# No gmo?



## Bee Whisperer (Mar 24, 2013)

I am not certain as to the validity of this information, but a friend post this on Facebook, so I thought I would put it on the forum so the sources could be investigated for accuracy. 

http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/01/farmers-abandoning-gmo-seeds-reason-will-surprise ‪#‎GMOs‬ ‪#‎Farmers‬ ‪#‎Farming‬ ‪#‎NonGMO‬ -The Cornucopia Institute


----------



## Edymnion (May 30, 2013)

Well its pretty much what one would expect.

Big company farmers don't want to pay extra for GMO seed, so they start riling people up with scare campaigns until there is no demand for anything with the GMO boogyman label on it, so the price for GMO stocks drop, which makes the non-GMO that said big company farms have already invested heavily in more profitable.

Its pretty much exactly what they were trying to do.

However, its still only a matter of time before the monocropping bites us in the ass and its either turn to GMOs or starve. We're pretty much already at that point with oranges now.

Not sure I see what this has to do with bees though.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Looks like a win win. Except for monsanto and bayer.

I think it will be good for the farmers to diversify their crops. 
And if there is a possibility it can reduce the percent of GMO crops in our food chain even better.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

It's all in the marketing.

There has been a marketing campaign running in our area for some time now, Presidents Choice making a big deal of the fact they dont allow anti-biotics in the pork they sell. Big deal, it's regulatory, so it applies to everybody, not just the folks growing for PC. The adds dont mention that part, and do indeed create a spin that makes it sound like this is something unique to PC.

Recently we've started to see adds from A&W touting similar things for the beef used to make the hamburgersm dunno if this is north america wide, or confined to the Canadian market. I'm curious what the beesource resident Canadian cattle farmer has to say about those A&W adds, if he has seen them. They are implying that A&W is sourcing some sort of special beef, when in fact, what they are really saying, they source beef subject to the same rules and regulations as all beef in the market. But it makes a good spin in the adds that target the uninformed population. After seeing those adds on TV, I'm sure there are a good number of folks that will make the left turn into A&W, rather than a right turn into Burger King, because they have been left with the impression there may be something special about the beef A&W is using.

We are going to see a similar spin in adds regarding cereals start to ramp up now too. Already I've seen reference to Cheerios being free of GMO, but, due to some of the ingredients (corn syrup) required for the Honey Nut and Whole Grain variants, they are not touted as GMO free (yet). It'll be interesting to see how that gets spun in the adds over time. If a non-gmo label can justify a price increase, and a net margin improvement of even a couple pennies per box sold, we are starting to talk about some very serious dollars.

I do remember seeing McDonalds making some noise a year or so ago, with regards to only buying non-gmo potatoes to make fries. I dunno if that was north america wide, or just in our local market. I haven't seen anything in that respect for some time now. Is it because they determined the initial marketing push wasn't getting the results they wanted from it, or was it because of pushback from farmers, or possibly even lack of supply. I dunno, but, if that trial balloon of last year produced a measureable result, I would have expected to see it all over the marketing literature by now.

As somebody who runs multiple businesses, I can see both sides of the discussion. On one side we have producers worrying about cost and yield. On the other side, we have consumers worrying about quality and price of what they eat. In between, is a massive marketing machine, trying everything possible to try get a leg up on sales to the masses. I dont expect to hear the bare truth from any of them, the message will always have a spin of some sort wrapped into it.

If, as the article linked suggests, it has reached the point where yields are similar for the non-gmo product, as they are for the gmo, then I expect to see a huge ramp up in the marketing for non-gmo products. It's a marketing home run, produce cheaper, and sell at a premium, the marketing managers dream come true. Many spin doctors will stay up late figuring out ways to get that message into the minds of consumers.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

GMO is more popular than ever with farmers: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produc...ecent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx#.UuL_R-CttjI


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Besides corn, cotton, soy, and canola, what GMO crops are out there that everyone is worried about??? What if they release GMO citrus that resists greening, what would be the consequences?


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

JRG13 said:


> Besides corn, cotton, soy, and canola, what GMO crops are out there that everyone is worried about???


GMO alfalfa, sugarbeets, sweet corn (the kind humans, rather than farm animals, eat). Many new GMO traits are in the pipeline including virus resistance, fungal resistance, nematode resistance, drought tolerance, etc.


----------



## Duncan151 (Aug 3, 2013)

JRG13 said:


> Besides corn, cotton, soy, and canola, what GMO crops are out there that everyone is worried about??? What if they release GMO citrus that resists greening, what would be the consequences?


Papaya


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

Sugar beets: if your bee-sugar isn't labeled "Cane Sugar" then it's likely to be beet-derived sugar, which means likely GMO. (Sugar cane isn't produced from seed.)

GMO sugar beets are a problem for growers of beet seed (for table, animal food or sugar) since most seed is produced in a small area in the NW. Beets are a temperate-climate biennial crop, only producing flowers and seeds the second year so it has to be grown in an area where beet plants can survive the winter. I've read that the best growing area for beet seed production is also good growing area for sugar beets. Apparently pollinators can carry the pollen from one crop to another, complicating the production of pure non-GMO seed.

The notion that papaya has GMO-technology surprises me. 

Enj.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

It saved the papaya industry from Papaya Ringspot a long time ago, which is why it makes sense for citrus greening unless they can find a good conventional trait. Yes, BT sweetcorn came out this year, it tasted great. I always forget about the beets, seed production is an issue, they need to really focus on developing good stewardship in that area.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JRG13 said:


> What if they release GMO citrus that resists greening, ... ?


It's in the works already.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I am afraid we are screwed no matter how we look at it. Flowers at HD and Lowes are now GMO and the home owner is under no regulation at all. They can do what they want with them. The bees that forage on them... Oh well.

edit:

What difference does it make if a farmer goes back to regular seeds once all his land is tainted?


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

Acebird I doubt that the flowers at HD and Lowes are GMO. You have been reading too much propaganda.
Dave


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

You'd be wrong. Page 21 Mother Earth News Feb/March 2014 edition.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Ace they aren't GMO they have neonic pesticides applied to the seed. Different thing. GMO doesn't seem to bother bees, neonics kill them.

I raise my own stuff for flowers, not buying more trees or perennials, swap with other gardeners and specialty hobbyists for the fancy stuff, I have some heritage bulbs that are worth plenty on swaps... don't need much, so home depot and lowes can keep their plants.

I don't object to GMO much I just refuse to eat roundup so I avoid corn and soy, I'll let those that eat them be the guinea pigs


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

The reason these farmers are more profitable not planting GMO seeds is due to the fact that most of their neighbors ARE planting GMO seeds, which keeps the target pest population low. If everyone stops planting GMO seeds and the corn borers and root worms return, they will be singing a different tune. As far as other crops, nearly every species of plant we grow has or will have GMO varieties available. Beekeepers should be thankful for GMOs, it has prevented millions of tons of synthetic insecticides from being sprayed on many, many crops! I always get a tickle out of the labeling GMO craze. It would be much simpler and less costly for the products that do not contain GMOs to be labeled since there would only be a handful in a traditional grocery store.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Won't the target pest simply go to the nonGMO plants?


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Won't the target pest simply go to the nonGMO plants?


No, when the moths lay eggs, they have no way of knowing which are GMO plants and which are not. So if all the farmers plant non-GMO corn their will be millions of new insects hatching out. If 9/10 farmers plant GMOs and do not raise any new babies their will be much fewer and the neighbor who plants non-GMO will receive the benefit of the reduced insect population. Think of it like this, if all of your neighboring beeks treat their hives for mites, when drifting occurs you will have less chance of your hives getting infected than if you have a bunch of neighbors who let their hives go untreated and raise lots of mites. Anyone who drove through the midwest 20 years ago can tell you about all of the corn borer moths that would spatter on the windshield of your car when driving on country roads at night. Now you hardly ever see one.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

hilreal said:


> Now you hardly ever see one.


You hardly see anything. That is the worry.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Acebird said:


> You hardly see anything. That is the worry.


Well, with some insects I don't cry too much, like mosquitos. Farmers are going to reduce the corn borer population one way or another, just like we do with mites, wax moths and shb. They can't afford to lose 25% of their crop yield. I guess we can either have bt in the plant which only affect Lipidopteran larvae that are feeding on the plant or we can have them fly planes over dumping furadan killing every living insect within a wide radius. The other option is the have the quantitiy / quality of food be unreliable and quite a bit more expensive.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

hilreal said:


> The other option is the have the quantitiy / quality of food be unreliable and quite a bit more expensive.


Food is the highest priority with every living animal except humans. "Expensive" is a relative term. What we pay for what we eat is not what it cost us in the end. If the environment is destroyed in the process of supplying cheap food what are the costs?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Well, with some insects I don't cry too much, like mosquitos.

