Vermont gmo label law starts today

[ag]

maybe we should label ANY FOODS with this "Deoxyribonucleic acid" i keep hearing about.

I wonder how many people in a poll would think foods that contain this scary sounding acid should be labeled.

Probably, 99% of those who insist on labeling the "GMO"

[ag]

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for?

For instance, to increase their vitamine content.

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

I am sure you would much prefer small kids to continue suffering from vitamine defficiencies: who cares about those brown bastards, anyway? But their parents do care.

In general, the "GMO" techniques have been used for many different purposes. Sometimes, to improve the quality of the product, as above. Sometimes to fight plant disease

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaya_ringspot_virus

And many, many other examples as well (including, you will be surprized, drought). Yes, also to change pesticide use (quite frequently, actually, to reduce it, by eliminating the need to fight pests, that no longer eat the plants we want).

"GMO" is a set of tools that are used for all sorts of purposes. I mean, trigonometry was used in designing the nukes. Should we ban it?

[ag]

Since this has not, it seems, been posted here, let me provide the link. 110 Noble prize winners (and the list is growing) have signed a letter exactly on the issue.

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

41 of these laureates are in Medicine and another 35 are in Chemistry. I do not think we have had such an outpouring even on climate change.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

^^ Did you really have to make ten posts in a row?

[ag]

^^ Did you really have to make ten posts in a row?

I read the thread and gradually responded to what I read. It is not my fault too few people are participating

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Since this has not, it seems, been posted here, let me provide the link. 110 Noble prize winners (and the list is growing) have signed a letter exactly on the issue.

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

41 of these laureates are in Medicine and another 35 are in Chemistry. I do not think we have had such an outpouring even on climate change.

While I must admit that has a certain theatrical flare I don't see anything in that link that says we shouldn't write three little letters next to the Riboflavin content.  Am I missing something?

[ag]

Since this has not, it seems, been posted here, let me provide the link. 110 Noble prize winners (and the list is growing) have signed a letter exactly on the issue.

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

41 of these laureates are in Medicine and another 35 are in Chemistry. I do not think we have had such an outpouring even on climate change.

While I must admit that has a certain theatrical flare I don't see anything in that link that says we shouldn't write three little letters next to the Riboflavin content.  Am I missing something?

I mean, if you write three letters ("j", "e" and "w") next to my name, every time it appears in print, it will provide absolutely and undeniably correct information about me. Why could I potentially object, one wonders?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Since this has not, it seems, been posted here, let me provide the link. 110 Noble prize winners (and the list is growing) have signed a letter exactly on the issue.

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

41 of these laureates are in Medicine and another 35 are in Chemistry. I do not think we have had such an outpouring even on climate change.

While I must admit that has a certain theatrical flare I don't see anything in that link that says we shouldn't write three little letters next to the Riboflavin content.  Am I missing something?

I mean, if you write three letters ("j", "e" and "w") next to my name, every time it appears in print, it will provide absolutely and undeniably correct information about me. Why could I potentially object, one wonders?

And you guys call other people "hysterical".  Hitler?  Really?  Are we going there over this?

[ag]

Since this has not, it seems, been posted here, let me provide the link. 110 Noble prize winners (and the list is growing) have signed a letter exactly on the issue.

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

41 of these laureates are in Medicine and another 35 are in Chemistry. I do not think we have had such an outpouring even on climate change.

While I must admit that has a certain theatrical flare I don't see anything in that link that says we shouldn't write three little letters next to the Riboflavin content.  Am I missing something?

I mean, if you write three letters ("j", "e" and "w") next to my name, every time it appears in print, it will provide absolutely and undeniably correct information about me. Why could I potentially object, one wonders?

And you guys call other people "hysterical".  Hitler?  Really?  Are we going there over this?

What does Hitler have to do with it? Brezhnev and Gorbachev, not Hitler. My Soviet ID said that I was a Jew: in 5 corresponding letters of the cyrillic alphabet. It had nothing to do with Hitler. But I had to repeat this on my application to the university, and had the USSR survived longer and had I not left it even before it died, I would have had to put it on every job application and on my children´s birth certificate (as my father and my grandfather actually had to).

