

                      Harmful: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp44n013.pdf

                    7. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:14AM|#
                      “Why would I eat a pound of cow shit when I don’t use that to grow my food”

                      I see. You fool yourself that protein waste is not required for plant growth? Oh, good. Are you a vegan by any chance?

                    8. “Harmful: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp44n013.pdf

                      Oh, LOOK! Shitpile can find a warning that if you eat or drink a whole lot of something, it can be dangerous!
                      Uh, did you get through HS chem, asshole?

                    9. I don’t want that on my food at any stage of its production and I don’t want it on my soil where my family lives and recreates and beneath which the aquifer that supplies my well is located. It would also require special storage and handling to apply. And I also don’t want to buy it since I don’t need to use it.

                    10. “And since you are so keen on asking for citations”

                      Our luddite slimeball has no interest in citations, other than some memorized ‘noise’ s/he can toss into a discussion.
                      If it was interested in citations, it would have long ago gotten embarrassed in spreading the bullshit it does. Hence, it is nothing other than misdirection.

                    11. Guess you can’t provide cites. This is noted too.

                    12. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:15AM|#
                      “Guess you can’t provide cites. This is noted too.”

                      Guess you’re a luddite ignoramus,. This is noted too.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    13. Agsoc the citeless.

                    14. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:44AM|#
                      “Agsoc the citeless.”

                      Stupidity for the luddites.
                      Fuck off.

                    15. Lack of cites is stupidity for the luddites. Totally agree.

                    16. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

                      High-fructose corn syrup, sucrose and other sweetening ingredients such as brown sugar, molasses, fruit nectar, cane juice, honey and agave nectar are added to processed foods. As a group they’re called “added sugars.” Those concerns about high-fructose corn syrup ? unhealthy weight, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease ? relate to any kind of added sugars.

                      That took me about 5 seconds to google. Jesus fuck you are lazy. I mean, it’s one thing to be ignorant when it isn’t easy to google something. It’s another thing to be ignorant when it would take you five seconds to educate yourself.

                    17. Here’s more:
                      http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs…..ugar.html/

                    18. Some evidence suggests it is different:
                      http://www.medicalnewstoday.co…..253484.php

                    19. And another focusing on HFCS’s role in obesity, which is a risk factor:
                      http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full

                    20. And another discussing apparent differences and additional risks HFCS presents for diabetics:
                      http://www.diabeticconnect.com…..corn-syrup

                    21. Yes, people who want to believe that there’s something special and bad about HFCS can find plenty of information to confirm their biases online, but the serious scientific research suggests otherwise.
                      Eating sugars, whatever the source, is bad for you. Nothing particularly special about HFCS.

                    22. The WaPo article took a pass on the fructose being unbound, the potential insulin trigger, and the effect on feeling satiated. I agree there isn’t concrete evidence but taking a “nothing to see here” approach without addressing the three major concerns is inadequte for me to accept that as convincing.

                      I like how the expert works for the extension service of the most obese state (at the time of the reference).

                    23. The WaPo article took a pass on the fructose being unbound, the potential insulin trigger, and the effect on feeling satiated. I agree there isn’t concrete evidence but taking a “nothing to see here” approach without addressing the three major concerns is inadequte for me to accept that as convincing.

                      I like how the expert works for the extension service of the most obese state (at the time of the reference).

        3. What you meant in view of the feeble “sarc” tag can be explained by increased calorie consumption, sedentariness, and an aging population.

          1. Calories from sugar-sweetened drinks and HFCS:
            http://www.m.webmd.com/diabete…..p-diabetes

            All populations are aging. Always. But I didn’t see that older populations are more at risk. Do you have a cite or is that another Tulpa-ism?

        4. Causation and correlation are just two different C words for the same thing. /sarc

          1. Cargill thanks you for your allegiance.

            1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 8:03PM|#
              “Cargill thanks you for your allegiance.”

              Stupidity thanks you for its spread.

              1. Correct. I’m attracting stupid comments on this article.

                1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:12AM|#
                  “Correct. I’m attracting stupid comments on this article.”

                  Your MAKING stupid comments here, asshole. Nature boy loves him some 18th century ag and starving people!
                  Is that clear, shitbag?

