I used to eat that stuff until it gave me a false positive on a pregnancy test.

EDIT by GH: this is a very large picture of carrots that was blowing up the site width when replying. Thus, I've changed it into a link.

Besides, it was just an example that I made up. The point is transparency in the food chain.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c= ... .6&idno=21

B, what you're doing in this thread looks a lot like what climate change deniers and anti-vaccine people do - you make a specific argument, but once challenged on it you back off into vague pronouncements. Don't be Jenny McCarthy, B.

Your literally shocking me. I shall investigate this the next time I'm at the grocery store. I have never, NEVER seen anything that looked ANYTHING like clearly displayed nutrition information.

But still, elimination of that point, still leaves a good argument for transparency about the use of GMOs.

Honestly, I don't think it's as "Secretive" as people like Pollan tell us it is. You can tour places like Monsanto. There's TED talks and tons of info out there that explains what GMOs are, how they're created and why, and how they're used. Fifty years ago, if we needed a crop to be resistant to drought they'd have to breed and cross breed the heartiest plants over generations, and in a few years MAY slowly accomplish what they're able to do now by analyzing, finding, and splicing the resistant genomes. All the while, not passing on other traits that they may NOT want. These little splices are actually safer than a blind cross-breeding, because they have exact control over what gets passed on and what doesn't. Despite what the Anti-GMOers will tell you, it's all VERY carefully regulated and tested.

I forgot to reply to B's post that you quoted because it was double-paged. As you'd expect, I endorse most of what you have to say.

But I'd also add this: I could actually be open to a certain form of transparency, but under the conditions of explaining exactly what specific genetic modification occurred, and requiring that there is a specific possible adverse effect from that modification. But simply slapping a "GMO" sticker without any context isn't very informative.

The problem is, those who are leading these hoards are into the money - NOT the "transparency". They don't REALLY want it. When you counter with, "Oh, they're very clear about that actually, here's the evidence. . ." They simply deny it. (Think of it like how Trump STILL denies the existence of Obama's birth certificate). Their $$$trength is in their numbers, and the truth would diminish them greatly. The Food Babes and the Alex Jones of the worlds deal only in lies and recruiting - not actual truth or change.

Well yeah, to someone like you and me that's a bit of a rhetorical question. If they can meet the tough conditions I've set up then great, but I'm guessing the grand majority of them won't be able to do it.

It is indeed quite entertaining that people like Vani Hari accuse nearly everyone of being Monsanto shills, though...

And since we've brought her up again, I should probably note that her arch-nemesis Yvette d'Entremont gave a nice speech for the Center for Inquiry, though I'm guessing you may have already known that.

Can we talk about the bruce jenner thing in this thread?

Her genes weren't modified, you rube.

That's all well and good if you live in St. Louis.

But honestly, things are moving in the right direction. When it became public knowledge that McDonald's was using the pesticide potatoes, people got them to drop them. https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_ar ... atoban.php

I would prefer to find out things like "your french fries contain pesticide" before eating. I guess that's why I push more of my food business towards farmer's market, whole foods, and restaurants that can tell me where their meat came from.

Not really genetic modification, but this made me sad.

I'm thinking about making this my sig.

I know it's an unreasonable argument.

OK, so I remembered to look today. They do include local farmers that they got produce from. I'm highly suspect of that info being provided by a chain supermarket, but I'll have to take it at face value. Some explanations of vegetables, but no nutrition information.



Of course, now as I finish reading the law you posted, I see they can have a binder laying around. I guess I'll have to hunt again.

B, im on your side, dont worry.

Look, I get that most GMO's are not harmful and may be doing a good thing by supplying more to the food chain but I still think, and this is the total hippie in me, that we are missing the problem. Why do we have to do this? Cause we have ravaged the earth, need to make a quick buck, over populated, messed with the environment etc... its like putting a band-aid.

I was at an organic winery in Italy a couple weeks back and it was absolutely wonderful hearing them talk about how they manage the infestation, the droughts, the change in climate, by introducing natural elements into their vineyards to combat the things that can ruin the supply. No pesticides. Introducing different plants that fend off bacteria and mold that suck nutrients from the vine, introducing a different type of soil etc... It was just wonderful to hear how scientific and exploratory hey were to keep their truly organic process alive and how all of the vineyards in the region were in it together.

What a great post.

Without modern advances to food (and that includes GMOs), we'd only be able to feed around 4 billion people on Earth. We're at 7 billion now and it's still going up. Population control might be a worthy environmental goal, but trying to enforce it (as China has) is pretty nightmarish.

For the record, I don't have a stance on GMOs since I don't know much about the subject. I just liked Strat's post.

Me too, LoVer.