I won't miss the mosquitoes, but spraying for them only makes for more mosquitoes as their predators reproduce much slower than the mosquitos and spraying for them kills off their predators...


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

The cost of food should include the cost of diseases caused by the food. Pepsi and Coke are cheap. The long term cost of their consumption is exhorbitant. Never mind the environmental costs of production and packaging

And I'm with Michael Bush, I have an army of dragonflies that crisscross the fields hunting mosquitoes, looks like a military search and destroy mission. It takes them MUCH longer to come back than mosquitoes.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Back in the 70s when I started beekeeping every beekeeper I knew would read you the litany of how pesticides were a “treadmill” and only resulted in more need for pesticides as it killed off the predators of the “bad” insects right along with them and then you ended up with more of the “bad” insects and less of the “good insects”. Maybe they all sold out the same time they started using pesticides in their colonies… The idea that food cannot be raised economically without GMO and without treatments is being sold to you by some very rich and powerful companies. If it was true then the human race would have expired millennia ago...

I doubt Bt toxin is hurting bees any since Bt is often used for wax moths and does not appear to have any detrimental effects on bees, but then the average bee lives six weeks... What I want to know is, what is the long term effect (say 40 years) of a human eating a lot of Bt toxin. This has never really happened in human history, so no one knows yet. But in 40 years we will... you can't wash it off your food now that it permeates all of the plant.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

The only sweet corn I had last year came from my garden. I buy only organic on any corn product, waiting and watching to see what the bt does, but tell me, wasn't the gm on corn also to allow roundup spray (obviously an organic gardener and not a farmer)


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

I don't care if you want to eat GMO food, but my money is my money, and I have a right to know what I'm, spending it on. Why in this great country we can't require companies who use GMO products to accurately label their products, I just can't understand. The rest of the first world does it. The only explanation that makes sense is that we have the best government that money can buy.

I don't know if there's any harm in eating GMO foods, but those who plant them should be required to control the genetic material they are spreading about carelessly. If someone's business is producing non-GMO seeds and someone next door plants GMO varieties and contaminates that non-GMO stock, he should be liable for damages. If my mutt jumps the fence and breeds someone's extremely expensive show dog, that person can sue me. Why is Monsanto so special that they can't be sued for a similar tort.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

rhaldridge said:


> The only explanation that makes sense is that we have the best government that money can buy.
> ..... If my mutt jumps the fence and breeds someone's extremely expensive show dog, that person can sue me. Why is Monsanto so special that they can't be sued for a similar tort.


Because we have the best Supreme Court money can buy and at least 2 justices should have recused themselves for financial bias, and the Supreme Court says Monsanto is special.

One advantage in the drought - all the local GMO farmers gave up and quit planting.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Gypsi said:


> wasn't the gm on corn also to allow roundup spray


GMO refers to genetic modified organism. You can genetically modify a plant so it will be immune to a herbicide like roundup or modify it so a pesticide will be absorbed into it's structure without harm to the plant. In all cases poison is involved. Now here is the kicker... it is said that it does no harm to humans. What that really means is it does no harm to most humans. There is a certain percentage of the population that will be harmed. It is no different than prescription drugs. A small percentage will have a reaction (called side affect) to the drug. If it is a large percentage then the drug does not get approval. Well most times anyway.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> >Well, with some insects I don't cry too much, like mosquitos.
> 
> I won't miss the mosquitoes, but spraying for them only makes for more mosquitoes as their predators reproduce much slower than the mosquitos and spraying for them kills off their predators...


That is the beauty of BT in the plant, it only harms the target insects, not the predators as in the olden days when chemicals were broadcast over every field.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Acebird said:


> GMO refers to genetic modified organism. You can genetically modify a plant so it will be immune to a herbicide like roundup or modify it so a pesticide will be absorbed into it's structure without harm to the plant. In all cases poison is involved. Now here is the kicker... it is said that it does no harm to humans. What that really means is it does no harm to most humans. There is a certain percentage of the population that will be harmed. It is no different than prescription drugs. A small percentage will have a reaction (called side affect) to the drug. If it is a large percentage then the drug does not get approval. Well most times anyway.


IT is highly unlikely that any humans will ever be harmed as the toxin from BT only works on critters with alkaline guts not acidic as in all mammals. I am not aware of any mutant humans that have caustic reflux rather than acid reflux. Billions and billions of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, humans and virtually every species of animal has eaten BT corn and NOT ONE case demonstrating a negative affect has been seen. The toxin that is produced is a protein, which means it is made up of strings of amino acids just like chicken or beef. Once it is broken down it looks just like any other protein. This is why BT is approved for use on all organic farms and as MB pointed out is sprayed on combs for wax moth control with no affect on the bees.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

rhaldridge said:


> I don't care if you want to eat GMO food, but my money is my money, and I have a right to know what I'm, spending it on. Why in this great country we can't require companies who use GMO products to accurately label their products, I just can't understand. The rest of the first world does it. The only explanation that makes sense is that we have the best government that money can buy.
> 
> Labeling is just going to increase the cost of your food. It is fairly safe to assume that if it doesn't say organic on the label, it contains GMOs. Why spend money labeling something that you already know, it would be like requiring me to put an extra lable on my honey that it came from flowers or was produced by bees.


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Wouldn't agree with that Hilreal. There are veggies labeled "conventional" at Whole Foods Market and I doubt they are all GMO.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

If we beeks really want to get up in the arms about something, we should be going after the herbicide makers and users who indiscriminantly spray every broadleaf weed (wildflower) in the country not GMOs, which are good for bees and the environemt. They should be required to put a warning label on Weed-B-Gone and Roundup at big box stores reminding people that the flowers they are wiping out are forage needed for polinators. Perhaps they should even be required to take a test and get a permit to buy herbicides, just like farmers.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Spark said:


> Wouldn't agree with that Hilreal. There are veggies labeled "conventional" at Whole Foods Market and I doubt they are all GMO.


I suspect their term "conventional" is equivalent to our term "natual" on a honey label, good marketing with little meaning. Even if they are truly GMO free, they are in the minority and as I said if it doesn't make some reference to being non-GMO (should have used that term rather than organic) then it probably contains GMO's. IT would be much less expensive to label the non-GMO's than the GMO's.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Hum, I wonder how many people buying those "conventional" vegetables realize that without GMO's they had to be doused with insecticides multiple times to maintain that fair show appearance?


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

They do label the organic they have both to give you the choice.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

rhaldridge said:


> Why in this great country we can't require companies who use GMO products to accurately label their products, I just can't understand. The rest of the first world does it. The only explanation that makes sense is that we have the best government that money can buy.


It takes time to get the legislation in place. It looks like it's happening, albeit much more slowly than many folks would like. 



> PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — In the absence of federal regulation, states from Rhode Island to Hawaii are considering laws to require labels on food items containing genetically modified ingredients.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/gmo-labeling_n_4647637.html


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

I think the reason it has been slow to come is that everyone who has investigated it realizes it is much ado about nothing and will cost a lot of money and not improve the health of the population. IT is mostly politics and marketing. There is zero evidence to show any harm despite billions and billions of tons having been consumed. Much healthier than the air we breathe or the water we drink or the fish from the poluted rivers and oceans.......having worked for many years in agriculture I would much prefer GMO products than conventional, knowing how each was treated back on the farm. I think you will find that most of the anti-GMO people know virtually nothing about commercial farming operations. I am glad that there are people who can and will pay $5 for a $.99 head of lettuce and that their are farmers out there capatilizing on that market.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

We include both nutritional and country of origin labeling on our food. I don't see the harm in adding GMO labeling, even if it isn't of much use.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

hilreal said:


> Labeling is just going to increase the cost of your food. It is fairly safe to assume that if it doesn't say organic on the label, it contains GMOs. Why spend money labeling something that you already know, it would be like requiring me to put an extra lable on my honey that it came from flowers or was produced by bees.


Maybe people don't realize how much GMO food they're eating.

I don't buy the "labeling will make food cost more" argument. Labels are very cheap-- and are required on most food already. How is adding "This food is derived from Genetically Modified Organisms" going to add any significant cost to the labels that are already required?

The only reason that companies have resisted labeling is that they fear consumers will not accept GMO food as readily as they do now, when they have no way of knowing better. I'm unsympathetic. If GMO foods are just fine, convince me. Don't hide it from me because you're afraid I'm too stupid to agree with you. ("you" being the companies that have resisted labeling.)


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

hilreal said:


> Hum, I wonder how many people buying those "conventional" vegetables realize that without GMO's they had to be doused with insecticides multiple times to maintain that fair show appearance?


There are very few GMO fruits and vegetables. Most of the fruits and vegetables in the store are *not* GMO. Papayas, some summer squash, some sweet corn. Everything else in the produce department is not GMO.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

hilreal said:


> rhaldridge said:
> 
> 
> > Why spend money labeling something that you already know,
> ...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Labeling is just going to increase the cost of your food. 

