Obama Signs the Monsanto Protection Act

[Lumpy 1]

Sort of disturbing that these things can find their way into bills and no one knows who put them there.

But unlike the stupid law that exempts gun manufacturers, there's really no evidence that Genetically Modified foods are bad for people in any way, shape or form.

People might not like the idea, but we've been genetically modifying food on our own through genetic breeding, which is why a wild turkey looks like this.

And a Domestic Turkey looks like this..

Yup.. the female turkey's aren't quite as attractive wild or not.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mal...MIaWIiAKLsIDABg&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1252&bih=581

 

[JoeB131]

I was referring to the fact the domestic turkeys have HUGE breast muscles to produce lots of white meat for thanksgiving.

But that Turkey wouldn't survive ten minutes in the wild.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I was referring to the fact the domestic turkeys have HUGE breast muscles to produce lots of white meat for thanksgiving.

But that Turkey wouldn't survive ten minutes in the wild.

In that case you're right...

 

[Montrovant]

I think the point might be that banning ALL GMOs because one or some are found to be hazardous is an issue.

I don't see it as a question of "GMO-A causes cancer" and "GMO-B kills frogs". That's missing the forest for the trees. The matter for me is not individual cases but a corrupt incestuous government system that allows GMO-A, GMO-B, GMO-C and on down the alphabet into the food supply, because we've installed foxes to guard the chicken coop.

Just as with Geithner or Paulsen or Powell (Jr), we've got conflicts of interest running rampant-- again illustrated thus:

That ^^ is the disease. rBST and Bt and glyphosate are just symptoms of it.​

That being the case, wouldn't something like the banning of GMOs be almost pointless? If the disease is the corporate influence and control of government, banning GMOs just means we will see either different corporate interests in control, or the companies change their MO, won't we? That's assuming that a government so beneath the heel of these corporations would ever pass something like a GMO ban in the first place.

It just seems to me that you spend a lot of time railing against GMOs (in this thread) if your real concern is government corruption.

FTR, I agree that government is too heavily influenced by business and lobbyists. But money makes the world go round, as the saying goes.

 

[Pogo]

I was referring to the fact the domestic turkeys have HUGE breast muscles to produce lots of white meat for thanksgiving.

But that Turkey wouldn't survive ten minutes in the wild.

In that case you're right...

- and the wild ones have a lot more flavor as we blandize the food supply in a mad rush to quantity over quality with these artificially stuffed freaks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So at least we're all agreeing that corporate money is what really runs the country, and that's the real problem with our government?

I am calling everyone in this thread a fool, and that means I agree with all of you. No wonder you think you are smart.

Nothing new there- you've played both sides of the fence already... first as a sycophant for Big God, then ragging on Harry Reid for being a sycophant for Big God. Your posting has pretty well shot itself in the back sixty-seven times, pausing only once to reload.

Since you have no position beyond navel-gazing, give us back our bandwidth.

Big God? What the hell are you talking about?

By the way, when I mentioned Reid it was simply to point out that, under Senate rules, nothing ends up in a bill unless he approves it. He has absolute power to block any amendment he does not like, so it was meant to counter the particular idiot that was trying to make this into a partisan issue.

 

[Pogo]

I think the point might be that banning ALL GMOs because one or some are found to be hazardous is an issue.

I don't see it as a question of "GMO-A causes cancer" and "GMO-B kills frogs". That's missing the forest for the trees. The matter for me is not individual cases but a corrupt incestuous government system that allows GMO-A, GMO-B, GMO-C and on down the alphabet into the food supply, because we've installed foxes to guard the chicken coop.

Just as with Geithner or Paulsen or Powell (Jr), we've got conflicts of interest running rampant-- again illustrated thus:

That ^^ is the disease. rBST and Bt and glyphosate are just symptoms of it.​

That being the case, wouldn't something like the banning of GMOs be almost pointless? If the disease is the corporate influence and control of government, banning GMOs just means we will see either different corporate interests in control, or the companies change their MO, won't we? That's assuming that a government so beneath the heel of these corporations would ever pass something like a GMO ban in the first place.

It just seems to me that you spend a lot of time railing against GMOs (in this thread) if your real concern is government corruption.

FTR, I agree that government is too heavily influenced by business and lobbyists. But money makes the world go round, as the saying goes.

I don't follow you on the bolded part..