                  1. It used to be 20th C ag until you got called out on that. Still waiting on the cite.

                    No cites. No facts. Just name calling. If you mixed in some bold text, a (snickers) or two, and a link to a survey about 91% of libertarians don’t self identify as such I’d swear you were a guy in Idaho.

                    1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:29AM|#
                      “It used to be 20th C ag until you got called out on that.”

                      Got called out on calling 20th C ag 20th C ag? You mean you invented some additional bullshit and therefore I’m supposed to respond to it?
                      OK: You’re a slimy luddite ignoramus show slings bullshit.
                      There.

                    2. Moving goal posts. Thanks.

                2. Nothing says ‘smart’ like being opposed to something that has no proven adverse effects and can help mitigate nutritional deficiencies in the underdeveloped world. Smart.

                  1. I’m still waiting for a Reason reader to drink glyphosate. Since it has no adverse effects. And can help mitigate nutritional deficiencies on the underdeveloped world.

                    1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:32AM|#
                      I’m still waiting for a Reason reader to drink glyphosate.”

                      I’m still waiting for you to eat a pound of cow shit, slimeball.

                    2. For what is beyond the third time, we don’t use animal manure. And if we did it would be composted. Thanks for another data point showing your ignorance of this topic. I should remind you that your food can be grown with human shit.

                    3. Oh God… False analogy – like I said elsewhere, you progs really need to take a logic class. I’m sure you can find one at your local community college.

                    4. A pro spray and pray pharming poster said that Roundup was safe enough/not harmful to drink. So I keep asking people that support its use on produce fields and no takers. There’s no fallacy with that at all unless you are disagreeing with the pro glyphosate person.

                    5. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:56AM|#
                      “A pro spray and pray pharming poster said that Roundup was safe enough/not harmful to drink.”

                      A luddite claims org farming is safe; when are you going to eat a pound of cow shit, slimeball?

                    6. Time #6, we don’t use animal manure. Your food can be grown with human waste so maybe some San Fran biosolids for a Sat night snack would be in order.

                    7. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:30AM|#
                      “Time #6, we don’t use animal manure.”

                      Right. No protein required.
                      Stupidity squared, asshole.

                    8. Agsoc, Google alfalfa.

                    9. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:49AM|#
                      “Agsoc, Google alfalfa.”

                      Stupidity, no need to goodle chumby.
                      Fuck off.

                    10. So now alfalfa is protein-free? Is this a new GMO variety?

  18. The argument that science does not support a GMO labeling requirement does not hold water in my view. The science is not the question; the question is do the people have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to eat GMO foods. The libertarian answer is that yes, each individual has that right. In order to exercise that right, products containing GMOs must be labeled. This allows each person to make an informed decision. A consumer has every right to be fully informed about his purchases.

    1. In order to exercise that right, products containing GMOs must be labeled.

      FAIL!!!! FAIL!!!! FAIL!!!!!!

      In order to exercise that right, you can:
      1) Buy only food you grow yourself
      2) Only buy food from a producer whom you trust who is willing to produce food that is GMO free and tells you so.

      You have no right to compel people who are selling food to other people to acommodate your desire to know how they made the food.

    2. BTW, Dusty, I like your website.

    3. I’m all in favor of open information about the food on the shelves, but my question is this: why don’t non-GMO producers just put “non-GMO” labels on their packaging? That would be the easy way. No government action required. A lot of companies already do this. What’s wrong with these companies banding together and starting an inspection firm that will verify the non-GMO status of these foods and grant them their certification? (sort of like Underwriter’s Laboratories)

      I just don’t see why coercive government action is required in this situation.

    4. Why should other people be forced to pay so that you can know something is “GMO” ? Just buy foods labeled “non-GMO” and pay extra for them, just like people do for “organic”, “gluten-free”, “hormone-free” and everything else.

    5. Then shouldn’t people also be informed that organics are grown with more toxic pesticides? That they are more likely to be contain higher levels of mycotoxins? I mean, fair disclosure, right?

    6. Here’s where your argument falls down:

      I am a advocate for workers’ rights. I do not want to eat food that was harvested by migrant laborers who are exploited by “Big Ag” on a yearly basis. That’s my right; where’s my label?

      I don’t trust adherents of other religions, or even worse, atheists. I want to only eat food that was grown by Christians, so that it is full of God’s love. That’s my right; where’s my label?