By what... .000001 cents? How much ink does it take to print "GMO" on a label?


----------



## cdevier (Jul 17, 2010)

>>> I doubt Bt toxin is hurting bees any since Bt is often used for wax moths and does not appear to have any detrimental effects on bees, but then the average bee lives six weeks... What I want to know is, what is the long term effect (say 40 years) of a human eating a lot of Bt toxin. This has never really happened in human history, so no one knows yet. But in 40 years we will... you can't wash it off your food now that it permeates all of the plant <<<

I started using bt in the early 1980's in my garden. bt worked wonderful at controlling "Horn worms" on tomatoes and most leaf eaters on peppers, cabbage, etc. I know that I have eaten bt over this period as we pick vegatables from the garden and eat without washing. I don"t think we have had any bad effects - at least at 70 years, I'm still "cuttin' the mustard".
Charlie


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> >Labeling is just going to increase the cost of your food.
> 
> By what... .000001 cents? How much ink does it take to print "GMO" on a label?


It is not the ink. It is the change that may cost into the thousands. Spread over a million or so products it is not that much on an individual basis. Printing plates have to change and a lot of documentation has to change when changing a label. I say let the producers who produce non GMO put it on their label and stop the wining that it looks bad for the other guy. Well duh.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> It is not the ink. It is the change that may cost into the thousands. Spread over a million or so products it is not that much on an individual basis. Printing plates have to change and a lot of documentation has to change when changing a label. Well duh.


_Printing plates_? What is this, the 19th century? 

It's no different than ordering custom honey labels on the internet. They re-do labels all the time.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

By what... .000001 cents? How much ink does it take to print "GMO" on a label?[/QUOTE]

It's not just the cost of the labeling, it is the cost of the tracking and tracing, isolating GMO from non-GMO, lawsuits when one gets accidentally labeled incorrectly or contaminated, drifting pollen, separate processing facilities, double shelf space at the markets, etc. ,etc. As Don Henly said a man with a briefcase will steal more money than a man with a gun. All with only anecdotal evidence of harm. Even if it is only .000001 cents that is wasted if it serves no purpose. I would much prefer to know what herbicides were sprayed on the crop, insecticides, where it was grown, how long in storage, how many unwashed hands have touched it........


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Well, I for one WOULD like to see them labeled so that I could ONLY buy GMO foods, as I know they are safe to eat, have less aflatoxin in the case of corn and have had considerably less chemicals sprayed on them. I think most farmers and people involved in agriculture who have seen commercial crops produced with and without GMOs would tend to agree with me. GMO's are a very natural process only speeded up by plant breeders.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

hilreal said:


> It's not just the cost of the labeling, it is the cost of the tracking and tracing, isolating GMO from non-GMO, lawsuits when one gets accidentally labeled incorrectly or contaminated, drifting pollen, separate processing facilities, double shelf space at the markets, etc. ,etc. As Don Henly said a man with a briefcase will steal more money than a man with a gun. All with only anecdotal evidence of harm. Even if it is only .000001 cents that is wasted if it serves no purpose. I would much prefer to know what herbicides were sprayed on the crop, insecticides, where it was grown, how long in storage, how many unwashed hands have touched it........


Bingo! Real word cost. It's not just about the labeling, it's putting those labels on, separate transportation, separate fields to ensure there's no pollen drift, proving your product is what it claims to be, defending yourself in court when others claim otherwise, or pollen drift does occur, separate shelving, advertising, etc. Most importantly will people pay more for the added effort of non GMO when it looks and tastes the same there's no actual scientifically repeatable proof it does diddle negatively? Enough for it to actually be profitable though? You're more than welcome to put your money where your mouth is. Leave me and my money out of it though.

I laugh when some crawl up on their soapbox and claim "it's all about the money". Everything is all about the money. Who doesn't check prices from their beekeeping suppliers, their grocers, their fuel, mortgage rates, stock returns, their (you name it)? Making things instead of buying things. Does that make you greedy, selfish, somehow dirty, and willing to destroy "mother earth" to get the last 1% ROI? Nope. Yet somehow some sure want to put that guilt on others.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Good point. When the GMO labels finally come out, I predict this is what they are going to say (just like gluten or peanut allergy warnings): 


This product may contain traces of GMOs
 


This product may have been processed on equipment that makes products containing GMOs


:lpf:


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Some will then claim, even traces are too much. Invariably they'll be the ones selling "certified" non-GMO at 2x normal prices. Demands that equipment be kept GMO "Kosher" from others will crop up too. All for something that's perceived. PT Barnum is giggling somewhere. 

Does anyone remember when microwaves were going to be the death of us when they first came out? It's still unknown in 100 years to infinity what eating irradiated food will have on our offspring. Yet, we all have them and use them.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

D Coates said:


> I laugh when some crawl up on their soapbox and claim "it's all about the money".


I take it your position is that I have no right to know what I'm spending my money to buy?

If so, why not remove all labeling requirements? A little sawdust never hurts the bread, if you don't know the difference, right? Rotten meat is as healthy as good meat, if you can't taste the difference.

Honey from China that's mostly corn syrup is just as good as honey from an American beekeeper, as long as it sweetens your tea.

Most people can't tell the difference so why would anyone care?


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

I wasn't adamantly anti-gmo til I buried a dog 7 years early with tumors, and my other dog still alive had lumps and bumps, and I changed his food and his bumps are shrinking. Purina is all gmo corn.... and I pulled my cats off it and the symptoms of their lifelong URI disappeared. All I got rid of was corn and soy. Not scientific. I love my microwave but no more corn for me.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Gypsi said:


> I wasn't adamantly anti-gmo til I buried a dog 7 years early with tumors, and my other dog still alive had lumps and bumps, and I changed his food and his bumps are shrinking. Purina is all gmo corn.... and I pulled my cats off it and the symptoms of their lifelong URI disappeared. All I got rid of was corn and soy. Not scientific. I love my microwave but no more corn for me.


So you are implying that all or most dogs that are eating Purina Dog Chow are getting cancer. If this were the case, do you have any idea how many lawyers would be droolinng to be able verify that? Sounds more like your cats had a corn or soy allergy or reaction to one of the vitamins or minerals they enhance the food with. There is so little of the bt protein left in the grain of corn or soy that it is almost non-detectable.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

All my dogs, totally unrelated, and my cats? Something bad is in the food, the primary ingredient in the food is corn, at least in the dog chow. Haven't got a cat chow bag to check, and I don't care.. The food is gone. I do not need corn syrup, corn, or soy in my diet. Cheap health insurance.

There is a "discredited" study of rats fed GMO corn sprayed with Roundup and they have really big tumors. I'm sure that Monsanto's 3 month studies are better than the 4 month ones

Tumors show up after 3 months. I am implying that Beneful by Purina has killed a bunch of dogs and that lawsuit should come down soon. Purina Dog Chow, my case wasn't scientifically constructed in a lab with controlled feedings, but their day will come.

I feed Kirkland. I get it at Costco. It's good food. my cats feline herpes sneezes disappeared within a week of changing their food. They will have feline herpes for life, but they have fewer symptoms on kirkland. Draw your own conclusion. I am sure my german shepherd/border collie and my rottie/BMD are not related to my housecats and just HAPPEN to have the same allergy.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

"not related to my cats".....and not eating the same food also. I would then be suspicious of something in the environment. I agree corn/soy is not good for carnivourous animals but I don't think the evidence is there to support a GMO connection. Cats and dogs in the wild live on raw meat so if you really want to feed them what is natural and healthy stock up on dead rabbits, mice and rats. FWIW I have sprayed Roundup hundreds of times in sandals, shorts and a t-shirt over the last 30 years. I consider it nearly as safe as water.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

And all I change is their food away from Purina and Bronx's lumps shrink and the cats quit sneezing? I didn't even buy a new vacuum, lol.

I have had melanoma. I wish you and your Roundup all happiness. I am lucky to be alive, and detest doctors and hospitals. I choose not to buy sweet corn, papaya, field corn or any soy or corn products as 95% of those 2 are GMO in the US. Since I am one person with a garden and I don't eat much, I can do that.I shop at Costco, it is not expensive.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Gypsi said:


> And all I change is their food away from Purina and Bronx's lumps shrink and the cats quit sneezing?


I have a brother in law that use to work for a dog food chain and they sprayed the food heavily with pesticides. This was before the days of GMO. I don't know that human grains like corn, rice and wheat are not spray in the same manner but they have the same problem for bulk storage so it wouldn't surprise me. I think one of the benefits of certified organic is the fact that they cannot spray the food with pesticides before or after harvest. The down side is spoilage which means higher costs.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

That is interesting. But the Kirkland food is not labeled organic and my animals are improving.

