tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post756693800637176443..comments2023-09-06T01:31:38.653-07:00Comments on Comics, Beer, and Shakespeare: Sincere questions for the "Just Label It!" crowdLance Christian Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14662783824480475026noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post-77295735355813804982015-08-09T17:11:47.413-07:002015-08-09T17:11:47.413-07:00"The contents of this food product. Are in so..."The contents of this food product. Are in some way covered by patents which prevent the grower from replanting the seeds..."<br /><br />The thing is, this is not unique to GMOs. You can patent any kind of seed that you develop. Also, it's my understanding that farmers had stopped relying on saving seeds before Monsanto came into the equation. (<a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted" rel="nofollow">link - see Myth #4</a><br /><br />"Means that I'm literally bathing in this particular herbicide. I don't believe that this has been shown to be safe. Sure there's some research, funded by those who stand to make billions off the use of these crops and this herbicide."<br /><br />A couple of things:<br /><br />1. From my understanding, the equivalent of <a href="http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/" rel="nofollow">two soda cans of glyphosate are used per football field</a>. I don't know about you, but I think that the word "literally" doesn't really apply here.<br /><br />2. Perhaps the research is funded by the chemical companies. But that's not an argument against it if it's made public and subject to peer review. Pretty sure airline industries pay to have their planes tested - wouldn't it make sense for them to do that?<br /><br />Considering that the stuff has been used for a few decades now with no evidence of harm, I think that the burden of proof is on those who are taking issue with it. Plus, the really big question always goes back to what we should use if we were to replace glyphosate. Are the alternatives any safer? Not from what I know.<br /><br />For the record though, I do think that there are issues with glyphosate - not so much that it's giving us cancer or something like that but that it's being relied on to solve a problem that probably requires many solutions.<br /><br />Have you heard of <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Kevin Folta</a>? I suggest checking out his blog. He's a public scientist, and he's better than I am at explaining all of this stuff. <br /><br />Anyway, I'm still left with my original objection. I don't know exactly what a GMO label tells me. There are GMOs that have nothing to do with Monsanto like Arctic Apples, Hawaiin Papayas, and the Simplot potato.<br /><br />Seems to me like what you want is a Monsanto label moreso than a GMO label. Is that fair?Lance Christian Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14662783824480475026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post-60672594305750125942015-08-06T16:36:39.212-07:002015-08-06T16:36:39.212-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Luna Occultahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780756424790474694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post-45618335156737993682015-08-06T16:35:38.941-07:002015-08-06T16:35:38.941-07:00I would be entirely happy with a label that read s...I would be entirely happy with a label that read something like this.<br /><br />The contents of this food product. Are in some way covered by patents which prevent the grower from replanting the seeds, and which require them to sign a license agreement with (Insert name of company, which is likely to be Monsanto here.)<br /><br />That is the root of my sincere and vehement objection to 'GMO' foods. They have transformed agriculture into an entire industry which by necessity pays rent to certain corporations.<br /><br />It's the related business practices in our current economy that at least some of us object to. Not some inherent boogeyman in the modification of genes, that's a natural process which happens every single time anything reproduces. <br /><br />Clearly that would require people to actually care about things, and that seems unlikely. I would be happy with a label that said that a certain food product contains organisms which are 'genetically modified' in the sense that they have been engineered beyond simply selecting for the most desirable offspring. As rather obviously that's been done to all organisms for a very long time.<br /><br />I get pretty pissed at my fellow skeptics for sliding into GMO apology, when that involves endorsing industry propaganda. Yes, I understand that much of the opposition to GMO food is essentially as idiotic as the opposition to vaccines. However the root of the issue is quite different, to me at least.<br /><br />Along with this fundamental shift in the way agriculture works, the use of some of the most popular of these GMO products. Roundup ready soybeans for instance. Means that I'm literally bathing in this particular herbicide. I don't believe that this has been shown to be safe. Sure there's some research, funded by those who stand to make billions off the use of these crops and this herbicide.<br /><br />There are also issues with the vastly reduced diversity of the genome of our food supply, it's increased vulnerability to emergent threats. The list continues, and I'm hardly the most knowledgeable person on this subject.<br /><br />Labelling gives me the ability to'vote' with my debit card, and support those products which, as a whole support the sort of agriculture which we grew up with, the sort of industry practices which built our civilization to this point.<br /><br />Denying me this information serves exactly one purpose. It's good for the stock price of Monsanto and company.<br /><br />And yes, in fact, I would pay an extra $50 a week just to hurt their stock price, these people have spent billions to deny us the right to sue them. To change laws and industry practices so that they can profit to an incredible degree. To fund research which supports the notion that I shouldn't mind a bit how much of certain herbicides is in my drinking water. <br /><br />Now, as a result of the corrupt and biased nature of our political landscape, I'm not entirely certain that I believe all the research which shows these foods are all safe. Sure there's nothing 'inherent' in the process which would make them unsafe. But if BP tells me that an oil well next to reservoir which provides my drinking water is safe? I don't suddenly bow down before any alleged 'science' which is pointed at me. I want to see actual data, and actual science, not that which is performed by people paid to produce results which, say it is in fact safe.<br />Luna Occultahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780756424790474694noreply@blogger.com