re: Opponents of GMOs just need to sit down and shut up

No just a general statement

quote:

---

Huh? I'm talking about crops, mass scale...like corn. I wasn't begining to speak about a load of melons sold directly. But I am getting confused on your "marketing" and extra costs. Are you saying farmers spent more when the were growing non GMO seed?
I have a ton of marketing and distribution and sales experience. I don't at all agree a "GMO product included" printed on the label would increase or lower the market price for their corn. Lol, that's moronic

---

When I walk in to a grocery store in WA, the name of the orchard is printed right on the apple label. I know exactly who grew it. In Iowa, when I went in to a Fareway, or a Dahl's or a Hy Vee I knew where the corn came from.

quote:

---

The market price will change from demand, or lack of it, from the consumer. If consumers would rather not buy GMO you would see the result in demand. But I guess the extra would be the corn that gets shipped to people who try and live in deserts around the world, right? And the lack of GMO corn would drive up demand and prices for non GMO corn and the farmers would make more money...which is your goal right?

---

You miss the point entirely. The general public is not very intelligent. I don't know how many times I have to cite the dip in vaccine sales/usage because of the single opinion of a B list celebrity and some faulty science, in order for someone like you to understand. Every single person in the ag industry would have to spend money educating the general population on what exactly GMO means and why it isn't unsafe and why it is (nutritionally) no different than non-GMO foods. In the mean time, sales dip because of people like that Hawkeye poster and the cost has to be recouped somewhere. So distributors pay farmers less for their GMO product (because they are absolutely going to keep their profit margins) and the farmers who sell direct get smaller orders from grocers because not as much of their product is selling.

Even the state of WA acknowledged the costs associated with labeling GMOs, both to the state and to the farmers who produce the crop.

quote:

---

2) There is no nutritional difference between normal corn and GM corn.

---

Birds know the difference



But the person that took that pic probably just plucked off the organic corn, amirate?

Anyway, this next image is pretty concerning, an angle that doesn't get talked about much.

Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read much on GMO's, but from what I understand one of their biggest benefits is they are more resistant to higher amounts of pesticides and herbicides. I don't see how that can be a good thing to eat something that's had more chemicals dumped on it, but that's just me.

While I'm not completely against them, I am skeptical of their long-term benefits to society, especially since one of their biggest proponents is Monsanto, seller of pesticides and herbicides.

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read much on GMO's, but from what I understand one of their biggest benefits is they are more resistant to higher amounts of pesticides and herbicides.

---

One of the best examples of GMO is "roundup ready" crops. I posted this earlier in the thread but everybody was too busy flinging poo at one another to read it.

Roundup ready means that glyphosate can be used in a field as an herbicide without damaging the intended crop.

Glyphosate is an extremely cost effective broad spectrum herbicide with a low toxicity, short time to harvest interval and negligible soil latency.

Farming GMO crops that are "roundup ready" keeps larger amounts of much more toxic chemicals out of the food chain and out of the soil. Period.

In many cases chemical programs are the most expensive thing on a farm. Producers want to use as little as possible, not "dump" as much as they can as you suggested.