Corn carries so little nutritional value it really isn't worth the extra to get organic.

I do feed it to my hens. And I hear all these stories about chickens living 10 years. And mine are dead in 3, but I do have some seed for heirloom corn and I may do a non scientific test when I get some more land.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

A chicken can live 14 years as a pet. It isn't going to lay eggs. We have a RIR that is going on 5 and every once in a while we will see her in the nesting box. We pay a fortune for organic feed. The eggs costs more than the grass fed stake that we buy. It is a bad habit to get into because once you start eating these eggs you won't touch anything else. We have friends that we have given these eggs to and they swear they have never tasted anything like it so the difference is real. We don't feed cracked corn to our chickens. Corn is basically crap for a chicken. They get corn on the cob in the summer as a treat if my dog doesn't get it first. And she gets mad when we throw the ears to the chickens.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

My chickens have been on Purina Layena, which is at least still made by Purina. The dog and cat foods division is now owned by Nestle. Oldest hen I've had died of old age at 3 years. She hadn't laid much in the last year. Her sisters were so poorly I culled 3 at 18 months of age and examined their internal organs, a lot of fat built up around the hearts. She was the best looking, near the end she would get out of the coop and when I got home in afternoon she would kind of mew cheep for me to pick her up and take her back. She died in her sleep last spring. 

The eggs are fantastic, my girls are allowed to range. I got some organic feed for them once and except for the black oil sunflower seeds they really didn't seem to like it, appeared to be wheat, with maybe milo or another round grain and BOSS. part of it is still on the ground in the run.

So I am now feeding layena to the young layers, chiefly for the calcium content, with a LOT of black oil sunflower seeds and a little scratch. The older hens and the roos get mostly scratch with BOSS, and bugs, and greens, they range the farthest and feed themselves a fair amount. 

I wish I had better food for them, some day I might, still safer than the grocery store


----------



## Edymnion (May 30, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> >How much ink does it take to print "GMO" on a label?


The problem isn't with the label but the fact that there is a scare campaign being waged against GMOs by companies that can't compete with them fairly, so they're trying to drive them out of the market entirely by less scrupulous methods. Anything with the GMO label is going to be shunned simply because the average American consumer has been brainwashed against it, even though they don't have the slightest understanding of what it actually means.

Its already happened in American history, and it is happening again.

The *ENTIRE* reason that marijuana has been illegal is because Dupont and some logger baron who's name I can't remember couldn't compete with hemp oil and paper. Hemp products were superior to what they could make, and cheaper to make to boot. It was so important there was a government mandate that a certain amount of acreage *HAD* to be planted by each state every year for national security. Hell, the US Constitution is written on hemp paper for Pete's sake.

So what did Dupont and Friends do? They changed the name of the plant in their scare ads to marijuana so that people wouldn't immediately associate it with the common useful plant they knew, then tied it to the wave of Mexican immigrants that were coming in saying they smoked the stuff and got "reefer madness" that caused them to go wild and rape all the white women and basically hit every last fear and panic button they could think of. They got the country so riled up that marijuana was outlawed before people could stop and realize what they had actually done, and look where that has gotten us today.

Big companies marketing blind fear and hate against a superior product they can't fairly compete against. Its happened before, and its happening again right now. Only instead of just making decades of misery with drug cartels, this one potentially stands the chance to cause mass starvation and the death of billions of people.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

The biggest companies that want GMO's labeled are 1/10th the size of Dow or Monsanto. 

Most of the big companies that want GMO's labeled are family farmers with less than 50 acres, you know the ones that LOOK like the family on the monsanto commercials. A lot of them used to use Roundup and Roundup resistant seeds, and have spent 5 years getting the salts out of their soil. The really big farms, well I don't know what they do, don't know any of them.

Monsanto may even be getting out of GMO's, per Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-phil...gmo-technology-genetically-modified-organisms


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The problem isn't with the label but the fact that there is a scare campaign being waged against GMOs by companies that can't compete with them fairly, so they're trying to drive them out of the market entirely by less scrupulous methods.

Maybe you could point out who these "unscrupulous" companies are and where they have ever run an advertisement saying that GMOs are dangerous. I've never seen an ad, nor heard of a "company" that was against GMOs. I've only seen very large companies who after releasing their pollen into the wild, are suing the people whose seeds were accidently contaminated by GMOs and usually winning, but lawyering them to death regardless.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Edymnion said:


> The *ENTIRE* reason that marijuana has been illegal is because Dupont and some logger baron who's name I can't remember couldn't compete with hemp oil and paper. Hemp products were superior to what they could make, and cheaper to make to boot. It was so important there was a government mandate that a certain amount of acreage *HAD* to be planted by each state every year for national security. Hell, the US Constitution is written on hemp paper for Pete's sake.


The Constituition was written on parchment and the rest of it is one of the bigest urban myths of all time.

The next thing that you are going to tell us is that you got that quote from Einstein.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Edymnion said:


> The problem isn't with the label but the fact that there is a scare campaign being waged against GMOs by companies that can't compete with them fairly, so they're trying to drive them out of the market entirely by less scrupulous methods.


Is this the pot calling the kettle black?:scratch:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

According to the National Archives, the material that the US Constitution is written on is parchment, but at that time quality parchment was made from _animal skins_.
http://www.archives.gov/preservation/formats/paper-vellum.htmlI wonder what PETA has to say about that .... ​

The alleged participants in the alleged conspiracy against hemp included William Randolph Hearst, whose significant assets included timber (and newspaper) holdings.




My guess is that the controversy around GMO food labeling will shake out much the way BGH in cows milk has gone. You see many "fluid" milk products in retail packages labeled as "No BGH", but the related products made from cows milk such as cheese, butter, and ice cream are much less likely to be so labeled. And certainly, manufactured goods that incorporate small amount of milk products, such as _whey_ found in many prepared foods are even less likely to have BGH labels.

I expect that some manufacturers may find success labeling some food lines that use highly visible potential GMO ingredients, will take a stand against using GMOs in that product, such as General Mills has recently done with Cheerios.

But regardless of the highly visible products like breakfast cereals, there are thousands of products that use small amounts of potential GMO ingredients, and those will continue to be unlabeled.

.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Edymnion said:


> Big companies marketing blind fear and hate against a superior product they can't fairly compete against. Its happened before, and its happening again right now. Only instead of just making decades of misery with drug cartels, this one potentially stands the chance to cause mass starvation and the death of billions of people.


Talk about scare tactics and propaganda.

In fact, GMO seeds are primarily suited to very large operations, and in general are used to cut production costs in that situation, and do not have a significant advantage in terms of food produced per acre. In fact, there is a growing movement to go back to non-GMO varieties, because these cost less to buy, and produce more. Furthermore, these non-GMO varieties can be exported to the many countries where GMO seeds are not popular, or even legal.

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/

I do like the weed story, though, because it illustrates the major problem with the theory that Big Organics is spreading lies against the poor defenseless Monsantos of the world. *Money* drives these misinformation campaigns, and the most misinformation comes from those with the most money.

Beekeepers should bear in mind that GMO bees are almost certainly in the works. Because of the reproductive strategy of honeybees, it will be impossible to keep modified genetics out of your apiaries. Are you looking forward to being sued for stealing patented genes? Because that is exactly what will happen if your bees acquire these genetics from a neighboring beekeeper. In order to not be sued out of business, everyone will have to adopt these new bees, and yet another massive monopoly will be born.

Is this really a good thing?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> But regardless of the highly visible products like breakfast cereals, there are thousands of products that use small amounts of potential GMO ingredients, and those will continue to be unlabeled.


This it precisely why those that want to label that their products do not contain GMO's is the more sensible way to go.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Does GMO's occur in nature, or, is all GMO a product of mad science? I don't know the answer. This is a curious mind thing.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Does GMO's occur in nature, or, is all GMO a product of mad science? I don't know the answer. This is a curious mind thing. 

By definition, GMOs do not naturally originate in nature. They are, however, now in the wild and will become part of nature.

>I do like the weed story, though, because it illustrates the major problem with the theory that Big Organics is spreading lies against the poor defenseless Monsantos of the world.

I love that picture. Poor defenseless Monsanto...

>Beekeepers should bear in mind that GMO bees are almost certainly in the works. Because of the reproductive strategy of honeybees, it will be impossible to keep modified genetics out of your apiaries. Are you looking forward to being sued for stealing patented genes? Because that is exactly what will happen if your bees acquire these genetics from a neighboring beekeeper. In order to not be sued out of business, everyone will have to adopt these new bees, and yet another massive monopoly will be born.

This has been Monsanto's business model, so this is not a farfetched concept. They have bought into bees now in a big way and that is the obvious outcome. Obviouslly they will soon "own" the entire world food supply if something doesn't change.


----------



## Edymnion (May 30, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> The Constituition was written on parchment and the rest of it is one of the bigest urban myths of all time.


