More fuel on the non-gm fire

[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.

[pourfarmer]

FreeWheat, soil tests will tell you that
my organic soils are not under fertilized.
If you conventional guys could learn about
crop rotations, green manure plow downs,
humate based fertilizers you could save
yourselves a significant fert bills. I
work like a dog to ensure my soils are not
depleted. I do not mean to sound like a
prick with the following statement, but
there is more to soil then NPK

[grassfarmer]

The "precisely fed" comment about nutrients is rather
funny coming from guys that constantly p&m about
rain being "soil poison" that washes all their nutrients
away. Precisely fed one minute - hopelessly defeated
by mother nature the next. Convenient.

[sumdumguy]

Because there is so little information available in
N.America re the long term foreseeable health
hazards associated with GMO and desiccation
residue, it is impossible to quantify the amount of
residue risk. Europeans are much further ahead
of us on the issue.

From my perspective, if I was given the choice, I
would prefer neither GMO food nor that which
has been sprayed with glhosate days prior to bin
storage - the problem as many have stated, is
that I have no way to know at this time.
Governments should make chemical companies
pay for testing to prove that it is safe within
European specifications, othwise we will all pay.
When they can unequivocably guarantee safety,
than and only then should it be allowed.

[freewheat]

Pour farmer, I know about crop rotations.
And yes there is more to nutrition than
npk, which is PRECISELY my point.

Grassfarmer, you obviously are in a dry
area where rain is always welcome, where
wet is a year with 20 inches, or maybe
even ten. Must be nice.

[Braveheart]

Sumdumguy, Europeans? Really? I farm by a
German that sprays more and more carelessly
than any of us Natives. He sleeps with a Bayer
Bible under his pillow. Euro trash specs are just
political bs.