Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

[Sire Killem All]

GMO jus cost Wheat farmers a shit ton of money..... i see a hazard.

 

[st0wandgrow]

This has been covered and you still do not understand it.
The government can not force labels that imply a hazard when there is no hazard.
If you want to change that, call your congressman.
If you want to avoid GMO, buy organic and shop at Whole Foods.

Remember when you implied that I was dumb? that was pretty funny.




The government can not force labels that imply a hazard when none exists.




There is none. Why do you want to force labels that imply a hazard where none exists?
By your logic, we will have to mandate the labeling of a lot of things. One of them is carrots. Eat too many carrots and you can hurt your self. drink too much water and you could die. these are facts, not paranoid dreams.



Then prove there is a hazard. You also said you didn't care if they were healthy or not.
Change your mind about that?



Over 600 studies some dating back to the 1980s is a pretty good body of evidence.
Why didn't one of those studies find the problems GMO haters are imagining?




That is completely irrelevant and a dumb appeal to emotion.
You are arguing like a politician, avoiding reality.


Monsanto does not have the market on GMO cornered. Check out Golden Rice and tell me what their motives are.

So does labeling a product as containing red dye #5 and wheat germ, imply a hazard?

I'm not asking the government to force companies to label their GMO products with "CAUTION: this product may kill you". No, I'm suggesting that products that are, or use, gmo products should be labelled as such. Period.

Now, completely disregard what I just said and carry on with your nonsense.

 

[ChesusRice]

So does labeling a product as containing red dye #5 and wheat germ, imply a hazard?

I'm not asking the government to force companies to label their GMO products with "CAUTION: this product may kill you". No, I'm suggesting that products that are, or use, gmo products should be labelled as such. Period.

Now, completely disregard what I just said and carry on with your nonsense.

if they arent hazardous why?
And nothimg is stopping a producer from adding the label
"GMO Free"

As a matter of Fact i am going to give you a million dollar idea for free

Come up with a simple logo for GMO free food
Promote your label to food producers who will pay you to use your logo
have a full time department flogging fear into the the general public with unsubstantiated faux science studies about the dangers of GMOs

Profit!

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

does 10% juice . .mean its harmful . . . ., or 100% juice . . . lol

how about grade A and Kobe

or natural flavors or artificial flavors . . . .

what about artificial sugars . . zero calories . . . . . .

oh man i hear ya though without common sense how could any know what all these labels mean . . . . .oh lordy



your argument is as tired , let it rest from shadow boxing itself

 

[st0wandgrow]

if they arent hazardous why?
And nothimg is stopping a producer from adding the label
"GMO Free"

As a matter of Fact i am going to give you a million dollar idea for free

Come up with a simple logo for GMO free food
Promote your label to food producers who will pay you to use your logo
have a full time department flogging fear into the the general public with unsubstantiated faux science studies about the dangers of GMOs

Profit!

Are you suggesting that everything a company is forced to include on their labels deals exclusively with how hazardous the product is? Eh?

Bottle return rates=hazard?

 

[ChesusRice]

does 10% juice . .mean its harmful . . . ., or 100% juice . . . lol

how about grade A and Kobe

or natural flavors or artificial flavors . . . .

what about artificial sugars . . zero calories . . . . . .

oh man i hear ya though without common sense how could any know what all these labels mean . . . . .oh lordy



your argument is as tired , let it rest from shadow boxing itself

If it is labeled fruit juice but is in fact
10% fruit juice
90% high fructose corn syrup

Yes it can kill you if you are a diabetic

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

so why 100% juice . . . .then . . .is that harmful too

how about grade a beef or USDA prime, choice or select

hose labels must also be a warning . . but what of i wonder???

the Duke strikes out again

 

[Sire Killem All]

Over 600 studies some dating back to the 1980s is a pretty good body of evidence.
Why didn't one of those studies find the problems GMO haters are imagining?

i love studies from the 1980's..... so conclusive......

 

[Trousers]

So does labeling a product as containing red dye #5 and wheat germ, imply a hazard?
I'm not asking the government to force companies to label their GMO products with "CAUTION: this product may kill you". No, I'm suggesting that products that are, or use, gmo products should be labelled as such. Period.