My apologies, I should have said it was drafted on hemp paper. The final document is on parchment, but it was written (as in the revisions where they came up with what it should say) on hemp paper, because hemp paper was one of the only forms of paper widely available at the time.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html



Michael Bush said:


> Maybe you could point out who these "unscrupulous" companies are and where they have ever run an advertisement saying that GMOs are dangerous. I've never seen an ad, nor heard of a "company" that was against GMOs. I've only seen very large companies who after releasing their pollen into the wild, are suing the people whose seeds were accidently contaminated by GMOs and usually winning, but lawyering them to death regardless.


I'm trying to find the article I read last year about where someone started back tracking the funding for the "Frankenfish" (GMO salmon) protest and found that a large portion of it came from the Alaskan fishing industry, that would stand to lose it's monopoly on the industry if cheap, fast growing GMO salmon were allowed to enter the market. However, I cannot find the article now, my google-fu is failing me.

I did find some nice related material though:
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/
http://sleuth4health.wordpress.com/


----------



## Edymnion (May 30, 2013)

--Double Post--
Sorry, sight was being really slow.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Monsanto and other Big AG companies are just like Big Organic but on opposite sides of the coin. Big AG runs standard advertisements and follow established business principles. Big Organic runs gorilla campaigns where innuendos are dropped without the need for proof or fact checking. Neither company is altruistic but it's a whole lot easier to believe that a big faceless company is about to take of the worlds food supply than a stinky hippie trying to stop GMO to save "mother earth" from the likes of "Golden rice"

Here's a taste of how false believing Big Organic is automatically more trustworthy than Big Ag. Greenpeace (one of many "Big Organic(s)") http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...netic-engineering/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/ wants to stop Golden Rice versus one the original Greenpeace founders www.goldenrice.org who wants to allow it to save human lives. It sure looks like Big Organic is okay with the death of many people to push it's agenda with nothing but innuendos.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

The Alaskan fishing industry stands to lose more than market share if the faster growing GMO salmon get loose and destroy all the wild species. Not only no market share, no fish. Except for GMO. I'm guessing the GIANT Alaskan fishing industry value
5.35 billion pounds of fish and shellfish worth over $3.0 billion were harvested in Alaska waters in 2011, putting Alaska in first place for value of landings.
Bristol Bay’s 2010 sockeye salmon harvest of 28.6 million fish was the 11th largest since 1959. The ex-vessel value was worth $165 million, greater than the total value of fish harvests in a combined 41 states. 
from http://www.akrdc.org/issues/fisheries/overview.html

Monsanto sales for 2011 were 11.83 Billion Monsanto net income, not sales, for 2011 $1.61 Billion dollars from http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/MON/financials. Comparison in company size?

Lazy, GMO is Genetically Modified Organism. Virus, anemone, plant genes can all be spliced into animals and vice versa. GE means Genetically Engineered. Same stuff

Organic Consumers is a grass roots outfit mainly supported by consumers but some organic farms or dairies too, the comparison to something like GMA - Grocery outfit that fits GMO's in every state election with dark money, well search it yourself, their financials are online.

I am BIG ORGANIC. I own 1/3 of an acre, woohoo!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Monsanto's business model is to release their genes into the wild (by selling them to people of course, but genes spread, of course) and then sue everyone who ends up with them. If that doesn't scare the salmon people when Monsanto decides to get into the salmon business, it should scare them. If that succeeds, then soon Monsanto will, without putting any added value or effort into it, take a cut of every salmon they process.

There is no "big organic" and they are not picking on "poor Monsanto".


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

And I think the end of prohibition contributed to hemp becoming illegal, but it will be a legal crop in 10 states, its in the new farm bill. Great crop, oil paper fabric, easy no fertilizer, and fewer pests than cotton, less temperamental too


----------



## Bee Whisperer (Mar 24, 2013)

Hmmmm Salmon. 

Flathead Lake is the biggest natural fresh water lake west of the Mississippi. It used to have salmon in it. In an attempt to assist the population of the salmon to increase, the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks introduced a kind of Mysis Shrimp for the salmon to eat. Inadvertently; instead of populating the salmon, as a food source the Mysis Shrimp competed for with the young salmon fry for the available food resources. So, the rest of the story; now there are no salmon in Flathead Lake. Man's efforts to help did great harm. Life's balance is fragile, but there is a natural process in place. When will we trust it?


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

lazy shooter said:


> Does GMO's occur in nature, or, is all GMO a product of mad science? I don't know the answer. This is a curious mind thing.


Sorry to disagree with MB but GMO's do occur in nature and have occurred millions of times over the course of life on earth. When you do genetic sequencing of most plants or animals you can easily find pieces of DNA from other organisms. When a virus (one of the vectors used to produce GMO plants and animals) inserts its DNA into yours for reproduction it often leaves pieces of the previous animal it infected behind. It is one of the explanations for how evolution can occur at a higher rate than predicted by mutation. 

Another thing I keep hearing spouted is that GMO's are planted primarily by big farms and corporations. I am not sure where this information is coming from but nothing could be further from the truth. Any farmer interested in spraying less chemicals and making more money is planting GMO crops, regardless of the size of his/her operation. I deal with small farmers all the time and easily 98%+ demand GMO seeds. They get really angry if the variety they want is not available in a fully traited up version. IF someone presented you with a bee that had the capacity to repel mites, you're telling me you wouldn't jump on it?


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Bee Whisperer said:


> Hmmmm Salmon.
> 
> Flathead Lake is the biggest natural fresh water lake west of the Mississippi. It used to have salmon in it. In an attempt to assist the population of the salmon to increase, the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks introduced a kind of Mysis Shrimp for the salmon to eat. Inadvertently; instead of populating the salmon, as a food source the Mysis Shrimp competed for with the young salmon fry for the available food resources. So, the rest of the story; now there are no salmon in Flathead Lake. Man's efforts to help did great harm. Life's balance is fragile, but there is a natural process in place. When will we trust it?


Sounds like you are against keeping bees in little white boxes rather than trees and keeping them in North America when their home is Europe..........


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Esamples of naturally occurring GMO's, genes moving from one species to another:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...nsfer-to-humans-and-be-passed-on-to-children/

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...ed-up-human-dna-and-thats-just-the-beginning/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101104083102.htm


How come no one complains about all the pharmaceuticals that are produce by GMO's like almost all the insulin in use today, a number of vaccines, etc?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...nism-GMO/279978/GMOs-in-medicine-and-research


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>How come no one complains about all the pharmaceuticals that are produce by GMO's like almost all the insulin in use today, a number of vaccines, etc?

If they ever get into the wild (God forbid) you will hear some complaints. E. Coli that produces insulin is a very scary proposition since it could kill every animal on the planet that has that in it's gut, which is almost all of us.

>Sorry to disagree with MB but GMO's do occur in nature and have occurred millions of times over the course of life on earth.

This is like the argument that "water" is a "chemical". Of course it is, but when we talk about someone adding "chemicals" to our food, we don't mean water. When we talk about GMO, we are not talking about natural processes.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Enjoy your corn meal and GMO food hilreal, but if I am paying cash for something I have a right to know what is in it.


----------



## Bee Whisperer (Mar 24, 2013)

Hmmmm;

hilreal; Wonder how things would have turned out? Just a thought. BTW, I keep some boxes that bees live in, and sometimes, when trying to "help" them out, like feeding them in winter, I may do more harm than good. Who knows.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

https://www.facebook.com/BabesAgainstBiotech Babes Against Biotech taking on GMO's in Hawaii, where most of them are tested. hmmm


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

hilreal said:


> Any farmer interested in spraying less chemicals and making more money is planting GMO crops, regardless of the size of his/her operation.


Why is that changing? Why has the po-dunk company General Mills now subscribing to making Cheerio's non GMO? Are they looking to lose money?



> IF someone presented you with a bee that had the capacity to repel mites, you're telling me you wouldn't jump on it?


Nature did this already ... the African bee.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>IF someone presented you with a bee that had the capacity to repel mites, you're telling me you wouldn't jump on it? 

I have those already and they are not GMO...


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Monsanto and other Big AG companies are just like Big Organic but on opposite sides of the coin. Big AG runs standard advertisements and follows established business principles. Big Organic runs gorilla campaigns where innuendos are dropped without the need for proof or fact checking. Neither company is altruistic but it's a whole lot easier to believe that a big faceless company is about to take of the world’s food supply than a stinky hippie trying to stop GMO to save "mother earth" from the likes of "Golden rice"

Here's a taste of how false believing that story line is. Greenpeace (one of many "Big Organic(s)") http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...netic-engineering/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/ wants to stop Golden Rice versus one of the original Greenpeace founders www.goldenrice.org who wants to allow it to save human lives. It sure looks like Big Organic is okay with the death of many people to push its agenda with nothing but innuendos.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Funny how some people think GMOs are bad and need additional study without end, but they take as gospel that organic food is more nutritious and better for you than conventional food. 