      I am a racist SOB. I don’t want to eat foods that have been touched by the filthy, unclean hands of the subhumans of races other than my own. That’s my right; where’s my label?

      I am a disciple of Selene. I absolutely, fervently believe that food harvested on Mondays (or “Moon-day” as we refer to it) is healthier than that harvested on other days, particularly that vile “Sun-day”, when my goddess’ power is at its nadir. That’s my right; where’s my label?

  19. Professionally, I have worked with several public water systems whose supplies have been contaminated by conventional pharming (atrazine, velpar, nitrate (though this could happen with soil feeding methods it is less likely). Maybe I should turn over a new leaf (double pun intended) and embrace this as a means of job security.

    1. Then you should be pro-GMO because pest-resistant plants don’t need pesticides.

      1. Good thing “organic” plants don’t need fertilization too. Oh wait.

        1. Organic doesn’t use triple ten.

          1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 1:47PM|#
            “Organic doesn’t use triple ten.”

            Yeah, it uses bullshit. In more ways than one, as you’ve shown here.

            1. Mine uses plant material. As I have explained to you before. Keep ignoring reality.

              1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:15AM|#
                “Mine uses plant material. As I have explained to you before. Keep ignoring reality.”

                You are bullshitting and seem to be incapable of doing otherwise. Not surprising from a fucking luddite ignoramus.

                1. So you know how we manage our property? Please share that information.

                  And again, I’m online. So the luddite reset is just lazy.

                  1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:27AM|#
                    “So you know how we manage our property? Please share that information.”
                    WIH does that have to do with your lying?

                    “And again, I’m online. So the luddite reset is just lazy.”
                    Are you particularly proud of your stupidity? The fact that your both a hypocrite and a luddite seems to have escaped your notice. Which, given your stupidity, is not surprising.
                    Oh, and fuck off, nature boy.

                    1. You keep attributing practices to us that are not true. So I asked to show your work regarding from where that comes.

                    2. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:58AM|#
                      “You keep attributing practices to us that are not true”

                      You keep promoting 18th C ag, slimeball.

                    3. Control V, control P…

                    4. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:18AM|#
                      “Control V, control P…”

                      Hypocrisy A and stupidity B.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    5. You forgot a (snickers).

      2. What is being sprayed is herbicides. The plants are genetically engineered to survive the application of the chemicals that kill vegetation.

        1. Some GMOs are pest resistant, some are disease resistant, some are herbicide resistant. The pest resistant ones require less pesticides. The herbicde resistant ones allow farmers to spray herbicides to kill weeds so they can avoid tilling. Tilling causes soil erosion and is bad for soil health and river quality, because of the runoff from tilled fields. Thus herbicide resistance is still good for the environment, because it helps avoid soil erosion. Organic farmers typically till to control weeds. So farmers using herbicide resistant crops are actually better for the environment than organic.

          1. HM

            That was almost as enjoyable as A Song of Ice and Fire but every bit the fiction.

            I will be waiting for your cites in the response (you can skip the first part since I agree that chemicals sprayed on GMO crops kill living things).

            1. At this point there is not a living thing on Earth that has not been exposed to GMOs. So nothing can be called GMO-free.

            2. At this point there is not a living thing on Earth that has not been exposed to GMOs. So nothing can be called GMO-free.

            3. Hardly fiction:

              http://extension.psu.edu/plant…..ill-system

              Go look it up online, although I am sure you will find sufficient bullshit from anti-GMO activists to confirm your biases.

              1. I looked at PSU’s organic farming program website, which wasn’t substantial. But I did see some research on cover crops including those being used for weed supression and a discussion regarding crop timing. Hardly tilling to the point of inevitable soul erosion.

                You’ve also missed using mulches. And no till.

                It seems like you are confusing conventional agriculture sans chemical resistant GMO with conventional with GMOs.

                1. I’m not confusing anything. Roundup Ready Soybeans combined with no-till farming has been in use since the mid-90s. The entire premise of the article is that the development of glyphosate resistant crops prompted farmers to switch to no-till farming methods. It’s not that you *can’t* do it without herbicides, but that it’s a lot easier to do it with herbicides and especially with glyphosate since it has a low toxicity. Thus, once Roundup Ready soybeans hit the market, lots of farmers switched.

