the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... )

Am I supposed to be worried about GMOs, or something?What does the video cover?I'll have to watch the video at home, and hour is too long to watch at work.Would you summarize it a bit?

Do they go over any of the actual evidence in the video?Are there publications mentioned that we can look at?

There's also the infrastructure argument:Trucks, conveyors, storage vessels, etc. would all have to be segregated as GMO and non-GMO so that none of the GMO stuff comes in contact with the non-GMO stuff.We simply currently lack the infrastructure to maintain that, and who is going to pay for all the new infrastructure if we do decide to legislate that this stuff has to be segregated?With a lack of money to do it, what would happen is that the stuff would not get segregated and all the non-GMO stuff would become "contaminated" and everything would have to be labeled as GMO.Then what kind of access are people going to have to the non-GMO stuff?

What percentage of the population has that access?What percentage of the population can the current amount of non-GMO foods support?I think that many people do not have that kind of access and the amount of non-GMO food that is currently available is not enough to feed a significant portion of our population.Too, I wonder what the cost differences are... and how many people can afford it. If you don't have the infrastructure to segregate GMO from non-GMO, and we don't, then when the non-GMO stuff comes in contact with the GMO stuff it will all be labeled as GMO.There goes a significant portion of your non-GMO foods and then availability goes down along with the amount of people you can feed, and the price goes up.I don't think that's gonna help.You have to have the segregation infrastructure in place first. So who is going to pay for it?

No, that's not what I'm talking about.I'm talking about trucks, tractors, conveyors, silos, bins, etc.Have you seen how corn is stored and transported?*If you want to separate the non-GMO corn from the GMO corn, you're going to need your own non-GMO corn storage and transportation.I don't think you should expect to get that from the current infrastructure that profits off of GMO corn.They're not going to want to deal with the hassle of adding a whole 'nother layer of infrastructure for what is going to start out as a relatively very low ROI. And they will certainly be able to simply say: "No, thank you."Applying a label to everything that contains a GMO ingredients is a terrible idea.You're going to need a bunch of start-up companies to take on creating the infrastructure. That means the people who want the non-GMO market to exist are going to be the ones that pay for it.Do you think they'll be able to compete and succeed? Do you think they'll try?That's why I'm asking: Who's gonna pay for it? Fuck yeah. I'm willing to shuck out almost double for organic meat and eggs.They're so much better! Pfft... I'm not willing to pay more for non-GMO food. If it was my civilization, I'd be having the government subsidize the GMO research so we could grow all kinds of high-tech food.I wish you hippies would get out of the way with this labeling nonsense already *I respect that you've been around a bit, RAZD, and mean no snark in that honest question. I live in southern Illinois... I can fucking hear all the corn growing

I figure anything you can to do maximize crop yield is the best thing.But anyways, if Roundup Ready corn and soybeans require less usage of herbicides then it is a good thing, right? Are you sure that's how it works?I thought you could get away with using less herbicide if you plant Roundup Ready crops...Too, the glyphosate herbicide has a better environmental impact than the alternative, so its even that much better.

No.Cannot be transferred.Yes.

quote:

---

Glyphosate's mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme involved in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine. It is absorbed through foliage and translocated to growing points. Because of this mode of action, it is only effective on actively growing plants; it is not effective as a pre-emergence herbicide.

​

...

​

Some micro-organisms have a version of 5-enolpyruvoyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase (EPSPS) that is resistant to glyphosate inhibition. The version used in the initial round of genetically modified crops was isolated from Agrobacterium strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS) that was resistant to glyphosate.[18][124] This CP4 EPSPS gene was cloned and transfected into soybeans.
sauce

---

Okay, I've seen that pesticide use goes down, and I know that herbicides are pesticides, but I didn't realize that herbicide usage goes up while insecticide use goes down leaving a net reduction in total pesticide.Its hard to find good clear information on this subject...

Hey, thanks! Must just be another Big Ag Shill, eh?

Employees also have to wear both safety glasses and gloves when using Dawn dish soap.And they use it right on our plates and utensils.ZOMG! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!

quote:

---

As for creating separate storage and packaging lines, There are farmers that separate GMO and non-GMO ingredients now, says Steven.

---

That doesn't tell us anything...What are we talking here, 1 out of 2? Or 1 out of 1000?If there are 2 farmers out there that separate, and thousands that don't, then creating separate storage and packaging lines is still an issue.

Its not that simple. From Message 12

quote:

---

There's also the infrastructure argument:

​

Trucks, conveyors, storage vessels, etc. would all have to be segregated as GMO and non-GMO so that none of the GMO stuff comes in contact with the non-GMO stuff.

​

We simply currently lack the infrastructure to maintain that, and who is going to pay for all the new infrastructure if we do decide to legislate that this stuff has to be segregated?

​

With a lack of money to do it, what would happen is that the stuff would not get segregated and all the non-GMO stuff would become "contaminated" and everything would have to be labeled as GMO.

​

Then what kind of access are people going to have to the non-GMO stuff?

---

And further, from Message 19:

quote:

---

That infrastructure is available and in place now for organic foods.

​

No, that's not what I'm talking about.

​

I'm talking about trucks, tractors, conveyors, silos, bins, etc.

​

Have you seen how corn is stored and transported?*

​

If you want to separate the non-GMO corn from the GMO corn, you're going to need your own non-GMO corn storage and transportation.

​

I don't think you should expect to get that from the current infrastructure that profits off of GMO corn.

​

They're not going to want to deal with the hassle of adding a whole 'nother layer of infrastructure for what is going to start out as a relatively very low ROI. And they will certainly be able to simply say: "No, thank you."

​

Applying a label to everything that contains a GMO ingredients is a terrible idea.

​

You're going to need a bunch of start-up companies to take on creating the infrastructure. That means the people who want the non-GMO market to exist are going to be the ones that pay for it.

​

Do you think they'll be able to compete and succeed? Do you think they'll try?

​

That's why I'm asking: Who's gonna pay for it?

---

---

ABE: Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

Nah, thanks for what you did provide.I can't believe they think they can just hand-wave this one away.I think its one of the better arguments against GMO labeling in that it is actual and true.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Worst. Science. Ever.