As far as the next part, of course these are different elements; the government corruption is what allows GMO to happen, but if there were no issues with GMOs and these other Monsanto Monsters, then that corruption would have no deleterious effect. When we list the actual health concerns, we're demonstrating the effects of having those foxes guarding the hen house. If the drawbacks thereof aren't already readily apparent.

In short, GMO tech has been rammed through to the market without oversight. If it gets that scrutiny and passes, all well and good. It's not getting it.

And the other issue is the labeling. If you're selling a product that's safe for human consumption, then why would you go bending over backward to make sure nobody can read about its presence on the label? That's indefensible -- and it speaks volumes about why you might want to keep that info hidden.

For an analogy: there are still about a dozen states (NC used to be one of them until recently) where gas stations don't have to tell you via a label on the pump, that there's ethanol in the gas. Now why would they need to keep that a secret?

Why indeed...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields​

>> Hungary has taken a bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto and genetic modification by destroying 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar.

In a similar stance against GM ingredients, Peru has also passed a 10 year ban on GM foods. <<

(from that ^^ link: )
>> Peru has also taken a stand for health freedom, passing a monumental 10 year ban on genetically modified foods. Amazingly, Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization. The known and unknown dangers of GMO crops seem to supersede even executive-level governmental directives.

... While the ban will stop the flow of GM foods within the nation’s borders, a recent test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GM contaminants. Genetically modified ingredients are so widespread among nations that it will be extremely difficult for Peru and other countries to eliminate products containing GMOs completely.
<<

Banning GMO has nothing to do with the science.

It has everything to do with countries wishing to raise non-tarriff obsticles to trade to protect their small agricultural economies from the vast US grain giants.

Riiiiiight. Couldn't possibly be the science....

>> In a 2011 report called Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the Public Being Kept in the Dark?, eight international scientists cited study after study linking glyphosate to birth defects in birds and amphibians, as well as to cancer, endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, and reproductive and developmental damage in mammals, even at very low doses. Moreover, the report said, Monsanto and the rest of the herbicide industry had known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in animals, and that EU governments ignored these studies. Here in the United States, the EPA continues to assert that Roundup is safe.

Another concern is environmental damage. Roundup ends up in wetlands due to runoff and inadvertent spraying. In one study, the recommended application of Roundup sold to homeowners and gardeners killed up to 86 percent of frogs in one day, according to University of Pittsburgh assistant professor Rick Relyea. Even at a third of the recommended strength, Relyea found, Roundup killed 98 percent of all tadpoles. Amphibians, living in water and on land, are considered bellwether environmental species.

Roundup also damages soil. Two Purdue scientists, professor emeritus Don Huber and G.S. Johal, said in a paper published in 2009 that “the widespread use of glyphosate …can significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and disease and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use. ” The pair warned that “ignoring potential non-target side effects … may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops nonproductive and plants less nutritious.”

In 2008, a group of rBST-using farmers formed a group called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, or AFACT, with help from Monsanto. AFACT tried to ban no-rBST labeling claims in many states, but dropped those efforts in most states — except Ohio, where the ban effort ended in a lawsuit. An Ohio circuit court found in 2010 that there was a compositional difference between rBST milk and milk from untreated cows, and that the FDA’s position was “inherently misleading.” The court found higher levels of a cancer-causing compound, lower-quality milk because of higher fat and lower protein, and higher white cell counts, which means the milk sours more quickly.

Packaging for injectable rBST lists a number of other side effects for cows, including abscesses, ulcers on udders, reduced pregnancy rates, visibly abnormal milk and hoof disorders. <<

Nope -- no science there -- that's approximately one page from the 13-page article I linked earlier for Montrovant. Amazing what you can find when you read links.

But pay no attention to the science behind the curtain, because hey, there's no conflict of interest in the federal government, who would never have anything but the best interests of the people in mind when it comes to legislation. Never. Surely that's why all these industry CEOs come to the DC revolving door-- so they can make sure their corporations have free rein to help the people, which is of course the ultimate goal of industry.

So let's shut up and assume the position where we can, gosh darn it, do our part:

Eight international scientists? How were you able to type that lie without stuttering? What youhave is 52 pages of wild guess coupled with outrageous fear mongering from fringe idiots that also believe that vaccines cause autism.