Where would you put this on an ear of corn? Are you going to stamp it in purple ink GMO?
You are still not making any sense.

I do not make the rules and the rule you are suggesting is ridiculous. It would force the labeling of every thing.

Now, completely disregard what I just said and carry on with your nonsense.

You're a towel.

 

[Doer]

Are the manufactures purposefully adding that to their product? No, they wouldn't be. So why on earth would they have to put that on the label? Give your head a shake.

You just missed the entire point. Good job.

 

[Trousers]

i love studies from the 1980's..... so conclusive......

Run along and find some studies that show that GMO fruits, vegetables and grains are harmful.

 

[Trousers]

so why 100% juice . . . .then . . .is that harmful too

how about grade a beef or USDA prime, choice or select

hose labels must also be a warning . . but what of i wonder???

the Duke strikes out again

Find anything yet? Maybe some anecdotal evidence of a GMO potato sexually assaulting a cow?

 

[Doer]

I don't think that has ever been proven to be impossible by independent researchers and strict scrutiny over many decades. We never did prove we are indeed, 100% safe from that even ever happening. We cannot take the government's word on this. And pffftt. The FDA? I hear they are actually own by Satan incarnate. Yes. Monsanto.

In fact how can we prove we can every really be safe from such a horror?

I have it. A LABEL.

 

[Trousers]

 

[cannabineer]

No. I want to know what's in my food. I also want to know if it's been genetically modified. Why not leave the decision making up to the individual? If you feel it's safe and have no issue with it, then dig in. If I choose not to eat a product because it's gmo, then what's the rub?

Also, you don't know that there is "no hazard". Thus far there is nothing conclusive to suggest that there is, but that's a pretty small sample size. This is the same company that assured us that agent orange was a safe defoliant, and decades later we have hundreds of thousands of fucked up vets that were exposed to it.

I will give you one reason why I am not enthusiastic about labeling for GM content.
Look at the studies Samwell posted. They show an overwhelming distaste by polled consumers against GM products of any stripe. Imo this is a consequence of a sustained campaign to impugn GM foods as Unnatural, and in today's socio-philosophical climate that is a damnation.

So I hold that requiring GM content to be labeled is an undeclared attempt to ruin GM as an economically viable proposition, while plausibly denying just that intention/objective.

I have seen zero credible evidence that GM food products are actually harmful. i HAVE seen flawed studies (like the Seralini or the hog feeding study) spun and respun and re-re-respun in the natural foods advocacy blogosphere as proof that GM is bad. Sadly, look at the precentages of polled people who uncritically buy the conclusion from a logically untenable set of bases and premises.

So while I am not saying GM is spotless, I am saying that (unlike tobacco, some pesticides etc.) GM's case is so far entirely emotional, based on the twin pillars of widespread aversion to the not completely natural (ignoring that modern nonGM bred/hybrid cultivars are no more natural) and spite for a company with a spotty safety/stewardship track record. To me it is a baby/bathwater problem. Don't picth the GM baby out with the corporate-greed bathwater, is my suggestion.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

When a GMO product meets all the criteria I listed earlier, you will get a label.

Curret GMO products meet none of those criteria.

 

[ChesusRice]

I will give you one reason why I am not enthusiastic about labeling for GM content.
Look at the studies Samwell posted. They show an overwhelming distaste by polled consumers against GM products of any stripe. Imo this is a consequence of a sustained campaign to impugn GM foods as Unnatural, and in today's socio-philosophical climate that is a damnation.

So I hold that requiring GM content to be labeled is an undeclared attempt to ruin GM as an economically viable proposition, while plausibly denying just that intention/objective.

I have seen zero credible evidence that GM food products are actually harmful. i HAVE seen flawed studies (like the Seralini or the hog feeding study) spun and respun and re-re-respun in the natural foods advocacy blogosphere as proof that GM is bad. Sadly, look at the precentages of polled people who uncritically buy the conclusion from a logically untenable set of bases and premises.