In other words, there is plenty of data showing GMOs are safe, but there little to no data showing that organic food is actually any better for you. Why shouldn’t we demand more study on organic food so we can know for sure that it is safe to consume? It works both ways people.

Food for thought:

http://tinyurl.com/mjqtqxz

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-benefits-from-organic-food/


----------



## Edymnion (May 30, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> Funny how some people think GMOs are bade and need additional study without end, but they take as gospel that organic food is more nutritious and better for you than conventional food.


Reminds me of this:


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

all of monsanto's 3 month studies show gmo's are safe. One scientist went to 4 months, so monsanto bought the journal and retracted his study. This goes with my dog's lumps and bumps, but it took 3 years from gmo corn in his feed to the first bump, and 4 more years to lumps all over and dead. http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/gmo...ournal-editor-from-surprise-monsanto-11302013

Big organic was at Monsanto's stock holders meeting yesterday, 11 were arrested. We'll all chip in on their bail, we are big organic. http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/29/11-arrested-monsanto-protest/


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Your dog gets cancer and dies and you know GMO caused it? I'm sorry for his death. What scientific evidence do you have for your claim that GMO caused it? What scientifically based and repeatable studies do you have that show GMO's aren't safe for animal or human consumption?

This is a prime example of the gorilla warfare style Big Organic employs. No proof GMO is bad, no proof non GMO is actually better, they sell innuendos. Big Organic makes their money by fleecing the sheep of those who buy the snake oil they sell. All the while, others starve and die waiting for crops like Golden rice.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Nabber86 said:


> Funny how some people think GMOs are bad and need additional study without end, but they take as gospel that organic food is more nutritious and better for you than conventional food.
> 
> In other words, there is plenty of data showing GMOs are safe, but there little to no data showing that organic food is actually any better for you. Why shouldn’t we demand more study on organic food so we can know for sure that it is safe to consume? It works both ways people.


Yeah! I want studies to show that pure water is really better for you than water laden with pesticides, drugs, and industrial chemicals. We don't know!

I guess the only folks who think organic food is better for you than industrial food are the fools who think eating poison might not be good for you.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

I cannot prove that GMO corn killed my dog. Or that chickens lifespans are suddenly reduced by 50% if I feed corn. I can stop feeding the GMO corn, and if I assume all corn is GMO and do not eat fritos, doritos, drink coke, pepsi or fruit juice with HFCS in it, and limit my consumption of meat or buy grass fed beef, and my health remains goo, what have I lost? that my other dogs bumps are shrinking and drying up now also does not prove anything, but I'm not feeding him a feed with corn or soy in it anymore. I am a nutcase, but I am a healthy nutcase that beat cancer and my melanoma did not metastasize, works for me. 

science on nutrition content next: http://www.undergroundhealth.com/gmo-versus-non-gmo-the-shocking-corn-comparison/


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

rhaldridge said:


> Yeah! I want studies to show that pure water is really better for you than water laden with pesticides, drugs, and industrial chemicals. We don't know!
> 
> I guess the only folks who think organic food is better for you than industrial food are the fools who think eating poison might not be good for you.


We're talking GMO's. Buy what you want but there is still NO proof Organic is nutritionally superior to GMO's or that there are ANY scientifically based repeatable studies that GMO foods have negative health impacts on those who eat them. It's all still unproven innuendos and outright scare tactics that Big Organic(s) rattle their coffers with.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

did you read my link? the scientific analysis of nutritional content for gmo / non gmo?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

This has been a very entertaining thread. I had never even heard of "Big Organic" before. I had no idea that not selling chemicals and not selling patented seeds was so lucrative and that these nameless and invisible companies wielded such overwelming power. I also did not realize how downtrodden and picked on "poor Monsanto" was. You would think they would sue those mean old "Big Organic" people... like they sue everyone else...

>I guess the only folks who think organic food is better for you than industrial food are the fools who think eating poison might not be good for you. 

To me the point of buying "organic" food, besides that less poisons are obviously good for me, is that less poisons are better for the earth and better for the bees... Of course if all you try to measure is the nutrition (i.e. what is there) it may not be that different from "conventional" food. That was never what I was expecting. I was expecting food that had less poisons in it. "Conventional" food is now, not only tainted with what didn't wash off, but permeated with Bt toxins (genetically) and permeated with neonicotinoids (by seed treatments). None of this will wash off. Even if it is the same nutrition (which I doubt) I would prefer "organic" because I would like to avoid the "extras" that come with "conventional" food.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Monsanto does sue some Big Organics I'm sure, but they haven't sued me yet because I don't have enough money to take. I sign a lot of petitions and tweet a lot of scientific studies, it is good to know that someone with almost no money and 1/3 acre of land can be "Big Organic" just by donating $25 a year and typing a lot...


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Gypsi said:


> did you read my link? the scientific analysis of nutritional content for gmo / non gmo?


Yes I did. I also read and reviewed comments. Notice how the 3 most recent comments point out flaws in the data. A Stanford study released last summer indicated there was no nutritional difference. If Organic is so easily proven superior why isn't everyone doing it instead of attacking the Stanford study results? http://health.usnews.com/health-new...s-not-healthier-or-more-nutritious-study-says

Anti GMO is Big Organic gorilla marketing at it's finest. At a certain point critical mass is achieved and the Big Organic proponents get mob rule instead of a scientifically result based society. That's exactly how they banned GMO from Europe for 2 years. Wonder how we'd feel about GMO if the mass starvation deaths were happening here instead of "over there".


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

D Coates said:


> We're talking GMO's. Buy what you want but there is still NO proof Organic is nutritionally superior to GMO's or that there are ANY scientifically based repeatable studies that GMO foods have negative health impacts on those who eat them. It's all still unproven innuendos and outright scare tactics that Big Organic(s) rattle their coffers with.


Here's an apple that was grown without the use of poison. Here's an apple that was sprayed with poison. Which one do you pick to eat first? I'll be interested to see if you're willing to answer this question, or whether I'll see a smokescreen of word salad trying to obscure the issue. Whether or not organic food is more nutritious, it is certainly less poisonous.

The problem with GMOs is not that they may be unhealthy. It's that those who sell them are afraid to let consumers choose whether or not they want to buy them. I can't understand why the free market cannot allowed to determine the popularity of GMO food. Even worse., sellers of GMO seeds refuse to take any responsibility for contaminating the genetics of non-GMO stock. The escape of GMO genetics into the biosphere can be a big problem-- Round-Up resistant weeds are a pretty costly problem now, and it's getting worse. More importantly GM organisms can degrade the diversity of the genetics available to resolve any new problems that may come up. And those new problems always do come up. The sellers of these products have used Big Government to protect themselves from the potential negative consequences of their product. Monsanto will sue anyone who "steals" their patented genes, but is protected from suit if those genes harm anyone's business. Do you think that's fair?

I won't even get into the immorality and shortsightedness of companies being allowed to "patent" living things.

By the way, the term "Big Organics" is a joke.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

rhaldridge said:


> Here's an apple that was grown without the use of poison. Here's an apple that was sprayed with poison. Which one do you pick to eat first? I'll be interested to see if you're willing to answer this question, or whether I'll see a smokescreen of word salad trying to obscure the issue. Whether or not organic food is more nutritious, it is certainly less poisonous.
> 
> By the way, the term "Big Organics" is a joke.


I grow Gala and Fuji apples in my own back yard. Would you like pictures of my trees? Pollenated by my bees. I spray nothing on them (I'm lazy) I eat some of them. I eat more that are store bought though. Why? No spots to cut around, no worry of biting into a mouthful worm, bigger, better looking, and no taste difference. I'm not worried about poisons the way some of you seem to think you can cheat death by avoid any and all poisons. We'll all end up dead no matter what eventually. 

I'll die when I'm in my 80's just like my grandfather who used to work with mercury with his bare hands (oil fields in the 30-40's, pulled the gold right out of 2 of his wedding rings) or my other Grand father who used to spray DDT and use nicotine "bombs" on his extensive collection of orchids and bromeliads in his huge greenhouse. 

Big Ag is a joke too. That's the point I'm making. Companies are made of people, individual people who have individual goals, families, and lives. These companies derive power from the money they earn. Greenpeace, PETA, Sierra Club, and others are made up of people too, some with 1/4 of an acre or no land at all, but they donate money. That money is earned and used to garner power for the respective organization too. Two sides of the same coin with the real agenda for both of making money. Neither are altruistic but Big Organic sells themselves as such.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

From your link D. Coates. "We can't exclude the idea that some organic practices may increase nutrient levels . . . or increase or decrease bacteria," she said. "But at the market you don't often get to look at the organic practices used. Many studies mention that other factors can influence nutrient content, such as ripeness, season and storage practices."