 

[Pogo]

I am calling everyone in this thread a fool, and that means I agree with all of you. No wonder you think you are smart.

Nothing new there- you've played both sides of the fence already... first as a sycophant for Big God, then ragging on Harry Reid for being a sycophant for Big God. Your posting has pretty well shot itself in the back sixty-seven times, pausing only once to reload.

Since you have no position beyond navel-gazing, give us back our bandwidth.

Big God? What the hell are you talking about?

By the way, when I mentioned Reid it was simply to point out that, under Senate rules, nothing ends up in a bill unless he approves it. He has absolute power to block any amendment he does not like, so it was meant to counter the particular idiot that was trying to make this into a partisan issue.

Riiiight, because the Bag o'Wind would never go partisan, let alone take both sides in the same debate just to be contrary so he could see his name show up on the internets.

"Big God" refers to Monsanto. As in "Big Oil", "Big Pharma" etc. Remember your "play God" rhetorical air ball challenge? Or have you just blocked that one out because it crashed?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing new there- you've played both sides of the fence already... first as a sycophant for Big God, then ragging on Harry Reid for being a sycophant for Big God. Your posting has pretty well shot itself in the back sixty-seven times, pausing only once to reload.

Since you have no position beyond navel-gazing, give us back our bandwidth.

Big God? What the hell are you talking about?

By the way, when I mentioned Reid it was simply to point out that, under Senate rules, nothing ends up in a bill unless he approves it. He has absolute power to block any amendment he does not like, so it was meant to counter the particular idiot that was trying to make this into a partisan issue.

Riiiight, because the Bag o'Wind would never go partisan, let alone take both sides in the same debate just to be contrary so he could see his name show up on the internets.

"Big God" refers to Monsanto. As in "Big Oil", "Big Pharma" etc. Remember your "play God" rhetorical air ball? Or have you just blocked that one out because it crashed?

I am all for science, and the opposition to this sensible law seems to be pretty bipartisan in this thread, all of it from people that think science is something scary.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Indeed. Ho Foods' profit margin is notoriously gougy. Now, Trader Joe's says everything they have is non-GMO, and usually at a fraction of the price, so there you go.

Whole Foods Parking Lot - Music Video [HD] - YouTube

Trader Joe's are just too limited in what they offer.....and that video is bullshit....the Whole foods i go to aint like that......they have big carts.....the parking aint as bad as they are making it out to be....

C'mon Harry, the video is just comic relief. The mention of Ho Foods reminded me of it; not really relevant to any point here, except maybe a satirical overtone of elitism at the Ho.

Trader Joe's for their part limits itself to I think about 4000 items on the shelves rather than the 10,000 that the average grocery carries. That's an integral part of how they keep prices down-- when you carry 54 different kinds of pasta sauce and 45 of them don't sell, that's a cost drag. When you carry five and two don't sell -- not so much.

its just there are people who believe these videos.....but as far as how many things on the shelves.....it is kinda nice when you have more than one brand to choose from...and there are alot of things that Joe sells that are just his brand.....but dont get me wrong....i go to Joes about once a week....i think they are a good store.....they have some frozen Italian Pasta that not even the Italian store carries.....

 

[Pogo]

Trader Joe's are just too limited in what they offer.....and that video is bullshit....the Whole foods i go to aint like that......they have big carts.....the parking aint as bad as they are making it out to be....

C'mon Harry, the video is just comic relief. The mention of Ho Foods reminded me of it; not really relevant to any point here, except maybe a satirical overtone of elitism at the Ho.

Trader Joe's for their part limits itself to I think about 4000 items on the shelves rather than the 10,000 that the average grocery carries. That's an integral part of how they keep prices down-- when you carry 54 different kinds of pasta sauce and 45 of them don't sell, that's a cost drag. When you carry five and two don't sell -- not so much.

its just there are people who believe these videos.....but as far as how many things on the shelves.....it is kinda nice when you have more than one brand to choose from...and there are alot of things that Joe sells that are just his brand.....but dont get me wrong....i go to Joes about once a week....i think they are a good store.....they have some frozen Italian Pasta that not even the Italian store carries.....

Yes it's nice for the consumer but it's an added cost for the merchant, and there goes your food bill. Now if TJ's made selections for its limited stock that were mundane, it would be a drawback, but fortunately they are very very good at that, and it keeps their costs down, and we benefit from that (and they do too from our repeat business). Another thing they do is buy direct from suppliers without a middleman, which also helps and which is the source of all those self-branded products.

