More fuel on the non-gm fire

[pourfarmer]

Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via
estrogen receptors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

Dont worry though, as long as you are buying those pink
ribbons.

[Braveheart]

Soybeans, GMO or conventional, contain high
levels of estrogen. In humans genetically
predisposed to cancer these higher levels of
estrogen can lead to greater risk of breast cancer
in women and men.

Might also explain why vegan males are
predominately "girlie men".

The point really is that there are risks
everywhere. But as long as we have the ability
to make choice it becomes our responsibility to
protect ourselves, or not if we choose. I don't
want to live in a "nannystate" where all our
choices are limited by overseers.

[pourfarmer]

I like choices too, I just want the
average joe consumer to know if they're
getting gmo in their food. Im not saying
take them off the shelf... just let people
know what they're eating. A simple
label... inform the consumer and let them
choose.

[charliep]

How will market define may contain GMO and more specifically how will GMO be defined defined. Genetic engineering only? Monsanto products only?

Why not go the other way and have companies highlight their products that don't contain any GMO (whatever the definition is)?

If you read Food-Navigator, there has been a survey done that indicated a sizeable number of consumers want GMO products (not sure what the consumer understands by this) labeled. Asking what information they would like to see on labels, only 3 % said GMO presence when they were not prompted.

When we want consumers to read nutrition labels for nutrient value, I am not sure loading up with other information provides. If the consumer wants that information, allow other processes to allow food companies to diffentiate their product.

I note the original article was about glyphosate. I realize glyphosate is used on RR crops but it is also used in conventional crops. My take - two separate issues.

[charliep]

A weird question. Farmers use glyphosate as a desicant to allow the crop to mature evenly and therefore the ability to straight cut. If there crop crop were RR wheat, then the industry will have to find some other alternative. I will stick with a comment from earlier. I don't if more RR crops would change the amount of glyphosate being used. From there, I don't hear farmers beating the door to have more glyphosate tolerant crops. I do hear about the need for other agronomic alternatives.

[pourfarmer]

My comment above about gm labeling is in
reply to the second post not my original
post.

I guess I could have chose a better
title for the post, but most uninformed
consumers associate glysophate with rr
(gm) crops. They arent aware glysphate
is also used to dessicate non rr crops,
chem fallow, spraying the drive way,
etc. Hell, most city people dont believe
me when i tell them crops are sprayed
with roundup prior within days before
harvest.

[Braveheart]

If labelling GMO containing food was mandatory
food manufactures would be faced with higher
costs as processing lines would have to assure
product integrity (gmo or not). MCOOL in the US
lowered cattle prices here in Canada. The same
could happen for grains and oilseeds.

Purchasers of raw commodities look for any
excuse to bid lower.

Why not label food free of GMOs as such and
seek premiums for those.? Leave the rest of
food as may or may not.

[ColevilleH2S]

There is already a label for non-GM
foods, its called organic. We already
have choice and Pourfarmer etal know it.
Their beef resides in the fact an "evil
corporation" has the audacity to make
money from their genetic research. This
is all a bunch of Marxists hyperbole. In
other words, politics, not food safety.

[freewheat]

Thing about labelling gm, is it would give consumers a false sense of fear. When
you label it as containing gm, consumers will get on high alert unnecessarily.
Falsely giving the perception that gm is somehow bad, hence needs a label, is
totally not a fair way to label.

[pourfarmer]

Colevile:
For me it is about food safety. Not
political at all. I have no problems
with capitalism and the all mighty
dollar... but when it puts the health of
my family at risk I do have a problem.

i can only speak for myself but as i've
stated in the other topic: I wasnt
comfortable feeding MY family the food I
was producing as a conventional farmer,
so I thought is it right for me to feed
it to YOUR family?

FreeWheat:
How is it instilling fear to call it
what it is? Are you saying its better to
hide the fact it contains gm foods? If
it is safe and so wonderful, then why
not display, "this product contains GM
foods, which are saving the world from
starvation" I dont get it...you guys
speak so highly of gm foods why not
preach about them to consumers, by
proudly display it on the packaging. The
costs to produce a simple logo or text
is negligible in comparison the returns
your bio tech company's are making in
'tech fees'. They could likely write it
off as advertising.

On another note:
The guy who grows food the way it was
done for 100's of century is the one
with mountains of paper work, fight for
every product to get to market, pay a
exorbitant of 'certification fees'. When
the guy spraying toxic chemicals into
our food supply doesnt have to be
accountable to anyone. Doesnt that seem
a bit backwards?

[freewheat]

It is instilling fear, my friend, because the average consumer has
no clue about farming, so it brings up false perceptions. Just like
organic labels bring up a false perception that food grown on
underfertilized soil is somehow healthier than food grown on highly
fertile, precisely fed soil.

It feeds and serves fear to the average clueless consumer...

[pourfarmer]

We dont know for sure that it is doesnt
pose any health risks, unfortunately the
long term data isnt there. Maybe its
just me that thinks 'better safe then
sorry' until the data is there. If you
put a label on that says 'contains gm
foods' the consumer has a obvious choice
in front of them but simply trying to
hide it is very deceitful in my opinion.

What i tell my friends, my customers,
and any one who will listen is that,
maybe organic isnt any better for you,
maybe not any more nutrious etc, but at
least you KNOW its not sprayed with
round up days before harvest, isnt
coated with extremely toxic insecticide,
isnt doused in 28%...

I like the phrase 'precisely fed', like
a precisely fed consumer.

[charliep]

I still question the value of putting a label on something when likely (depending on how GMO is defined) 80 to 90 percent of products will be labeled this way. It will also frame the question and conversation with consumers. Put GMO on the package and you have target for every group that has an ax to grind in this debate. Put non GMO, natural (implying non GMO), organic or what you want to call it and the industry can sell benefit. But the world we live in wants to emphasize the negative (that makes money too) and not positive in terms of benefits to consumers (good news doesn't make the news).

I still note the mixing of messages around the use of glyphosate in conventional farming (your neighbors decisions) and GMO (which you have made a Monsanto responsibility).

[pourfarmer]

Charlie, yes 2 different issues absolutely. Unfortunately for Monsanto, they are the 'kleenex' of the bio
tech world. Likely due to their high profile lawsuits early on in gm ag.

What is the downside to put the label on 80 - 90% of the products out there? Other then the MINOR up front
costs associated with it? Maybe some transparency to help the consumer justify increased food costs, if
they see gm then they may know the producer is paying ridiculous tech fees.

Why not try to spin it as a positive thing? Such as "buying this product supports Bayer which provides gm
food to feed a staving world " You and I both know the answer here no need for a reply

[freewheat]

Here is the difference between precisely fed, and organically fed.

In the precisely fed version, a conventional farmer, tests the soil, and adds
nutrients in precise proportions based upon the scientific need of the
individual crop, to attain optimal yields for a set yield estimate, based on
normal rainfall.

In the organic version, the farmer may or may not test the soil, and has a
few choices in how to provide fertility. Summerfallow and erosion. A green
manure crop which only adds a bit of N, not other nutrients, or he applies
manure, which has wildy varying nutrient densities, adds weed seeds, and is
hard if not impossible to apply with any level of precision.

Now, which food is more nutritious and or safer???

That is the simple difference of precision, vs. a WAG.