                  1. I’m not debating that. Though I suppose I could look into what happens to the field after the GMO corn is harvested. One of the conventional dairys around here grows corn and nothing else. They spray so no weeds/inter row cover crops. And only dead corn stalks after the harvest. The snow melt we had a few weeks ago certainly had runoff with it off the field.

                    I’m calling out your strawman at the end implying organic farming leads to soil erosion. Organic farming relies on developing and maintaining a healthy soil. Composting. Beneficial cover crops. Specific crop rotations. Companion planting. Leaf mulching. Straw mulching. No till. Hugel mounds.

                    1. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 10:39PM|#
                      “[…]Organic farming relies on developing and maintaining a healthy soil.[…]”

                      Oh, “healthy” soil! Did the mud mamma tell you it was “healthy”? What happens if it gets a cold?!
                      Fucking luddite bleevers.

                    2. Soil testing indicates whether it is healthy. Thanks for the derp.

                      What is the mud mamma?

                      How would you define the soil having a cold?

                    3. It’s a lot easier to maintain a healthy soil if you don’t have to till.
                      Organic farmers till more often.

                      Why are you operating under the delusion that the ONLY way to maintain a healthy soil is to never use pesticides or fertilizer or GMOs?
                      Does something about using GMOs stop you from doing crop rotation? No.
                      Does something about using ammonium nitrate fertilizer stop you from doing crop rotation? No.

                      Does something about organic farming stop you from using no-till farming? YES.

                    4. The organic producers whose fields I have visited are tilling once per crop.

                      Are conventional ag growers typically practicing rotation? That’s different than the ones around here though ypu are cprrect in that there isn’t anything inherent to stop them.

                      What’s the organic content of a conventional method and why would you specifically focus on it? Also, if they aren’t gping into fallow for a cycle the conventional grower is actually beating the soil more than the organic grower.

                    5. The organic producers whose fields I have visited are tilling once per crop.

                      Yes. It’s impossible to till more than once per crop, given that you would otherwise be tilling under the crop.

                      Organic farmers till, because they HAVE TO. They have no other means of controlling weeds. Farmers using RR + no-till don’t till, and therefore may in fact be practicing MORE sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture than the “organic” farmers.

                      Not everything old-fashioned is necessarily better for the planet. “Organic’s” restrictions on GMO may in fact be shooting themselves in the foot and forcing them to farm in a less sustainable way.

                    6. I don’t think you have ever been to a working farm. I think you have been to plenty of farm store farms that have strawmen for sale since you have a surplus of them that you keep sharing. You can till in between rows. You can cultivate in between rows. Wh n the crop is actually growing.

                      About five posts up I identified several organic farming methods of controlling weeds that do not involve tilling or something spraying. And a day later, just a few posts before, you ignored this.

                      The conventional farmers around here both till and spray. Its how they incorporate the corn stalks into the soil and incorporate the manure they spread. Some also till just before planting even though they later spray after the plants are growing (field corn would no longer be able to be cultivate whereas sweet corn could potentially be since the row spacing is typically greater).

                      Spray and pray farming has been around almost a century.

                2. Chumby|5.2.15 @ 8:13PM|#
                  “You’ve also missed using mulches. And no till.”

                  No, asshole, you’ve missed the 20th century.

                  1. You are correct. Spray and pray (and watch the land wash away?) is not a form of agriculture I support. Well, I suppose I do partially support it since my tax money goes towards its continuation.

                    1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 12:29AM|#
                      “Spray and pray (and watch the land wash away?) is not a form of agriculture I support”

                      Yes, shitpile, supporting 18th-century ag is soooooooooo fashionable for those who are lacking an IQ above a digit or so. Starvation of millions is just wonderful, isn’t it?
                      Fuck off, nature boy.

                    2. Thanks for taking the SJW coercive government stance on agriculture. Are you Amsoc’s father? Big government? Check. Wealth redistribution? Check. Crony capitalism? Check. Its for the children cos otherwise they’ll starve? Check.

                      Provide a cite for 18th C farming being equivalent to current organic farming.

                      Did your Loc Sec remind you to vote by the 15th?

                    3. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 1:23AM|#
                      “Thanks for taking the SJW coercive government stance on agriculture.”

                      Thanks for taking the luddite ignoramus coercive stance on ag, shitbag. Do you think your stupidity won’t be detected?
                      Or are you so stupid you don’t recognize how stupid you are.
                      Fucking fool or fucking nave, which is it?

                    4. How much do you want to bet this Chumby guy’s kids, if he has any, aren’t vaccinated?

                    5. bluecanarybythelightswitch|5.3.15 @ 1:37AM|#
                      “How much do you want to bet this Chumby guy’s kids, if he has any, aren’t vaccinated?”

                      Given his (or her) addiction to romantic ignorance, it’s probably a good bet, but ignoramuses of the sort he or she seems to be, it’s possible that some 20th-century tech snuck through.
                      Most organic food ignoramuses tend to hide their stupidity as asshole here did in the beginning, but once let loose, whew! It’s one lie after the other!

                    6. bluecanarybythelightswitch|5.3.15 @ 1:37AM|#
                      Oh, and wasn’t the “healthy soil” claim just precious?

                    7. So I’m paying for your (alleged) son’s mortgage and for your food?

                    8. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:00AM|#
                      “So I’m paying for your (alleged) son’s mortgage and for your food?”

                      That’s about as stupid a remark as you’ve made so far. You’re testing the limits, but that one’s close.
                      Oh, and fuck off, shitbag.

                    9. Still nothing in response to ypur support of the crony capitalist food system.

                    10. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:21AM|#
                      “Still nothing in response to ypur support of the crony capitalist food system.”

                      Well, since I do nothing of the sort, it would only surprise those capable of thought. So your confusion is easily understood.
                      Oh, and fuck off, luddite.

                    11. Conventional ag is taxpayer subsidized. Or do you reject that?

                    12. So I’m paying for your (alleged) son’s mortgage and for your food?

                    13. Where’s my coercive stance? Didn’t recall I was trying to force govt or business to do anything.

  20. my best friend’s aunt makes $85 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $18401 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  21. You know who else wanted to artificially engineer living organisms?

    1. Paula Dean?

      1. Everybody except luddites?

        1. Everybody except crony capitalists?

          1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:02AM|#
            “Everybody except crony capitalists?”

            Gee, shtibag, you left out KOOOOCHS!

            1. Another strawman. Great. You left out the part where you address your support of the taxpayer subsidized agricultural industrial complex.

              1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:23AM|#
                “Another strawman”
                This from the shitpile who claimed “CRONY CAPITALISTS” without a single piece of evidence.
                Can we say ‘how stupid are you?’ Why, yes we can.
                Fuck off.

              2. Nobody here supports farm subsidies.
                What does that have to do with GMOs. Do you think farm subsidies exclusively go to GMOs?

                1. At least one person here has fought against addressing them.

                  Conventional ag, which includes GMO production and meat production fedfrom GMO corn and soy, do quite well.

                  1. Conventional agriculture also include conventional non-GMO corn and soy.
                    Which is likely what goes into those non-GMO labeled foods, unless they are also labeled organic.

                    1. True. About 89% of corn and 94% of soy grown in the US is GMO. So most of is also GMO. About just under half the soy and around half the corn is used for animal feed stock. The other big use for corn is ethanol production. Manufacturing HFCS I think was around 4% of total domestic corn crop.

    2. Oliver Wendell Douglas?

    3. Hugh Hefner?

  22. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  23. I think this makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.AnonGO.tk

  24. For the sake of increasing investment and growth of the GMO industry and research, especially in the face of countries that use anti-GMO laws to exclude American GMO food, and countries that actually buy into the anti-GMO idea, I hope the industry effort to lobby a federal “labels are optional, no forced state label laws may force labeling” law works.
    Anyone who doubts the safety of GMO a “YouTube look” at the Obama administrations FDA head reluctantly saying under badgering questioning in a hallway what any who look into this know-that GMO food tests and logically is as safe or risky as non-GMO, “normal” food.

    1. For the sale of libertarianism, I hope the federal government passes a law that prohibts X, Y, and Z.

      1. Well, if X,Y, and Z are things the government is forcing people to do, then prohibiting X,Y, and Z is quite libertarian. You’re really dense.

        1. The correct response would be to pass neither.

          1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:03AM|#

            The correct response would be for you to stuff your religion up your ass.