Charles Benbrook is chief science consultant at the Organic Center in Enterprise, Ore., which says it conducts "credible, evidence-based science on the health and environmental benefits of organic food and farming." He praised the study authors' "ambitious undertaking" but said the study underestimated the impact of organic livestock farming on reducing antibiotic resistance and missed analyzing research attributing important health benefits from organic produce on prenatal development.

"We need to recognize that finding strong evidence of clinically significant health benefits for eating organic food is a tall order," Benbrook said. "But I don't think their study rules out some of the more subtle benefits of consuming organic foods that are more in the nature of promoting healthy pregnancies and preventing disease."

I'd settle for equal opportunity labeling, I want a label that says everything my food was sprayed with, and whether the seed was heirloom, hybrid or GMO, and whatever pesticide or fungicide was put on the seed as well. 

so you have an apple sprayed with malathion? or a gmo apple with no spray (actually this one doesn't exist, the gmo apple still needs spray it just doesn't turn brown)
Or an apple sprayed with a more lethal pesticide? 

Put it on all the labels, use color coding like we do for truck loads of materials, you know, inert, flammable, I don't remember the rest but you get the idea.

Then let the consumer choose


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

I think people would be surprised that you can eat GMO food, drink the occasional Coca-Cola, and even order out some McDonald's or a pizza every now and then without ending up fat, weak, or disease-ridden because of it. It can be done, folks. The majority of the people in the US do it.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Buy whatever you want with your money. Find that specialty producer who's making exactly what you require and buy to your hearts desire. But this whole labeling thing is merely an attempt by Big Organic to increase costs of non "organic" products. This levels the playing field in their eyes by making to tougher for GMO producers. It doesn't matter if it makes food more expensive for all, with the worsened negative impact of food access for poorer people and nations.

I'd love the consumer to chose. Non GMO products can't be currently be labeled as such? Who's in charge of making sure everything is what they claim it to be? Who's in charge of penalties and proving otherwise? Who's in charge of paying for all of this? You trust whom, the USDA to handle this? The devil is in the details and there still is no scientifically based repeatable proof that GMO products impact it's consumers differently than Organic products except in the pocketbook.


----------



## Edymnion (May 30, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> To me the point of buying "organic" food, besides that less poisons are obviously good for me, is that less poisons are better for the earth and better for the bees...


Then you're rather missing the point, I'm afraid.

Certified Organic crops do use herbicides and pesticides during growing seasons. And due to the fact that most of what they use is less effective than the inorganic stuff, they usually use a whole lot more of it. Don't think that organic food is just out there growing all by itself with hippy farmers picking the bugs and weeds off each plant one by one. Oh no, they get doused in chemicals just like everything else. They just use different chemicals.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

I use chickens myself, and towering sprinklers that draw all the wild birds into the squash to eat the squash bugs around 10:30 in the morning. and Beneficial nematodes, a garden hose, and I am considering spraying a bt spray on my grape leaves that were repeatedly attacked by grape leaf skeletonizer larva last year. But I'm sure someone is spraying something, my exhusband keeps telling me that pyrethrins are organic, and I guess they are in his yard, and his garden, but they aren't used in mine. Since I spend about $30 a year on produce and produce the rest myself I think I'm doing ok. 

And yes my grown kids eat fast food and gmo's but the soda phase has died out and the chips have too and they eat a lot healthier than they did in their 20's. 

The obesity rate is high enough in Texas to keep at least 5 stomach removal specialists "lap band" and other type procedure advertisers operating in Dallas Fort Worth. Maybe the rest of the country is skinny.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> Even if it is the same nutrition (which I doubt) I would prefer "organic" because I would like to avoid the "extras" that come with "conventional" food.


Organic is more nutritious because it doesn't have preservatives in it. Preservatives are what? Chemicals used to kill bacteria and viruses for the sole purpose of making the food sellable when it it older. The older it is the less nutrition it has. And yes, most preservatives can cause cancer.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Edymnion said:


> Certified Organic crops do use herbicides and pesticides during growing seasons. And due to the fact that most of what they use is less effective than the inorganic stuff, they usually use a whole lot more of it. Don't think that organic food is just out there growing all by itself with hippy farmers picking the bugs and weeds off each plant one by one. Oh no, they get doused in chemicals just like everything else. They just use different chemicals.
> 
> http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html


Wow, interesting informational link. Someone is shooting straight and coming from Berkley, no one is going to claim it's GMO propaganda.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

Ace I do not have the reference any more it was done years ago when the preservative issue was new. Any way they looked at stomach and digestive tract cancer associated with preservatives. At that time the Japanese people used way more preservatives than we do and yet they have some of the lowest occurrances of cancer of the digestive tract or any other part of the body.
Dave


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

personally I like a little MSG in my soup, eek. seriously though, Monsanto is on the move with a new acquisition. http://news.monsanto.com/press-rele...ation-combination-provide-farmers-broad-suite

And from the Great Barrier Reef, where it has been found Roundup lasts longer in seawater than in any other environment, that poor tiny company well ya know, I just don't buy their products for my little 1/3 acre: http://gmoevidence.com/dr-mercurio-glyphosate-is-most-resistant-to-biodegredation-in-sea-water/


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Dave in most cases it is illegal to do studies with children. The chemicals affect children far more than adults because their cells are developing. studies they can do are based on statistical data. What does the data say about the incidents of childhood cancers today? Are they increasing, decreasing or staying the same?


----------



## Bee Whisperer (Mar 24, 2013)

Studies, upon studies, upon studies have been done on countless medications designed for helping human beings, only to be found out by future generations that very harmful consequences were manifested by the "breakthrough" medication. Conversely, many have been extremely successful. The only true evidence-based study is use, time, and stringent unbiased objectivity. 

Diets, upon diets, upon diets have been proclaimed by professional nutritionists, of various generations, only to find out decades later that some are either dangerous or non-affective. Conversely, there are some that, over several generations, have been proven safe and effective. Again, the only true evidence-based study is use, time, and stringent unbiased objectivity.

The sciences are not always a negative undertaking, new ideas are not always bad, and endeavors to make life better for all living things will always be a noble transcendent cause. The only negative in these ventures is greed and a closed subjective mindset by those promoting them. 

No one; no matter how many studies are done in this generation, can predict the positive or negative effects of initiated strategies that will befall life as we know it. No matter how much money is poured into a new way, or in preserving an old way, will the investments ensure a brighter future for man, plant, or creature. Nor does it predict their demise. 

In general; people have a right to be leery and cautious. Too many things that were promoted to be authoritatively sound have turned out to be extremely destructive, and it is those very painful and hurtful impacts that folks remember. Is GMO a good thing? Is it going to be found out, several generations from now, to be an evil destructive nightmare; or will it be a godsend that helps to feed man and beast with no harmful effects at all? The actual truth is way down the road, and it is unknown to us at this time. 

The gamble of "new scientific aspirations" is always going to be an unknown until it has been tempered through the tests of time. A natural fear of man is the unknown. That fear will most likely never be quenched by the experts promoting whatever benefits "the studies proclaim," and the fears will often become more deeply entrenched by the biased tactics used to defend the claims. With so much life-long experiential evidence of faulty claims, how can one not be cautious of new ventures? Yet, it was once said;

_A venture is a risk. In healthy ways, it is trying something new, or approaching the same problem a different way. There are many times when we must take certain risks to bring about desired change, desired growth, or desired learning. By avoiding risk, you may avoid suffering and sorrow. However, you will also avoid learning, feeling, change, growth, love, and living. To avoid risk is to remain a prisoner of fear and doubt. 
_ Author Unknown


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Bee Whisperer's last response was a well reasoned and thought out reply. I especially like his final quoted remark. Thanks for being among us Bee Whisperer.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> Yeah! I want studies to show that pure water is really better for you than water laden with pesticides, drugs, and industrial chemicals. We don't know!


You unwittingly stumbled into and reinforced the very point that I was trying to make. 

How many idiots think bottled water is purer /safer/ healthier than tap water?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I did not volunteer for this experiment...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Gypsi said:


> did you read my link? the scientific analysis of nutritional content for gmo / non gmo?


Scientific analyses? Hardly. The link that you provided (UndergrogroundHealth.com) references a _blog_ entry from, get this, Moms Across America. There is no source given for the “stunning information” that the blogster writes about. Here a few choice tidbits from the article entry: 

_Crazy levels of Formaldehyde and Glyphosate found in the GMO corn! _

_This isn’t surprising as glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things._

_The important thing to note in these deficiencies (i.e Ca, Mg, and Mn) is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer._

_The tragic results proved that the rats had a 50-70% chance of developing horrific, grotesque tumors from the diet_.


I like the use of scientific adjectives such as, crazy, vital, tragic, horrific, and grotesque. 