So, I repeat, the information was undeniably true (I am, of course, an atheist, but they did not refer to religion, but to "ethnicity" - and in that "biological" sense I am, undoubtedly, a Jew). Nor, as you can see, I am trying to conceal it. But, somehow, I did not like it. Would you mind guessing why?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Since this has not, it seems, been posted here, let me provide the link. 110 Noble prize winners (and the list is growing) have signed a letter exactly on the issue.

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

41 of these laureates are in Medicine and another 35 are in Chemistry. I do not think we have had such an outpouring even on climate change.

While I must admit that has a certain theatrical flare I don't see anything in that link that says we shouldn't write three little letters next to the Riboflavin content.  Am I missing something?

I mean, if you write three letters ("j", "e" and "w") next to my name, every time it appears in print, it will provide absolutely and undeniably correct information about me. Why could I potentially object, one wonders?

And you guys call other people "hysterical".  Hitler?  Really?  Are we going there over this?

What does Hitler have to do with it? Brezhnev and Gorbachev, not Hitler. My Soviet ID said that I was a Jew: in 5 corresponding letters of the cyrillic alphabet. It had nothing to do with Hitler. But I had to repeat this on my application to the university, and had the USSR survived longer and had I not left it even before it died, I would have had to put it on every job application and on my children´s birth certificate (as my father and my grandfather actually had to).

So, I repeat, the information was undeniably true (I am, of course, an atheist, but they did not refer to religion, but to "ethnicity" - and in that "biological" sense I am, undoubtedly, a Jew). Nor, as you can see, I am trying to conceal it. But, somehow, I did not like it. Would you mind guessing why?

I'm done.  I came to this forum to discuss politics not to do whatever this is.  Fine, you are right.  Enjoy your life.  I'm out.

[ag]

Since this has not, it seems, been posted here, let me provide the link. 110 Noble prize winners (and the list is growing) have signed a letter exactly on the issue.

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

41 of these laureates are in Medicine and another 35 are in Chemistry. I do not think we have had such an outpouring even on climate change.

While I must admit that has a certain theatrical flare I don't see anything in that link that says we shouldn't write three little letters next to the Riboflavin content.  Am I missing something?

I mean, if you write three letters ("j", "e" and "w") next to my name, every time it appears in print, it will provide absolutely and undeniably correct information about me. Why could I potentially object, one wonders?

And you guys call other people "hysterical".  Hitler?  Really?  Are we going there over this?

What does Hitler have to do with it? Brezhnev and Gorbachev, not Hitler. My Soviet ID said that I was a Jew: in 5 corresponding letters of the cyrillic alphabet. It had nothing to do with Hitler. But I had to repeat this on my application to the university, and had the USSR survived longer and had I not left it even before it died, I would have had to put it on every job application and on my children´s birth certificate (as my father and my grandfather actually had to).

So, I repeat, the information was undeniably true (I am, of course, an atheist, but they did not refer to religion, but to "ethnicity" - and in that "biological" sense I am, undoubtedly, a Jew). Nor, as you can see, I am trying to conceal it. But, somehow, I did not like it. Would you mind guessing why?

I'm done.  I came to this forum to discuss politics not to do whatever this is.  Fine, you are right.  Enjoy your life.  I'm out.

This is discussing politics I do not know what you thought politics were

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The burden of proof is on the people who want something to change. They want GMO foods labeled. Why?

Because of health risks? Research has indicated there are none. Because of ethical reasons? They haven't articulated any, and in fact GMOs have saved countless lives around the world.

The only answer there seems to be is "Because the idea of GMOs makes me feel icky" and that's not a reason to burden the products with something that is essentially designed to make them sell less.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

So, you support puting the disclosures into biology books saying that "evolution is just a theory"?

lol

Clearly you're just trolling, but for your information, the reason this is ridiculous is that everything in science is "just a theory". It's just that some theories haven't been proven wrong (yet) despite scientists' efforts to.

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

Well you should.

What else would you like to put in?

Anything of nutritional, health, or biological interest.

