Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

One should never witness politics or sausage being made.

One of them is a bloody mess involving pigs.

The other one is making sausages.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 sebster wrote:


How does putting a warning on the side of the tin help the Monarch butterfly?

Helping The Monarch is Dr. Girlfriend's responsibility.

When Frazzled was walking the younge wiener dog and the Tank dog Sunday a butterfly landed on his green Hawaiian shirt and closed up its wings. You couldn't see it. It hitched a ride for about a mile until I brushed it off before going in the house, occasionally flexing ruby red wings. Way cool!

Butterflies are awesome.



Edit: Linked wrong picture.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:


In otherwords, don't trust whats on tv. Go to core literature.

All well and good, doesn't change the fact that we're going to be using parts of Agent Orange on US soil, which doesn't sit well with me.

If its only a part of it, and not the whole, proper thing (chemically speaking) then I doubt its a threat.

Certainly not as deadly as Paracetamol.

I think that the point those who wrote this bill were trying to get across is that the Monsanto types out there don't care about people or evn food. In giving th OK to use even a portion of agent orange (and who reakky knows if you only need part of it to be horrible?), what else are the willing to put into food in order to ensure their profits?

To me, it is important to watch what i put in myself foodwise, for the simple matter of health. 'D rather be able to clearly see that the produce i get has major chemical byproducts/ genetically modified for herbicide and pesticide, etc. Similar to how the tobacco companies have to put their ridiculous label on smokes. The only difference here is,we KNOW smoking is bad, we don't really know what food is good anymore because they dont have to let you know how they grow it, unless you buy organic or grow it yourself.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that the point those who wrote this bill were trying to get across is that the Monsanto types out there don't care about people or evn food. In giving th OK to use even a portion of agent orange (and who reakky knows if you only need part of it to be horrible?), what else are the willing to put into food in order to ensure their profits?

To me, it is important to watch what i put in myself foodwise, for the simple matter of health. 'D rather be able to clearly see that the produce i get has major chemical byproducts/ genetically modified for herbicide and pesticide, etc. Similar to how the tobacco companies have to put their ridiculous label on smokes. The only difference here is,we KNOW smoking is bad, we don't really know what food is good anymore because they dont have to let you know how they grow it, unless you buy organic or grow it yourself.

Yeah, Monsanto do some bad gak.

But Monsanto doing bad gak means that lawmakers should target the bad gak Monsanto are doing, look to forms laws to stop them doing that bad gak, and prosecute them if they continue to do it.

But unfortunately the anti-GM movement has a significant and very noisy number of people who are for ideological and often very unscientific reasons opposed to GM food in any form, and these people use poor behaviour by Monsanto and other GM companies as a wedge to oppose all GM food. They then add in a lot of not-science to make GM sound very scary.

All the while there are better crops being developed year in, year out, and a growing population that needs to be fed.

Yeah for how much the left like to claim they are scientifically literate they seem to ignore every shred of scientific evidence when it comes to GMO's and nuclear power

Mosanto et al doesn't really do any bad gak. The stuff they've done has been harmless to humans.

Prop 37 was bad because it would increase food costs, while at the same time not really doing what it was claiming it would do.

Because guess whats getting labeled? EVERYTHING, except most meats.

And because its only California, any food that comes into CA from out of state has to get its packaging changed specifically for CA. Plus food produced in state has to get its packaging altered too.

Increasing the cost of living for people in CA would be a very bad thing to do, especially when you are getting no real benifit from the bill in the first place.

 Grey Templar wrote:


And because its only California, any food that comes into CA from out of state has to get its packaging changed specifically for CA. Plus food produced in state has to get its packaging altered too.

I doubt that it would have had that big an affect on food prices. This is because I don't think that any company that makes food here in America would actually make a "California box" and a "non-California box" for it's products.

In principle, I think that it is a good idea to label anything that is made with or from chemicals as such. I mean, there are warnings on cleaning products, tobacco products, alcohol products, etc.

I don't live in California, but everything here has the mandatory "I cause cancer in California" label. They would just use the same package everywhere.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Mosanto et al doesn't really do any bad gak. The stuff they've done has been harmless to humans.

"Patenting" the process of growing soy ground cover to plow into the fields is a dick move though. Basically this requires farmers to acquire a license to do something that has been done since farming began.

Regardless, it will still increase food prices.

Packaging is in many cases the highest cost associated with an item, and anything that effects the packaging will effect the price by a large amount.


It may not have seemed like alot in the store, maybe a few cents here and there, but overall it would add up to several hundred extra $s a year. And in a sluggish economy thats going to hurt.

It will make no discernible difference at all to food prices. The marginal cost of putting a extra warning message on a label is minute.

Wrong, it will effect food prices. I am studying for Ag Business and I know people in the industry. They know what is involved is such changes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wrong, it will effect food prices. I am studying for Ag Business and I know people in the industry. They know what is involved is such changes.

1) People in the ag business knowing that adding a tiny message to a package and changing nothing else will raise prices.

or

2) People in the ag business saying what they can to avoid having to be more transparent.

or

3) People in the ag business using any excuse to raise prices a bit.

I think people in the Farm Bureau and small farmers have no incentive to lie on this subject.

Of course this is just classic ignorence on the part of the general populace as to what farming entails and how it works.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think people in the Farm Bureau and small farmers have no incentive to lie on this subject.

Of course this is just classic ignorence on the part of the general populace as to what farming entails and how it works.

I just gave two good reasons why they might have an incentive to lie on this subject.

And you show how you know nothing on the subject.

The extra profit would not be seen by the Farm Bureau, they are simply a support organization(an important one)

Nor would it be seen by farmers but the distributers who are the ones doing the labeling.

Because farmers are so ignorant that they don't know that many people don't like GM food and that by requiring to label them could possibly mean less sales for farmers...

Sorry, but people will still buy GM food, regardless of knowing or not. Farmers are NOT stupid or ignorant. They are well aware people don't like GM food. But they are also aware that people really have no choice.

Food is something you must buy. Farmers know that, so they try to avoid things that will make food as a whole cost more. Because they actually care about the people buying their product.

Now farmers do get their crop seeds from big seed companies like Monsanto, but there is no other real option.

Unless you want to be organic, in which case the price of the food will skyrocket.

You simply cannot feed the current population on organic food. Its too expensive and not practical.

And just because people "still have to buy food" doesn't mean that they don't know that slapping a big fat "GM" label will affect business, so they have a motivation for not wanting it.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Unless you want to be organic, in which case the price of the food will skyrocket.

Actually, my wife and I just switched from doing most of our grocery shopping at the big chain places, to shopping at Whole Foods market... Depending on where you buy, buying organic does not "skyrocket" the price, in fact, we spend less on MORE food at Whole Foods than we did at our other usual places.

So again, the price increase that you think will be mandatory, really isn't.


Also, having lived in Germany, I know that there are indeed ways in which the government can have a huge impact on the price of organics. I'm not saying we should do the same as Europe in regards to taxing or tax incentives, etc. but I think that people, especially low income families need to be aware of the gak that they are eating. Seeing some of the items that are "WIC approved" straight up sicken me.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wrong, it will effect food prices. I am studying for Ag Business and I know people in the industry. They know what is involved is such changes.

I work with people in the packaging industry. I know what is involved in putting a new line of text on a label.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Unless you want to be organic, in which case the price of the food will skyrocket.

Actually, my wife and I just switched from doing most of our grocery shopping at the big chain places, to shopping at Whole Foods market... Depending on where you buy, buying organic does not "skyrocket" the price, in fact, we spend less on MORE food at Whole Foods than we did at our other usual places.

So again, the price increase that you think will be mandatory, really isn't.


Also, having lived in Germany, I know that there are indeed ways in which the government can have a huge impact on the price of organics. I'm not saying we should do the same as Europe in regards to taxing or tax incentives, etc. but I think that people, especially low income families need to be aware of the gak that they are eating. Seeing some of the items that are "WIC approved" straight up sicken me.

'Organic' food is a lie (Free-range animals is not a lie however). Its no different at all to normal vegetables and at best, its fraudulent behaviour to increase prices.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Unless you want to be organic, in which case the price of the food will skyrocket.

Actually, my wife and I just switched from doing most of our grocery shopping at the big chain places, to shopping at Whole Foods market... Depending on where you buy, buying organic does not "skyrocket" the price, in fact, we spend less on MORE food at Whole Foods than we did at our other usual places.

So again, the price increase that you think will be mandatory, really isn't.


Also, having lived in Germany, I know that there are indeed ways in which the government can have a huge impact on the price of organics. I'm not saying we should do the same as Europe in regards to taxing or tax incentives, etc. but I think that people, especially low income families need to be aware of the gak that they are eating. Seeing some of the items that are "WIC approved" straight up sicken me.

'Organic' food is a lie (Free-range animals is not a lie however). Its no different at all to normal vegetables and at best, its fraudulent behaviour to increase prices.

^^^ditto...

Also... isn't all food "organic" anyways?

 whembly wrote:


Also... isn't all food "organic" anyways?

Yes... however, I'm sure we all know what is meant by slapping an "Organic" label onto a piece of fruit or whatnot.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Also... isn't all food "organic" anyways?

Yes... however, I'm sure we all know what is meant by slapping an "Organic" label onto a piece of fruit or whatnot.

That's my point. There's a door there for deceptive advertising...

Now... the Free-Range stuff. I get some eggs and steaks that are Free Ranged... and HOL-Y-BAT-MAN! It does taste different!

Too bad they're expensive.

Well, I was talking about the foods that are produced by only using "natural" means of fertilizing and feeding, etc.

Partly, this is our own Gov'ts. fault in it's definition of what an organically raised/grown food is which allows some companies to "fraudulently" claim that their stuff is organic. And I believe that there are those farmers and ranchers that genuinely live and die by being as truly organic as they can.



Also, I don't know if you have a Whole Foods Market near you, but if you want decently priced Free-Range eggs and meat, you should check them out. Honestly, the only meat product that I found to not be comparably priced to other chain grocers was the Filet Mignon... but then, where is that particular cut cheap??

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well, I was talking about the foods that are produced by only using "natural" means of fertilizing and feeding, etc.

Partly, this is our own Gov'ts. fault in it's definition of what an organically raised/grown food is which allows some companies to "fraudulently" claim that their stuff is organic. And I believe that there are those farmers and ranchers that genuinely live and die by being as truly organic as they can.



Also, I don't know if you have a Whole Foods Market near you, but if you want decently priced Free-Range eggs and meat, you should check them out. Honestly, the only meat product that I found to not be comparably priced to other chain grocers was the Filet Mignon... but then, where is that particular cut cheap??

If the farmer tills the land or any other 'natural' farming technique...then under that definition its still not Organic, unless its left to grow freely on open ground with no assistance. Its still human interference.

 Mr Hyena wrote:


If the farmer tills the land or any other 'natural' farming technique...then under that definition its still not Organic, unless its left to grow freely on open ground with no assistance. Its still human interference.

However, for the sake of what people normally buy as their produce and meat products, Organic means not using Chemical compounds to treat their product... It's all natural poo and water, and generally untreated feed for the animal types.


I mean obviously a policy of "found food" is not a sound economic outlook to take, and a business that does that probably won't last too long. That sort of thing, I think, may work in one of those ultra hippy "sustainable commune", but not for us average joe consumer type person.

However, for the sake of what people normally buy as their produce and meat products, Organic means not using Chemical compounds to treat their product... It's all natural poo and water, and generally untreated feed for the animal types.

I get what your saying, but its redundant. Both are 'chemical compounds'. With the difference being the manure has more chance of being contaminated (using human fecal matter especially is a no-no...spreads some serious parasitic disease that way.).