So while I am not saying GM is spotless, I am saying that (unlike tobacco, some pesticides etc.) GM's case is so far entirely emotional, based on the twin pillars of widespread aversion to the not completely natural (ignoring that modern nonGM bred/hybrid cultivars are no more natural) and spite for a company with a spotty safety/stewardship track record. To me it is a baby/bathwater problem. Don't picth the GM baby out with the corporate-greed bathwater, is my suggestion.

Nailed it...

 

[st0wandgrow]

I will give you one reason why I am not enthusiastic about labeling for GM content.
Look at the studies Samwell posted. They show an overwhelming distaste by polled consumers against GM products of any stripe. Imo this is a consequence of a sustained campaign to impugn GM foods as Unnatural, and in today's socio-philosophical climate that is a damnation.

So I hold that requiring GM content to be labeled is an undeclared attempt to ruin GM as an economically viable proposition, while plausibly denying just that intention/objective.

I have seen zero credible evidence that GM food products are actually harmful. i HAVE seen flawed studies (like the Seralini or the hog feeding study) spun and respun and re-re-respun in the natural foods advocacy blogosphere as proof that GM is bad. Sadly, look at the precentages of polled people who uncritically buy the conclusion from a logically untenable set of bases and premises.

So while I am not saying GM is spotless, I am saying that (unlike tobacco, some pesticides etc.) GM's case is so far entirely emotional, based on the twin pillars of widespread aversion to the not completely natural (ignoring that modern nonGM bred/hybrid cultivars are no more natural) and spite for a company with a spotty safety/stewardship track record. To me it is a baby/bathwater problem. Don't picth the GM baby out with the corporate-greed bathwater, is my suggestion.

So, you're basically saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and do some research, and you and Monsanto know better. You would sooner keep people ignorant of what they're eating just in case genetically modified foods serve some greater purpose on the planet.

Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice. This is America. Monsanto is free to roll out an advertising campaign disproving the myths, and touting their genetics, telling us all how they are going to save the world and keep us healthy. They have deep pockets.

 

[Doer]

I will give you one reason why I am not enthusiastic about labeling for GM content.
Look at the studies Samwell posted. They show an overwhelming distaste by polled consumers against GM products of any stripe. Imo this is a consequence of a sustained campaign to impugn GM foods as Unnatural, and in today's socio-philosophical climate that is a damnation.

So I hold that requiring GM content to be labeled is an undeclared attempt to ruin GM as an economically viable proposition, while plausibly denying just that intention/objective.

I have seen zero credible evidence that GM food products are actually harmful. i HAVE seen flawed studies (like the Seralini or the hog feeding study) spun and respun and re-re-respun in the natural foods advocacy blogosphere as proof that GM is bad. Sadly, look at the precentages of polled people who uncritically buy the conclusion from a logically untenable set of bases and premises.

So while I am not saying GM is spotless, I am saying that (unlike tobacco, some pesticides etc.) GM's case is so far entirely emotional, based on the twin pillars of widespread aversion to the not completely natural (ignoring that modern nonGM bred/hybrid cultivars are no more natural) and spite for a company with a spotty safety/stewardship track record. To me it is a baby/bathwater problem. Don't picth the GM baby out with the corporate-greed bathwater, is my suggestion.

This is ROBOCOP! You have 10 secs to return the White Bear. 9...8...7....whirrrrrrr....

 

[Doer]

So, you're basically saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and do some research, and you and Monsanto know better. You would sooner keep people ignorant of what they're eating just in case genetically modified foods serve some greater purpose on the planet.

Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice. This is America. Monsanto is free to roll out an advertising campaign disproving the myths, and touting their genetics, telling us all how they are going to save the world and keep us healthy. They have deep pockets.

Well, you have the same problem that many here do. Confused by the Anti-Con. You think you know what America is.

WE cannot and do not, and never have proceeded in this way. WE would have nothing. Life is an experiment. But, what you feel is religion when you try to force it. Maybe you don't see the consequences for the Entire Organic Business, but I do.

That is an experiment in large scale production. Anything you do to Monsanto about this, they can take it. But, if they want to turn on the Oraganix business, they can and they will.

Whether people choose not to eat it for perceived health reasons, or because they feel that fucking with nature has unforeseen ramifications, they should have that choice.