To walk this back to the topic, I'm just noting that Trader Joe's says all their stuff is non-GMO, and you won't pay through the nose as you will at HoFoods for the same item. They have a far better business model.

 

[Montrovant]

That being the case, wouldn't something like the banning of GMOs be almost pointless? If the disease is the corporate influence and control of government, banning GMOs just means we will see either different corporate interests in control, or the companies change their MO, won't we? That's assuming that a government so beneath the heel of these corporations would ever pass something like a GMO ban in the first place.

It just seems to me that you spend a lot of time railing against GMOs (in this thread) if your real concern is government corruption.

FTR, I agree that government is too heavily influenced by business and lobbyists. But money makes the world go round, as the saying goes.

I don't follow you on the bolded part..

As far as the next part, of course these are different elements; the government corruption is what allows GMO to happen, but if there were no issues with GMOs and these other Monsanto Monsters, then that corruption would have no deleterious effect. When we list the actual health concerns, we're demonstrating the effects of having those foxes guarding the hen house. If the drawbacks thereof aren't already readily apparent.

In short, GMO tech has been rammed through to the market without oversight. If it gets that scrutiny and passes, all well and good. It's not getting it.

And the other issue is the labeling. If you're selling a product that's safe for human consumption, then why would you go bending over backward to make sure nobody can read about its presence on the label? That's indefensible -- and it speaks volumes about why you might want to keep that info hidden.

For an analogy: there are still about a dozen states (NC used to be one of them until recently) where gas stations don't have to tell you via a label on the pump, that there's ethanol in the gas. Now why would they need to keep that a secret?

Why indeed...

In other words, if GMOs are banned, you are just trying to stop the symptoms without affecting the disease, government/corporate corruption. So, GMOs are banned. Either corporations with different products will move in and take the place of the Monsanto's, or the biotech companies will find a new product or different way to push what they have.

As far as your thoughts on labeling, I can think of at least one very good reason not to want to put GMO on food labels; this thread is a perfect example. There are many people who are adamant that all GMO foods are bad. That doesn't actually make them so. However, a company would certainly want to do whatever it could to sell its products, so if labeling foods as GMO would mean less sales, even if they are perfectly safe, of course they wouldn't want to do that. It doesn't have to be some nefarious scheme, even if it may be in some cases.

Your argument sounds too much like 'if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the police search you?'. I realize that's an inexact analogy, but it has that ring to it. If the food is safe, why wouldn't you want it in the label? That only holds true if everyone actually accepts the food is safe.

So again, while I can accept and maybe get behind better, more stringent testing of GMO foods before they are accepted, the idea that GMO foods are inherently bad is just reactionary IMO. So banning GMO foods, especially if you don't have evidence they are all bad, is going after the symptoms rather than the disease.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am calling everyone in this thread a fool, and that means I agree with all of you. No wonder you think you are smart.

Nothing new there- you've played both sides of the fence already... first as a sycophant for Big God, then ragging on Harry Reid for being a sycophant for Big God. Your posting has pretty well shot itself in the back sixty-seven times, pausing only once to reload.

Since you have no position beyond navel-gazing, give us back our bandwidth.

Big God? What the hell are you talking about?

By the way, when I mentioned Reid it was simply to point out that, under Senate rules, nothing ends up in a bill unless he approves it. He has absolute power to block any amendment he does not like, so it was meant to counter the particular idiot that was trying to make this into a partisan issue.

So the OP posts a partisan article from the rightwing Examiner, trying to pin this whole business on Obama, and when it's pointed out that a Republican Senator put the rider in, which was conveniently omitted from the hack article in the OP,

I'm the partisan???

 

[freedombecki]

lol, only the word 'Obama' on something could turn all the conservatives on this board into environmentalist, pro-regulation, pro-trial lawyer zealots.

Gosh, NYcarbineer, you're making my BS meter go off.

 

[Pogo]

That being the case, wouldn't something like the banning of GMOs be almost pointless? If the disease is the corporate influence and control of government, banning GMOs just means we will see either different corporate interests in control, or the companies change their MO, won't we? That's assuming that a government so beneath the heel of these corporations would ever pass something like a GMO ban in the first place.

