1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Vermont about to pass GMO-labeling bill

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Songbird, Apr 17, 2014.

  1. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member


    The state is in for a big fight by the Label Lobby not to mention Monsanto and other behemoths.

    Let's see how powerful the money is.

  2. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    I'd like to see a bill outlawing Good Morning America and other
    fluff shows of same.
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member


    The left's further sacrifices the moral high ground against global warming denialists.
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    If Vermont really wanted to do something they should put
    Green Mountain Coffee out of business. The company that promotes
    itself as "green" but the one who has invented the environmentally
    disastrous coffee pod used by millions in their Keurigs.
  5. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Can you run this through Dummy Filter so I can understand it?
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    GMO labeling is alarmism that is not supported by science, pushed largely by left-leaning Pinterest moms. But the left-leaning Pinterest moms don't care that it isn't supported by science, because, well, their intuition tells them that GMOs are bad. It's dogma to them now. Just like global warming and evolution deniers just know that the science is wrong and their gut and horse sense are right.
  7. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I bet there is a high rate of crossover between the GMO activists and anti-vaxxers.
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I bet there is, too. The Precautionary Principle has run amok in this country, particularly among the educated mothers of young children.
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    There is a difference between GMO labeling. ... and a discussion about whether GMOs may be potentially harmful to people.

    On the latter, nobody can tell me that my concern about GMOs isn't supported by science, because 1) Not all genetically-modified foods are the same (an ear of corn that has been modified to produce its own insecticide is not the same thing as a salmon genetically-engineered to produce more growth hormone) 2) we are all guinea pigs when it comes to what Monsanto, Archer Daniel Midlandse, etc. has put into your food chain. There are few (to none), independent long-term studies of most things related to GMOs.

    Telling me concern about GMOs isn't supported by science is the same as someone in the 1920s telling you that concern about cigarettes being harmful wasn't supported by science.

    My bet is that GMOs are a crap shoot at best. If people want to take that chance, that is fine. But it has become increasingly more difficult to find NON-GMO products. Most processed foods contain GMOs, which is probably fine, because the vast majority of people eating processed foods likely don't care. But if you want to find a non-GMO ear of corn, for example, you have to go way out of your way nowadays. The stuff you find in the typical supermarket has been screwed around with by scientists.

    As for labeling? If people care enough, what is stopping them from demanding that labeling themselves with their purchasing power?
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    That analogy is utterly invalid. GMOs have been studied and studied and re-studied for safety. Cigarettes in 1920 had not been, and certainly not in the sophisticated manner of today's scientists.

    I credit your case-by-case point, however.
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    How do you evaluate the long-term impact of something that hasn't even been around for a half generation?

    It is virtually impossible to evaluate such a broad group of tangentially-related things with a wide paint brush, but how do you conclude it has been studied and studied and restudied for safety? For example, there is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that since the introduction of GMO soy products, soy allergies have skyrocketed. That is just one small impact of a genetically-altered product. What other long-term impacts are we looking at, due to the wide variety of things in our food that have are still being genetically modified in new ways?

    The reality is that most of what they are doing to our foods hasn't been studied (we don't have the resources to, even if it was something people were interested in), and to the extent there have been GMO studies, a lot of it has been industry sponsored (food processors, such as Monsanto, or pesticide makers, provide the data).

    Maybe most, or all, GMOs are perfectly safe. But you are still guessing when you evaluate it for yourself. Without knowing definitively, all things being equal, I'd still personally prefer to eat something that wasn't tinkered with in a lab by a biologist working for food processor such as ADM -- not just because of the unknown long-term harm they may or may not be creating, but because most of the genetic alterations mess with the nutritional content of natural foods and focus more on things like increasing yield or changing the appearance (often at the expense of nutrition). That isn't something I am personally really interested in.
  12. Liut

    Liut Active Member

    Clarence Thomas doesn't understand what all the fuss is about.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page