            1. Given that I have no religion that’s actually quite comical.

              1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:24AM|#
                “Given that I have no religion that’s actually quite comical.”
                Given that you certainly do have a religion and don’t even acknowledge it, that’s quite enlightening, shitpile.

                1. Mike Hihn made the same mistake of misattributing a religion to me.

        2. “You’re really dense.”

          I think you’re too kind. Not only stupid in the extreme, but actively evil, also; consciously promoting stupidity that would result in the starvation of a huge number of people simply as a result of the ignorant bleef in some romantic fantasy.
          What we are dealing with here is the modern equivalent of the inquisition; this pile of shit would deny food to millions as a result of some ignorant religion.

          1. How am I denying anything? You already support my taxes going to the state to support the ag industrial complex. Now I would be forced to buy seeds that I neither want nor need and use harmful chemicals in the fields by my house and near my well that I do not want to? You’re commie kid except you’re doing it for ag instead of schooling and healthcare.

            1. Chumby|5.3.15 @ 2:28AM|#
              “How am I denying anything?”

              Sorry, you’re too stupid to understand and I charge ‘way too much for ignorant assholes like you to explain it.
              It has to do with the 20th Century and I know that’s a mystery to you so, fuck off, asshole.

              1. You really haven’t explained anything because you can’t. You haven’t provided any cites either. You’ve made a bunch of strawman accusations about how we do things. About all you have shared is that you don’t oppose the crony capitalist ag industry and act like a monkey slinging shit when another does.

          2. Not only stupid in the extreme, but actively evil, also; consciously promoting stupidity that would result in the starvation of a huge number of people simply as a result of the ignorant bleef in some romantic fantasy.

            This pretty much hits the nail on the head.

            Any sufficiently advance stupidity is indistinguishable from evil.

            And Chumby is very VERY stupid.

            1. Thanks for the groupthink.

  25. Selective breeding of crops, such as has been practiced since antiquity, is a form of genetic modification. When you selectively breed crops, you are modifying their genomes. Virtually all crops are products of selective breeding, and therefore, of genetic modification.

    So this bill would ban ALL crops.

    1. I saw in a post some weeks ago here that surveys showed that 60% of the public support a ban on foods containing DNA. The masses seem to be very afraid of genes for some reason. They’re not very afraid of atoms or electrons, and they absolutely love other planets and stars, but those freaking genes, they have the public pretty rattled. The idea of cloning, even cloning lovable wooly mammoths or their own pets or even themselves absolutely terrifies the boobleheads.

      Do we really need genes? What for? Can’t Chuck Schumer propose some kind of law against them?

      1. IssueNinja, your post is cute but you are libeling Chuck Schumer, who has been very good for biotech research and biotech industry.

  26. I come to the comments section on Reason, hoping to read comments/argument based on, well, you know, Reason! Instead, I see the same attempts to stifle debate and silence the opposition with mockery and snarkiness as I expect on the Huffington Post or World Net Daily.

    The Age of Reason is long dead.

  27. my Aunty Brianna got a nice 6 month old Chevrolet Suburban SUV by working part-time from a laptop..
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  28. GMO is a dangerous poison. Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, “developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.” The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. Everywhere GMO is being grown, food allergies, disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others have been skyrocketing in the human populations.

    There has been a drastic decline of crop-pollinating insects all over the world, and what this means for the future of the world’s food supply. Wild pollinators like bumblebees, butterflies, and beetles are basically disappearing. GMO industrial agricultural practices are causing this insect genocide. Pollinating insects in general, which include a wide range of insects and other animals, are simply vanishing from their normal habitats and foraging areas. That lower diversity and lower abundance of wild insects means less fruits and destruction of the diversity of plants and their fruits worldwide.

    1. Mr. Donner, I need to know. Have you been sterilized? My concern is that we keep YOU out the of the gene pool.

      Assuming that stupidity and the tendency toward cult movements is genetically based, you are likely to propagate these defects into the next generation.

      Since there is no science behind any of the things you have asserted you clearly adhere to these beliefs on the basis of faith. This would classify your beliefs as religion, and as a religion that clearly wishes to impose it’s views on everyone, it would appear to be a religious cult.

      If you have not been sterlized, can we take up a collection to get that done?