It just seems to me that you spend a lot of time railing against GMOs (in this thread) if your real concern is government corruption.

FTR, I agree that government is too heavily influenced by business and lobbyists. But money makes the world go round, as the saying goes.

I don't follow you on the bolded part..

As far as the next part, of course these are different elements; the government corruption is what allows GMO to happen, but if there were no issues with GMOs and these other Monsanto Monsters, then that corruption would have no deleterious effect. When we list the actual health concerns, we're demonstrating the effects of having those foxes guarding the hen house. If the drawbacks thereof aren't already readily apparent.

In short, GMO tech has been rammed through to the market without oversight. If it gets that scrutiny and passes, all well and good. It's not getting it.

And the other issue is the labeling. If you're selling a product that's safe for human consumption, then why would you go bending over backward to make sure nobody can read about its presence on the label? That's indefensible -- and it speaks volumes about why you might want to keep that info hidden.

For an analogy: there are still about a dozen states (NC used to be one of them until recently) where gas stations don't have to tell you via a label on the pump, that there's ethanol in the gas. Now why would they need to keep that a secret?

Why indeed...

In other words, if GMOs are banned, you are just trying to stop the symptoms without affecting the disease, government/corporate corruption. So, GMOs are banned. Either corporations with different products will move in and take the place of the Monsanto's, or the biotech companies will find a new product or different way to push what they have.

As far as your thoughts on labeling, I can think of at least one very good reason not to want to put GMO on food labels; this thread is a perfect example. There are many people who are adamant that all GMO foods are bad. That doesn't actually make them so. However, a company would certainly want to do whatever it could to sell its products, so if labeling foods as GMO would mean less sales, even if they are perfectly safe, of course they wouldn't want to do that. It doesn't have to be some nefarious scheme, even if it may be in some cases.

Your argument sounds too much like 'if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the police search you?'. I realize that's an inexact analogy, but it has that ring to it. If the food is safe, why wouldn't you want it in the label? That only holds true if everyone actually accepts the food is safe.

So again, while I can accept and maybe get behind better, more stringent testing of GMO foods before they are accepted, the idea that GMO foods are inherently bad is just reactionary IMO. So banning GMO foods, especially if you don't have evidence they are all bad, is going after the symptoms rather than the disease.

You can't possibly compare a police search to an ingredient label search. Ingredients are not citizens, while OTOH citizens absolutely do have a right to be protected from industrial excesses. There can be no question about that. What your argument then boils down to is essentially they might want the labeling to be banned because it would be bad for profits.

Yeah, no shit. See the point directly above about protecting the consumer. Profits don't trump public safety. That's not something anyone can argue. So when I ask for a reason to oppose such labeling, I meant a legitimate reason. We all know the ulterior one.

I don't know why this point shouldn't be arrow-through-the-brain obvious-- this is what's being satirized in this skit:

Mr. Hilton: Oh, we use only the finest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish Ram's bladder, emptied, steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue, and garnished with lark's vomit.

Inspector: LARK'S VOMIT?!?!?

Mr. Hilton: Correct.

Inspector: It doesn't say anything here about lark's vomit!

Mr. Hilton: Ah, it does, on the bottom of the box, after 'monosodium glutamate'.

Inspector: I hardly think that's good enough! I think it's be more appropriate if the box bore a great red label: 'WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!'

Mr. Hilton: Our sales would plummet!

-- and this was a case of not enough labeling, where what we have here is a failure to label at all. WtF? Sorry, this idea that the corporate profit must be defended at all costs and the public be damned is an absolute non starter.


And for the record, I don't avoid GMO foods because they're "bad". I avoid them because they're unknown. And the corrupt revolving door is fixated on keeping them that way. That's what government is supposed to be doing -- requiring proof of public safety before marketing. Like the aforementioned Frances Oldham Kelsey did with Thalidomide. How many lives were spared here because she stood up to the march of what Windbag would call "science"?

Since government isn't doing that, we the consumer are left to sift through the grocery shelves and the corn fields for the increasingly elusive unpolluted source that continues to get pollinated and polluted while the government stands by with a wink and a wad of campaign cash. No thanks.

That's one thing that sets this issue apart: if we had allowed Thalidomide, it would have affected only those who took Thalidomide-- it wouldn't be creeping into every bottle of Tylenol.

Nomsayin'??

 

[Montrovant]

I don't follow you on the bolded part..

As far as the next part, of course these are different elements; the government corruption is what allows GMO to happen, but if there were no issues with GMOs and these other Monsanto Monsters, then that corruption would have no deleterious effect. When we list the actual health concerns, we're demonstrating the effects of having those foxes guarding the hen house. If the drawbacks thereof aren't already readily apparent.

In short, GMO tech has been rammed through to the market without oversight. If it gets that scrutiny and passes, all well and good. It's not getting it.

And the other issue is the labeling. If you're selling a product that's safe for human consumption, then why would you go bending over backward to make sure nobody can read about its presence on the label? That's indefensible -- and it speaks volumes about why you might want to keep that info hidden.

For an analogy: there are still about a dozen states (NC used to be one of them until recently) where gas stations don't have to tell you via a label on the pump, that there's ethanol in the gas. Now why would they need to keep that a secret?

Why indeed...

In other words, if GMOs are banned, you are just trying to stop the symptoms without affecting the disease, government/corporate corruption. So, GMOs are banned. Either corporations with different products will move in and take the place of the Monsanto's, or the biotech companies will find a new product or different way to push what they have.

As far as your thoughts on labeling, I can think of at least one very good reason not to want to put GMO on food labels; this thread is a perfect example. There are many people who are adamant that all GMO foods are bad. That doesn't actually make them so. However, a company would certainly want to do whatever it could to sell its products, so if labeling foods as GMO would mean less sales, even if they are perfectly safe, of course they wouldn't want to do that. It doesn't have to be some nefarious scheme, even if it may be in some cases.

Your argument sounds too much like 'if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the police search you?'. I realize that's an inexact analogy, but it has that ring to it. If the food is safe, why wouldn't you want it in the label? That only holds true if everyone actually accepts the food is safe.

So again, while I can accept and maybe get behind better, more stringent testing of GMO foods before they are accepted, the idea that GMO foods are inherently bad is just reactionary IMO. So banning GMO foods, especially if you don't have evidence they are all bad, is going after the symptoms rather than the disease.

You can't possibly compare a police search to an ingredient label search. Ingredients are not citizens, while OTOH citizens absolutely do have a right to be protected from industrial excesses. There can be no question about that. What your argument then boils down to is essentially they might want the labeling to be banned because it would be bad for profits.

Yeah, no shit. See the point directly above about protecting the consumer. Profits don't trump public safety. That's not something anyone can argue. So when I ask for a reason to oppose such labeling, I meant a legitimate reason. We all know the ulterior one.

I don't know why this point shouldn't be arrow-through-the-brain obvious-- this is what's being satirized in this skit:

Mr. Hilton: Oh, we use only the finest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish Ram's bladder, emptied, steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue, and garnished with lark's vomit.

Inspector: LARK'S VOMIT?!?!?

Mr. Hilton: Correct.

Inspector: It doesn't say anything here about lark's vomit!

Mr. Hilton: Ah, it does, on the bottom of the box, after 'monosodium glutamate'.

Inspector: I hardly think that's good enough! I think it's be more appropriate if the box bore a great red label: 'WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!'

Mr. Hilton: Our sales would plummet!

-- and this was a case of not enough labeling, where what we have here is a failure to label at all. WtF? Sorry, this idea that the corporate profit must be defended at all costs and the public be damned is an absolute non starter.


And for the record, I don't avoid GMO foods because they're "bad". I avoid them because they're unknown. And the corrupt revolving door is fixated on keeping them that way. That's what government is supposed to be doing -- requiring proof of public safety before marketing. Like the aforementioned Frances Oldham Kelsey did with Thalidomide. How many lives were spared here because she stood up to the march of what Windbag would call "science"?

Since government isn't doing that, we the consumer are left to sift through the grocery shelves and the corn fields for the increasingly elusive unpolluted source that continues to get pollinated and polluted while the government stands by with a wink and a wad of campaign cash. No thanks.

That's one thing that sets this issue apart: if we had allowed Thalidomide, it would have affected only those who took Thalidomide-- it wouldn't be creeping into every bottle of Tylenol.

Nomsayin'??

You missed my point entirely.

If a company sells a GMO food that is entirely safe, do you think they might lose profits by labeling it as a GMO food? That is what I was saying; even if the food is completely safe, the anti-GMO sentiment would be a problem for them.

