Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GMO Labeling

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GMO Labeling

    Do you support GMO labeling? There have been strong words flung from both sides. A recent strong stance from the USB says that U.S. soybean farmers could be hit with additional costs of $10 to $34 per acre to raise more non-biotech soybeans to match consumer demand once GMO labeling is widespread.

    According to the report, soybean farmers could sustain losses between $4 billion and $48 billion annually, depending on how much of the market converts to non-GMO production.

    On the consumer side, some studies suggest a cost increase between a few dollars per person per month up to a 10% cost increase. And some even say cost hikes at the supermarket won’t exist at all. Martin Donohoe and Ray Seidler, for instance, argue at The Oregonian that when the European Union began to require GMO labeling in 1997, consumer prices were not affected.

    What do you think?

  • #2
    Seriously, the profit the big Biotech companies make can easily absorb any additional labeling costs. The biggest fear they have is litigation when they are found to be contributing to health risk. It's tobbaco lawsuits all over again and they know it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Seriously Jason7, so what liberal school have you graduated? Found any health issues since 1996...so the NON-gmo will
      NOT be liable for any birth defects due to crops lacking necessary nutrients? Make the field level before getting c o c k
      sure.

      Comment


      • #4
        C O C K Y Sure, or deMMis, decades ago they recognized varieties of plants that have tremendous "VOLUME" of substance, but they are not good or nutritious to eat, and wheat has varieties of that nature... Grows huge volumes of, but its not really nutrious.
        Today, those same GMO plant makers are coming into the grain production use, as GMO enhanced plants.

        Milk itself is an example of that, for today they mine calcium out of the ground, as dirt, and pour that into the dairy ration, as dirt. IN comparison to, Calcium that plants, green plants, take up, absorb calcium and encase in a Protein, and with that when eaten by an animal, dairy cow, is passed on in the milk. Normal cows and animals eating plants produce milk that has benefitual calcium that canbe used by a living animal, or human... dirt, calcium from the earth that is mined, and dumped in the ration is not, absorbed, its not, encased in a protein, so todays milk has very little Calcium gain to the consumer.

        C O C K sure, what your admitting is to eliminate GMO's, is to reduced, a great increase in volume, but that volume increase represents a huge decrease in, quality of the grains that are raised today..

        todays Mass Volume GMO is that, great increase in, Volume, huge decrease in the Quality of the food. China not wanting them, is just pure smart on their part.. huge issues not only to quality, but to storage as well, very short storage times for grains that are all nothing.
        Last edited by joe_alzado; 08-07-2014, 06:59 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jason7 View Post
          Seriously, the profit the big Biotech companies make can easily absorb any additional labeling costs. The biggest fear they have is litigation when they are found to be contributing to health risk. It's tobbaco lawsuits all over again and they know it.
          And where do these huge bio tech companies get there profits from? That's right, the farmer.

          If all consumers want even more labeling on proven safe products by more than one US gov't agency they should pay a labeling surcharge on all their grocery items. Let them vote on the idea, see how many consumers really want more labeling when they have to pay for it out of pocket. Not many I bet.

          Buy the food items that are already labeled NGMO or organic if your worried about the safety of GMO food ingredients. Consider all other food items have GMO ingredients in them and stay away. That's right, those items are usually priced at a premium already to help with the extra NGMO or organic labeling cost...bummer.

          Have you ever read the label on a gallon of gasoline? Didn't think so. That's some really bad chitt. Adding an ingredient from GMO corn has made it a lot safer and healthier in recent years.
          Last edited by 82; 08-07-2014, 09:48 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            LMAO jose, have you ever heard of fertilizer and micro nutrients? The sand above the oil fields over by the Mediterranean Sea
            have been worn out, so of course the grains don't have the necessary nutrients in them that years ago they did. More camel
            and goat chit will help!

            Now 82, how do you expect to get an argument, or discussion going pushing ethanol..read the back page of the newspaper
            today...mercury is more prevalent in the seas today than before the industrial revolution...wonder how they kept that
            water for todays testing, but that's their story..

            Back on main subject, without GMO's, there are acres and acres that are planted to GMO crops that do produce bushels
            that compete with non-gmo produced crops. Without the GMO's, there could be some shortages when even the I states
            have a less than "normal" crop(s).

            Comment

            Working...
            X