Vermont gmo label law starts today

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

yet we don't mandate pesticide disclosure on the label.

Well you should.

My point is that VT won't pass that as it's well-established practice. Even though the science says that there's little threat from the vast majority of GMOs, they'd rather go after the new technology, than the known concern from the older tech.

"We don't do this good thing, therefore we shouldn't do that other good thing either."

Great rationale.

If you make a requirement to label a safe thing that could imply it is unsafe, and don't require a label for a less safe thing, you are creating a false impression about the relative safety of various foods.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

I thought GMO crops were modified to use LESS pesticides?

Yes, some are modified toward that end, and others are modified to make the crop withstand pesticides better. 

Saying a product contains GMOs tells you very little about it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

I thought GMO crops were modified to use LESS pesticides?

Yes, some are modified toward that end

Pesticides doesn't work that way, and even if it did, the basic economy behind GMO crops doesn't work that way either.

It doesn't have anything to do with how pesticides work.  It has to do with crops that are resistant to pests without the use of pesticides.  How would that not be economical?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Remember people, transgenics is merely a tool. It should not be condemned out of hand, but each transgenic organism should be considered on its own merits against relatively simple technologies and investments (like for example, the huge amount of waste produced by the logistics of food production)

I'm not quite following the relation you are making here.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

I thought GMO crops were modified to use LESS pesticides?

Yes, some are modified toward that end

Pesticides doesn't work that way, and even if it did, the basic economy behind GMO crops doesn't work that way either.

It doesn't have anything to do with how pesticides work.  It has to do with crops that are resistant to pests without the use of pesticides.  How would that not be economical?

The way a crop is resistant to pest is through making the plant harder to eat, do you see a problem with doing that to food crops. There's a few where it's possible mostly those where humans eat the roots or tubes. But the problem are that they're usual already toxic, as example the leaves of the potato plant are toxic.

Simply put it's much easier to make as plant resistant to a pesticide than to make them resistant to fungus as example (which is one of the few places, where GMO could potential work). In fact as the companies developing GMO also develop pesticide they also have a incentive to focus on pesticide resistant over more useful qualities like salt or drought resistance.

Bt crops work by introducing genes which are toxic to certain species of pests which target certain plants in certain geographic areas, but are safe for humans and most other species, even most other insects (unlike pesticide sprays).  This is already extremely common practice around the world and involving a majority of the corn grown in the US. 
Admittedly there are problems: like all other pesticides, the pest resistant GMO crops need to be used carefully using best agricultural practices to avoid the insects becoming resistant.   

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

I thought GMO crops were modified to use LESS pesticides?

Yes, some are modified toward that end

Pesticides doesn't work that way, and even if it did, the basic economy behind GMO crops doesn't work that way either.

It doesn't have anything to do with how pesticides work.  It has to do with crops that are resistant to pests without the use of pesticides.  How would that not be economical?

The way a crop is resistant to pest is through making the plant harder to eat, do you see a problem with doing that to food crops. There's a few where it's possible mostly those where humans eat the roots or tubes. But the problem are that they're usual already toxic, as example the leaves of the potato plant are toxic.

Simply put it's much easier to make as plant resistant to a pesticide than to make them resistant to fungus as example (which is one of the few places, where GMO could potential work). In fact as the companies developing GMO also develop pesticide they also have a incentive to focus on pesticide resistant over more useful qualities like salt or drought resistance.

Bt crops work by introducing genes which are toxic to certain species of pests which target certain plants in certain geographic areas, but are safe for humans and most other species, even most other insects (unlike pesticide sprays).  This is already extremely common practice around the world and involving a majority of the corn grown in the US. 

The problem is that we humans are omnivores, which mean that we are less well adapted to getting through plants defences than specialised herbivores, something which make it harder for insects to eat a plant also makes it harder for a human to eat. There's a reason why horse chestnut is delicatese for horses, cows and pigs (plus a whole lot of other herbivores) and inedible to humans.

Do you have a source for this claim?  It seems odd as there are insects that eat wood (most large herbivores don't even do that) and insects for whom common herbs and spices are toxic. I wouldn't think we can necessarily say if something is toxic for a particular species of insect it is toxic for humans as well.

horse chesnuts can be toxic to horses btw, it's a bit of a misnomer.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As for insects which can't eat some herbs, it's usual a question about quantities. As example nicotine serve as a insect repellant and humans can consume it. But it's not a good idea for a human to consume it in large quantities. But our size enable us to survive mildly toxic herbs, which insects with their much smaller size can't survive. But it's not a good idea to fill our crops up with those compounds.

Why specifically is not a good idea?    Since different insects respond differently to various plants and compounds, this is not just a matter of size.  There are some things which have some toxicity for pretty much all species.  But there are other things which are toxic for some species and perfectly safe for others.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As for insects which can't eat some herbs, it's usual a question about quantities. As example nicotine serve as a insect repellant and humans can consume it. But it's not a good idea for a human to consume it in large quantities. But our size enable us to survive mildly toxic herbs, which insects with their much smaller size can't survive. But it's not a good idea to fill our crops up with those compounds.

Why specifically is not a good idea?    Since different insects respond differently to various plants and compounds, this is not just a matter of size.  There are some things which have some toxicity for pretty much all species.  But there are other things which are toxic for some species and perfectly safe for others.

You can in theory maybe find such compounds, the problem again is that pesticide resistance is easier, cheaper and less time consuming to produce and it have the extra bonus that you also make more money, because you can bill people both for the crop and the pesticide.

So do you really think that large corporation will waste their time on something which will make them less money than something which is easier to make?

If not, how relevant do you think the theorectical use of GMO is compared to the way GMOs are used in the real world, our world, reality etc. and not some theorectical "what if" world that could be.

I am not talking about theory, I am talking about something that has been in widespread use for years - genetic proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx