Slashdot Mirror

Well, obviously it should be labelled. It's not like the companies selling the stuff can just ignore that their product kills people. As it is, companies have to cover their asses by including warnings if there's even a chance that there's the smallest trace of peanuts in their food, and this is no different. It's not like the fact that it's a GM food gives them some special get-out-of-jail-free card.

Many companies that deal with GE crops though fight against proposals to require labeling. Many food manufacturers Don't want you to know what is the food you eat. In 2002 an attempt to require labeling was defeated in Oregon.

If history is any guide, it is protected, but not like you'd think.

Essentially, it sounds like Scotts is producing a "roundup ready" (rr) grass.

The scam works like this: Monsanto owns patents on the most widely used herbicide in the world (roundup). They also own patents on Roundup Ready crops (wheat, soybeans, canola...). They sell the seeds to farmers who can now safely spray their crops to keep the weeds down.

So lets say you own the farm next to a RR field and grow the same crop (but not a monsanto version of it). Natually, some seeds will find their way onto your property so your field will be contaminated. Next season you replant from what you produced last year - well NOW you have some rr crops.

Monsanto hires private investigators to tresspass on your property, take some of your wheat, soybeans, whatever, and take them back to their lab to test. If they find you have rr crops, then, my friend, you just got 0wn3d! That's right, farmber bob, they OWN YOUR CROPS! And don't think that being in Canada or Europe gives you immunity - for the most part, it doesn't. Monsanto is trying desperately to get it's GM seeds to propogate throughout the world so they'll be able to permanently extract licensing fees from farmers (that's right - you license their seed for a year, you don't buy it).

Having trouble swallowing that one? Try this on for size.

I don't see how changing the players changes anything. The rules are the rules and Scotts can do the same thing Monsanto does.

Lest you think this is coming from some wack-job leftie environmentalist, it ain't. I just think that Monsanto is every bit as evil as MS - even more because they're mucking about with the food supply - which means peoples LIVES!

Yes, because ignorance is mainstream.

That much is true, since most people are unaware of both the risks and the prevalence of GM crops.

Yet this is exactly analogous to what the GM-labeling people want -- information that is only useful for making irrational decisions. There is *no* evidence that genetic engineered foods can harm you,

First, many people are more concered about the long term ecological impact of GM crops than about personal health risks. Besides the problem of GM crops escaping into the wild and displacing original species, risks to wild animals (like birds and butterflies) from toxins produced by GM crops, and increased use of pesticides on "Roundup Ready" crops, there are risks of gene transfer into other organisms - including disease organisms.

Second, GM crops have not existed long enough to be proven safe. There are unanswered questions about allergens and toxic substances produced by GM crops. You wanna eat 'em? Hey, I support your right to put anything you want into your body - so long as you grow them under biohazard protocols and label them, so that I don't have to assume the risk too.

Thrid, GM food crops have no real benefit except inflating profits of multinational corporations at the exepense of third-world farmers. The idea that third world farmers should plant "golden rice" rather than go back to those local crops rich in vitamin A that were displaced by globalization - where third world nations have to grow food that can be exported for the profit of others, rather than feed their own populations - would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

Choosing to avoid GM food is not only a rational decision, it is the only rational decision.

The FAA regulates air travel safety, but they don't authorize anyone to take you on a blindfolded flight.

The FDA regulates food and drug safety, but they have been giving agribusiness permission to takes us for a blindfolded ride when it comes to knowing whether there's GMO in our food at the grocery store.

Neither aircraft safety or GMO food safety is a decision for anyone else to make finally for you. They can decide what their best advice is, and regulate to limit risk. But the final decision to accept any risk when it comes to your own body, or that of your children (including unborn and infants especially) -- is yours to make.

It's about whose decision it is, not how scientific or stupid or suspertitious, or what the real risk really is. All those discussions amount to a barrel of red herrings. Focus on your right to decide!

You don't need a scientific reason to refuse to fly. Nor do you need a scientific reason to refuse to eat something you don't want to eat. You don't have to explain your reasons.

If you're a little kid, it's your parents or legal guardians who get to decide, not the FDA. If you're and adult, they'll have to get you declared incompetent and argue why they, not your kin, should take over your decisions rights.

But -- they have stolen those rights when it comes to GMO food! It is allowed in food without labeling to show it's presence. It's an outrage! Not because we may be being subjected to unacceptable risks, but because we are being denied the right to decide for ourselves whether to accept or not accept them, irrespective of what they amount to.

There are people working on making it legally mandatory to label GMO content. Tell your congress person to support it. Not because you are afraid of GMO food, but because you are afraid of losing your rights, and winding up totally in the dark about what your government is doing. We must start protesting against the crumbling of our individual rights (and before the FCC makes it so all we hear about anything is what won't offend any sponsors or the few giant media owners). Don't get distracted by safety issues. First you must have the decision power. Then information you can use to make your decisions. Both are currently compromised.

This reminds me of a longstanding FDA position that the labeling of GMO Free food is misleading if it implies that said food is superior to other foods that are genetically modified. This is not just an idle position, the FDA has acted several times to stop the voluntary labeling of non GMO foods.

I can see the RIAA and the MPAA taking a similar position. I know the FCC's mandate is less restrictive than the FDA's, but the argument could seem compelling in the face of millions of dollars of campaign contributions. Law-abiding citizens should have no reason to violate their shrinkwrap agreements, and the copy control mechanisms are only there to enforce those licences. It would mislead the law-abiding public, the argument would go, to mandate the labeling of protected content because good, modern copy controls are invisible to the end user and in no way degrade the experience. Besides, they would continue, nearly all content is GMO^H^H^H copy controlled one way or another, therefore fears of copy control schemes are unfounded.

Not that I agree with the above arguments, but I can definitely see a certain Harvard professor having those debates with a group of bloodsucking lawyers from LA.

In 97' I worked at Samsung's fab in Austin, Texas as a chemical technician, troubleshooting and maintaining the pumps that sent liquid chemicals up to the fab. I also pushed a lot of drums and hooked up tanker trucks of sulfuric and other nasties to the hungry fab.

As the average slashdotter knows, every chip is composed of multiple layers, each masked and etched, bathed in various acids and bases and then neutralized and cleaned before the next layer can be applied.

Then these waste chemicals are pumped out, neutralized (in theory) and diluted before being dumped into the same waste water stream that eventually hits streams, rivers and ground water.

There's a whole lot of water indirectly consumed in the manufacturing process - but a whole order of magnitude more water consumed and dumped to dilute the hopefully neutralized (ie, salts) waste products.

So I believe the numbers - kgs (ie, liters!) of water per MB does not set off my bullsht detector.

To me, it also brings into question the whole drive of chip research. It's all focused on performance. There are some articles on research into environmentally friendy chips. But when did you hear of a chip marketed as enviro-friendly? We're tempted into buying the another chip just a tick faster but not even given the choice. For consumers to even be able to make the choice for a more sustainable product we have to have the information.

But companies don't even want us to know what we're injesting - that isn't important to them and is contrary to their creation of demand for more stuff. Why would we think they would tell us something against their own short-term interest?

Although it's anathema to say it, ecoterrorism is pretty much the preserve of the . Those kids trashing experimental GM crops can sanctimoniously do that because they already have a reliable food source. It's selfish, and worse, it's based on voodoo science.

"Scientists say that plans for "terminator" trees --engineered never to flower--could create a "silent spring" in the forests. While these trees would grow faster than traditional trees, they would be lifeless in comparison. Gone would be the bees, butterflies, moths, birds and squirrels that depend on pollen, seed and nectar of normally reproducing trees."

Many of the new GE crops, such as Roundup Ready soybeans, are designed to allow farmers to spray heavier doses of pesticides on their land. These pesticides inevitably will find their way into our water and food supply, endangering humans and wildlife.

New Scientist magazine reports that many farmers that have converted to GE production use as many pesticides as their conventional counterparts, while some GE farmers now use more pesticides.

A lot of responses to this article are of the nature "GE foods are just fine, and anybody who disagrees is a luddite."

I have a lot of faith in science, but very little faith in human nature. We are prone to make mistakes. And when are dealing with something as powerful and potentially damaging as GE foods, I get a little concerned.

Not only do we have scientists running around altering genes when they can't possibly know all of the effects, we have greedy corporations pushing GE Foods through the FDA. We've got Monsanto trying to convince the Feds that in-house testing of their products was complete, and that their products are safe, the Feds listen because Monsanto has the cash to fund the lobbying (and campaign contributions).

The point is, how far are you going to trust someone who's main interest is pro fit ? Potrykus' motives may be humanitarian, but, then again, who knows what biotech companies he holds stock in?