[ag]

Clearly you're just trolling, but for your information, the reason this is ridiculous is that everything in science is "just a theory". It's just that some theories haven't been proven wrong (yet) despite scientists' efforts to.

Well, since pretty much everything we eat (at least, everything that has been grown for our consumption) has been genetically modified by humans, would you agree to put the letters GMO on allfood (other than some fish, and whatever got hunted/gathered in the woods)?

[ag]

Anything of nutritional, health, or biological interest.

About most things in the store you could, probably, produce a volume of 300 pages with information of greater nutritional, health, or biological interest than the "GMO" (which is of no nutritional or health interest at all, and is misleading biologically). Would you suggest that every apple should be accompanied by a history of its breeding/selection/hybridisation, etc.?

[Intell]

The Hippie Community continues to be show great intelligence to the actual sciences.

[Deblano]

Hippies are terrible, part #4480103.

[136or142]

The burden of proof is on the people who want something to change. They want GMO foods labeled. Why?

Because of health risks? Research has indicated there are none. Because of ethical reasons? They haven't articulated any, and in fact GMOs have saved countless lives around the world.

The only answer there seems to be is "Because the idea of GMOs makes me feel icky" and that's not a reason to burden the products with something that is essentially designed to make them sell less.

That GMOs have 'saved countless lives around the world' is a lie put out by Monsanto and other large agricultural companies. You can probably count on one hand the number of lives saved by GMOs.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Anything of nutritional, health, or biological interest.

About most things in the store you could, probably, produce a volume of 300 pages with information of greater nutritional, health, or biological interest than the "GMO" (which is of no nutritional or health interest at all, and is misleading biologically). Would you suggest that every apple should be accompanied by a history of its breeding/selection/hybridisation, etc.?

As I said above, anything that makes people realise that agriculture isn't some mysterious black box process would help.

(a good comparison in this case is Ingredient labels. Now, one can argue that putting in chemical names is meaningless scaremongering because people don't really understand the names, and might run frightened of the long latinate words. But in practice they don't, because the consumer appreciates that the information (even info that we as "educated persons" perceive as silly or useless) is provided for them)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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)

[🐒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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If a simpler solution is available, then choose that. The golden rice scenario is a good example: there is a problem (Vitamin A deficiency in the Thirld World) but it's worth investigating why that problem exists before throwing accusations back and forth to one another.

[136or142]

If a simpler solution is available, then choose that. The golden rice scenario is a good example: there is a problem (Vitamin A deficiency in the Thirld World) but it's worth investigating why that problem exists before throwing accusations back and forth to one another.

Golden Rice is actually an excellent example of the dishonesty of Monsanto and the other Agricultural companies.

They promised this more than 20 years ago now and I'm not aware if they actually ended up producing anything, they hadn't the last time I looked into this two or three years ago.

Golden Rice was clearly used as propaganda to guilt trip people who opposed GMOs for rational or irrational reasons:  "If you oppose GMOs you're putting hundreds of thousands of poor people to death."

That's about as cynical and sleazy as it gets.

The idea that Monsanto or the other companies would spend significant money researching GMOs to make more/healthier food for poor people around the world is laughable given that these poor people can't afford to buy GMO food in the first place.

There may be some ongoing research into GMOs crops that produce significantly more food, because that has the potential to lower the cost of food to the point where many poor people around the world can afford them, but my understanding is that GMO crops have not increased yields.

[ingemann]

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.

[ingemann]

The burden of proof is on the people who want something to change. They want GMO foods labeled. Why?

Because of health risks? Research has indicated there are none. Because of ethical reasons? They haven't articulated any, and in fact GMOs have saved countless lives around the world.

The only answer there seems to be is "Because the idea of GMOs makes me feel icky" and that's not a reason to burden the products with something that is essentially designed to make them sell less.

That GMOs have 'saved countless lives around the world' is a lie put out by Monsanto and other large agricultural companies. You can probably count on one hand the number of lives saved by GMOs.

Technical they may be correct, as many ingredients in medical products are produces with GMO modified organism, of course this have nothing to do with anything Monsanto have produced. So it's a good example of lying while saying the truth.