The comparison to searches was in the assumption of guilt. You assume that profits are tied to lack of safety in the case of GMO products. I contend that even if perfectly safe, labeling as GMO would likely lose a company money. Maybe that's reasonable, but that doesn't mean that wanting to avoid GMO labels must necessarily be indicative of attempting to foist unsafe foods on an unsuspecting public.

You asked for a reason other than hiding unsafe products, I attempted to provide one.

 

[freedombecki]

Every president since Kennedy has been a cooperate whore. G. Bush started the Gulf War to control oil. Then Clinton sent our jobs overseas. GWBush started the Iraq war and used drone strikes first. Obama signs Monsanto Act, Patriot Act Resign, Syria, etc.. The elite are pushing as hard as they can without busting the infrastructure.

G. (HW) Bush started the Gulf War to control oil.

That's funny. I heard that Saddam Hussein had invaded our ally, Kuwait and murdered several thousand leaders not to mention expropriating their oil wells before he decided to do such a thing. As a matter of fact, Saddam Hussein was so mad for being punished for murdering his neighbors and stealing their oil, he set as many Kuwaiti oil wells on fire as he could on leaving, plus he set up WWII hero and former President George H.W. Bush for assassination in the Middle East as well. Clinton did nothing except say words. Nothing.

Every president since Kennedy has been a cooperate whore.

Kennedy and his successors did not start corruption scandals surrounding the White House! The Teapot Dome scandal was just the tip of the iceberg by the 1920s when Harding was President. Before that, Ulysses S. Grant turned a blind eye to his friends who erred: "In November 1876, President Grant pardoned both William O. Avery and William McKee, who were convicted in connection with the Whiskey Ring tax evasion frauds in St. Louis; having served six months of their two-year sentences."

Corporations were given more power in the Civil War years, and by 1886 the courts were granting corporations personhood based on precedent and the 14th Amendment.

People who spread the most campaign money around tend to get elected, so politicians curry the favor of corporations by saying one thing, but doing another.

Those who have well-paid legs on the ground to caterwaul the loudest against their political opponents have decided to pull out all the stops. That's why you see so many side issues here with people hoping to destroy somebody else, start a thread dissing the people in the other party, no matter how divisive the outcome is.

Other people in the world want what America has earned, so politicians who part with "used computers" with states secrets on them are actually working against people they hate and can bring damages to if certain facts are known to their enemies.

The world will tire of America having one set of friends and enemies for sale to their allies while another set of friends and enemies of the other party are set aside, even allies of a hundred years' standing.

Our government is not making sense with its highly divisive strategies to beat the guy next door to a pulp while kissing the ass of his enemy who may use this naiveté against all Americans in short order. These are scary times with North Korea determined to obliterate half our west coast in rhetoric since its blackmail efforts were exposed. Their theory is all they have to do is make America's foes happy to get rich from warfare. They are jealous of the South Koreans who've done rather well due to their friendship and hard work to prosper their allies. And they blame us for everything they've done to themselves, including impoverishing people in North Korea to put money on WOMDs to use against America. And they have cheerleaders.

 

[tyroneweaver]

The USA is one of a half a dozen countries that can export food. The population is seriously overweight.
I bet most of the poster here post with their mouth full.
I hardly blame Monsanto for the earths ills.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing new there- you've played both sides of the fence already... first as a sycophant for Big God, then ragging on Harry Reid for being a sycophant for Big God. Your posting has pretty well shot itself in the back sixty-seven times, pausing only once to reload.

Since you have no position beyond navel-gazing, give us back our bandwidth.

Big God? What the hell are you talking about?

By the way, when I mentioned Reid it was simply to point out that, under Senate rules, nothing ends up in a bill unless he approves it. He has absolute power to block any amendment he does not like, so it was meant to counter the particular idiot that was trying to make this into a partisan issue.

So the OP posts a partisan article from the rightwing Examiner, trying to pin this whole business on Obama, and when it's pointed out that a Republican Senator put the rider in, which was conveniently omitted from the hack article in the OP,

I'm the partisan???

Hey, asswipe, I defended the law. Which means, in the context of your fucking point, I defended Obama. Want to tell me how pointing out that Reid, another Democrat, allowed the thing I am defending to get into the law, makes me the FUCKING PARTISAN here?