You also have provided links to other excellent sources of scientific information such as: 

The Organic Prepper
EcoWatch
Babes Against Biotech

You really need to find better sources of information than what amounts to the internet version of tabloids that line the checkout aisle at the supermarket.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Nabber86 said:


> You unwittingly stumbled into and reinforced the very point that I was trying to make.
> 
> How many idiots think bottled water is purer /safer/ healthier than tap water?


Hmmm. Ever been to Mexico?

I don't see how I reinforced your point, and I don't see what your analogy has to do with that point. You were calling for the testing of organic food, to be sure it isn't somehow dangerous. What you were in fact calling for is a test to determine if the *absence of dangerous pesticides is somehow harmful*. That's like calling for a test to see if pure water is dangerous because of its lack of dangerous pollutants.

Do you not see how odd that notion is? The fact that idiots exist has nothing to do with the discussion, unless you were calling me an idiot for believing that less pesticide is healthier than more pesticide. Were you?

No one with any sense denies that organic produce has fewer dangerous chemicals on it. The pesticide industry assures us that their products, if used as directed, do not pose a risk to health. If you're in the habit of believing everything you're told by salesmen, then you'll be happy. But the fact is that the pesticide manufacturers have been wrong in the past. They are assuming the best-case scenario, for obvious reasons. 

You can do the same if you want to, but I'm a skeptic.

The same skepticism applies to GMOs. We are assured that there is nothing wrong with them, but at the same time we are assured that we are too stupid to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to eat these products. We are assured that GMO organisms are no threat to the genetics of non-GMOs, but at the same time the companies who manufacture the stuff have used their political power to get the government to protect them from taking responsibility for any damage their products may cause.

Those who retain some measure of skepticism are often vilified by shills for these companies, paid and unpaid, on the grounds that the skeptics are ignorant Luddites who want the world to starve. But in fact, the current thrust of GMO development is not to increase productivity, but to increase convenience, lower labor costs, and allow farmers to get bigger. The most common kinds of GMOs are Round-Up ready crops. How do these GMOs help a poor farmer in Bangladesh? Beside, he couldn't afford the seed, and if he tried to save seed for next year, as poor farmers must, Monsanto would sue him. The idea that Monsanto is worried about people starving in faraway places is ludicrous.

To restate my position: I'm fine with GMO products being grown and sold, as long as they are labeled, and as long as their producers are required to take responsibility for any harm their products may cause. Currently, neither is the case.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> I don't see how I reinforced your point, and I don't see what your analogy has to do with that point. You were calling for the testing of organic food, to be sure it isn't somehow dangerous. What you were in fact calling for is a test to determine if the absence of dangerous pesticides is somehow harmful. That's like calling for a test to see if pure water is dangerous because of its lack of dangerous pollutants.


I was making a point that you can’t have it both ways. From a logic standpoint, you cant prove that something is un-healthy if you cant prove the thing that you are comparing it to as being healthy. You and others may think that is a facetious position, but no more so than assuming that organic food is any better than regular food. 



> No one with any sense denies that organic produce has fewer dangerous chemicals on it. The pesticide industry assures us that their products, if used as directed, do not pose a risk to health. If you're in the habit of believing everything you're told by salesmen, then you'll be happy. But the fact is that the pesticide manufacturers have been wrong in the past. They are assuming the best-case scenario, for obvious reasons.


Organic food may or may not have fewer chemicals on it. Using the term “dangerous“ is setting up a trap to anyone trying to oppose your statement. I don’t have to listen to salesmen; I have spent the better part of 25 years assessing health risks to environmental contamination. 



> Those who retain some measure of skepticism are often vilified by shills for these companies, paid and unpaid, on the grounds that the skeptics are ignorant Luddites who want the world to starve. But in fact, the current thrust of GMO development is not to increase productivity, but to increase convenience, lower labor costs, and allow farmers to get bigger.


Nor sure where you came up with that one, but increasing convenience, lowering labor costs, and allowing farmers to get bigger *is* an in increase productivity. 



> To restate my position: I'm fine with GMO products being grown and sold, as long as they are labeled, and as long as their producers are required to take responsibility for any harm their products may cause. Currently, neither is the case.


I agree that GMOs should be labeled. There is already plenty of product liability laws to protect the consumer. 

And yes I have been to Mexico and I got deathly ill from eating tacos from a street vendor.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> I have spent the better part of 25 years assessing health risks to environmental contamination.


You don't work for BP do you?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

I think GMO's are an attempt to increase production. I'm sure that Monsanto would like to corner the market on GMOs and all other chemicals. So would Exxon/mobile, Dow, BASF, and ………….. Some recent demographic studies indicate the world population will double by 2050. If so, there must be much more food production. World hunger will also be deleterious to our health. Wars require the ultimate human sacrifice. In the future there will be more and more innovative attempts to increase agricultural production. Just saying……………….


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> You don't work for BP do you?


Nope, but have done quite a bit of work for Mobay Chemicals.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> >How come no one complains about all the pharmaceuticals that are produce by GMO's like almost all the insulin in use today, a number of vaccines, etc?
> 
> If they ever get into the wild (God forbid) you will hear some complaints. E. Coli that produces insulin is a very scary proposition since it could kill every animal on the planet that has that in it's gut, which is almost all of us.
> 
> ...


The point is that it is a "natural" process and occurs commonly in the wild. No animal or plant breeding is "natural", just like keeping bees in little wooden boxes is not "natural". Corn should look like wheat and wheat should look like big bluestem cows should only produce a few gallons of milk at a time and only for a short time period and most of our fruits and vegetables and flowers would disapear.....


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Gypsi said:


> Enjoy your corn meal and GMO food hilreal, but if I am paying cash for something I have a right to know what is in it.


You do, if it doesn't say organic it contains GMOs......


----------



## Edymnion (May 30, 2013)

lazy shooter said:


> I think GMO's are an attempt to increase production.


Yup, the entire point of GMO crops is:
1) Make them less work intensive so that fewer people can grow more food. This includes things like drought tolerance and in-plant pesticides/resistance to herbicides so that they don't need to be manually watered as much, nor sprayed as much.
2) Increase resistance to disease, like greening in the citrus crop. The less food we lose to crop diseases, the more that there is for us.
3) Increase nutritional value of the crops. Golden Rice is the poster child for this, its rice with a high amount of Vitamin A that keeps malnourished kids from going blind.
4) Increase tolerances, so that crops can grow in areas that were originally too cold, or too hot for them. Or to allow them to be watered with salt water instead of fresh, so that plentiful ocean water can be used instead of the increasingly scarce fresh water supply.

Nobody is dumping millions and billions of dollars into GMO research to make an apple that tastes like a grape (the grapple is the result of conventional breeding), they're going for what has the biggest immediate payoff. Increased productivity.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Gypsi said:


> https://www.facebook.com/BabesAgainstBiotech Babes Against Biotech taking on GMO's in Hawaii, where most of them are tested. hmmm


Interesting how things get distorted in the press, no testing is done in Hawaii. That is where the seeds are produced that are tested all over the world.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Why is that changing? Why has the po-dunk company General Mills now subscribing to making Cheerio's non GMO? Are they looking to lose money?
> 
> General Mills is catering to a demand to make more money. Doing it based on marketing data not on science data. They don't care whether or not GMOs actually cause any harm or not, they just want to sell you a box O's.
> Nature did this already ... the African bee.


African bees do just fine, in Africa.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Nabber86 said:


> Organic food may or may not have fewer chemicals on it.


Can you support this statement?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

rhaldridge said:


> Can you support this statement?


Yes, organic food may or may not have fewer chemicals in it.



I think it is a quote from Albert Einstein, if that helps any.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

hilreal said:


> You do, if it doesn't say organic it contains GMOs......


You can't say that. Many farmers do not get certification so they cannot label their goods "Organic" even though they have not done anything to their crop that would disqualify it. If it says "does not contain GMO's" there is no question.


----------



## Bee Whisperer (Mar 24, 2013)

Right Ace. I hear that certification is really costly.


----------



## Edymnion (May 30, 2013)

rhaldridge said:


> Can you support this statement?


http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Edymnion said:


> http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7


Do you seriously believe this material supports the idea that there are just as many poisonous residues on organic produce as on conventional? My reading of it leads me to the opposite conclusion.

Just an example:



> In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: *Provided*, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

hilreal said:


> Interesting how things get distorted in the press, no testing is done in Hawaii. That is where the seeds are produced that are tested all over the world.


Obviously I misspoke, They are produced there. And chemicals dumped all over them there, which may or may not be causing the excessive cancer rates next to the farms where the seeds are produced, causing a couple of communities to locally ban gmos or something along that line. I am not a full time internet poster, winter or summer, please excuse my error and thank you for spotting it. Now back to the day job, it's 10:47 pm here


----------