  29. GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

    GMOs increase herbicide use. Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”?surviving deadly weed killers. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

  30. GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

    By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

    GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.

    Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield?the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

  31. The toxins associated with GMO should never be tolerated. NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE neurotoxins are absolutely the main factor causing the collapse of bee and pollinator populations along with other lethal chemicals, Agent Orange herbicides, glysophate, etc. When these poisons are banned as they were in Europe the bee populations start to recover. GMO neonicotinoids, roundup etc. MUST BE BANNED OUTRIGHT and all the farmers along with USDA, Biotech and chemical companies told to cease and desist from what they are doing.

    1. You are an idiot.

  32. An even scarier prospect: the “BT” version of GMO soybeans and corn, (basically pesticides engineered directly into the plant )

    The “BT toxin” gene is put into the DNA of the corn in order for it to manufacture its own toxins that kill pests. The BT gene originated from a soil bacteria that also infiltrates the microflora (friendly digestive bacteria) in your gut. The Bt gene converts the microflora in your intestine into toxin-manufacturing machines.

    So, to be clear, eating GMO corn products can cause your gut (which is primarily responsible for keeping you healthy) to turn into a breeding ground for tiny little pesticide factories inside your body, actively creating toxins which are designed to kill living things. These toxins are found in the blood and are readily transferred across the placenta to developing babies in the womb.

    1. Mark Donner, none of what you posted is true, except that bees are dying, and that has nothing to do with GMOs. It started happening before GMOs became widespread!

      Selective breeding of crops, such as has been practiced since antiquity, is a form of genetic modification. Virtually ALL crops have been selectively bred, so virtually ALL crops are GMOs!

      These trendy, hippy-dippy fear fads come and go. In the late ’70s we had the “no-nukes” movement, whose members had no training in physics and knew nothing about how nuclear power plants work. Later on the big bugaboo was high-fructose corn syrup (fructose is the sugar found naturally in fruits and vegetables!) and then irradiated food (any food which is baked, grilled, roasted, or microwaved is irradiated food!) Now we have the anti-vaccine movement.

    2. Mark Donner, with all due respect, and I’m saying with all.. due… respect… Those things you said aren’t worth a velvet painting of a whale and dolphin gettin’ it on.

  33. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  34. This is stupid. It would be easy to get the people of Vermont to kill this themselves. Vermont is (sorry Vermonters) economically nothing in the big picture. All the grocery manufacturers need do is stop shipping them rather than comply with the labelling requirements.

    The shelves will grow empty, Vermont residents will chase after their representatives with buckets of tar and feathers just before driving out of state to grocery shop. The entire thing will be repealed and the anti-GMO crowd will be HATED by the general population.

    Sometimes it can be instructive to let people suffer the consequences of letting the “fruits and nuts” of society run things.

  35. It’s been a while since the US government enforced monopoly laws, but what do you call it when a cartel of multinational chemical corporations use a perversion of patent law to claim ownership of nearly all the corn, soy, and canola grown in North America?

  36. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  37. Currently the biggest problem with GMO is the over usage of Roundup on the food supply. Even though wheat is not a GMO product, Roundup is sprayed on the entire feed 1-3 days prior to harvesting. The Roundup causes the dying weeds height to shrink below header height and also acts a desiccant to remove moisture from the wheat kernel because a moisture content to high will cause the wheat to mold in the granary. The Roundup in our food supply is the true issue. The other primary issue is Monsanto (and other) patenting genes and the causing heritage farmers to pay up or go out of business when their heritage crops are cross-pollinated with patented (GMO) crops. As a 4th generation family farmer. I have seen this. My wife’s cousin is one of the wheat farmers who uses the roundup to harvest his wheat. Learn the biomechanics of how Roundup kills plants and then decide if you want you wheat, corn, soy drenched in it just before harvest.

  38. For more on this, check out a Great TED Talk just released.

    Pamela Ronald – The Case for engineering our food.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/pamel…..g_our_food

    The part where she discusses how anti GMO activists destroying a test field or golden rice were responsible for causing more kids to go blind and many to die is pretty powerful. That and where she shows what banana’s and other fruit look like before GMO is also rather convincing.

    1. One can get vitamin A from dandelion greens. That is if herbicides aren’t used to kill them.

  39. GM food safety are still many questions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.