GMO and Organic are psychological scams, but anyone who wants to indulge themselves in those labels is welcome to do so.

From Matt Ridley's Green Scare article:
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a case in point. After 20 years and billions of meals, there is still no evidence that they harm human health, and ample evidence of their environmental and humanitarian benefits. Vitamin-enhanced GM “golden rice” has been ready to save lives for years, but opposed at every step by Greenpeace. Bangladeshi eggplant growers spray their crops with insecticides up to 140 times in a season, risking their own health, because the insect-resistant GMO version of the plant is fiercely opposed by environmentalists. Opposition to GMOs has certainly cost lives.

Besides, what did GMOs replace? Before transgenic crop improvement was invented, the main way to breed new varieties was “mutation breeding”: to scramble a plant’s DNA randomly, using gamma rays or chemical mutagens, in the hope that some of the monsters thus produced would have better yields or novel characteristics. Golden Promise barley, for example, a favorite of organic brewers, was produced this way. This method still faces no special regulation, whereas precise transfer of single well known genes, which could not possibly be less safe, does.

Environmentalists are currently opposing neonicotinoid pesticides on the grounds that they may hurt bee populations, even though the European Union notes that honeybee numbers have been rising in the 20 years since they were introduced. The effect in Europe has been to cause farmers to return to much more harmful pyrethroid insecticides, which are sprayed on crops instead of used as seed dressing, hitting innocent bystander insects. And if Europeans had been allowed to grow GMOs, then less pesticide would be necessary. Again, green precaution increases risks.
- See more at: http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-...

The full article also addresses global warming and resistance to implementation of nuclear power.

Jan

This is one of many good (recent) articles on the subject.

If You Don’t Want Your Food Genetically Modified, Tell Nature to Stop It.
By Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar

http://www.cato.org/publications/comm...

So we modify an apple to grow bigger, beneficial change sure, apple is bigger more cost effective to grow. But what about ten years done the round when we find an unfavorable effect on humans from consuming the bigger apple?

Is that possible i'm not sure I plan to research more, and maybe no one knows.

That and the old way of breeding plants and animals did not create the obamanations we have today. They, in the beginning 'Assumed' it was safe to get right into the genes. It's NOT, done the old way, nature would have never done it that way, not to mention it is Trans-species which is exactly what the new age numbskulls want to do to YOU!

The corn can survive, but one of the benefits of it is that it uses less pesticide -- which is why it's good for the planet. Non GMO corn needs more externally applied pesticide for the same yield.

And, do you realize you are quoting a parody site as evidence?

That's why I like GMO, because instead of using trial and error we are able to determine which genes we are changing. It should be possible to generate beneficial changes without pulling in other ones.

Of course it will take some time to understand this well enough and like any technology in its infancy we will have a learning curve.

I have studied this for many years and developed a small list of 'who do you listen to' together with personal experience.
The results have been in for quite a while now.
Eat organic non GMO food; however, not all organic is organic in the true sense thanks to the government regulations and yes, some do charge a premium for the privilege. (thanks a lot).
I also follow the right4yourtype bloodtype diet and it has change my life and allowed me to live past Everyone in my family.
The best body of work on GMO's I have found thus far is: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M. Drunker. It gives you the whole story from the beginning and the mindless sets involved. It's very detailed.

I like the dog argument. Humans have produced many successful dog breeds to help us complete many tasks, very beneficial. The other side of the coin is there have been many errors, breeding dogs that have many problems such as hip dysplasia, skin disorders, immune system issues and blood disorders. So to the benefits outway the risks?

Maybe so but I don't want to be the mistake in this game.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-t...

... and not much nutrition in corn. Read about the colonies of Cahokia. They raised corn for the central city, and ate only corn themselves, even though hunting was widely available. The skeletons all show deformities from malnutrition. Corn has a place at the dinner table, but it is not a good staple. Moreover, most of it is grown, not for food, but for high fructose corn syrup, which is not food at all, but is in the mainstream diet.

Sorry, I lapsed in my post. Meant to mention the source of the stats was fedgov, too.
As is the case too often, those who oppose business also often exaggerate the situation.
With the power that they are facing, it's understandable but it can destroy their credibility and provide cover for the cronies they try to oppose.
The free market is the best judge in the long run if there is also reliable information for consumers; that speaks in favor of fair labeling of product content.

Agreed, but in a true Capitalist system growers would be up front about weather their food was organic. If consumers found out they were lying they would go out of business.

well said. I'm fighting those nasty tarantula wasps right now. yikes!

There is a lot going on here, William, I just want to point out that the GMO component is the corn (maize) being protected by the pesticide. The corn is a highly tailored product that apparently cannot survive without the pesticides.
"“Since GE farming and neonicotinoid pesticides are here to stay, we first tried to modify the bees as to increase their immune system to these insecticides, with little or no success” admits the specialist." -- http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/genet...

But is it stupid to think short term profit margins are the goal of most employees of corporations regardless of impacts past their field of vision?

well the chart is based on Dept of Ag stats. I just look at the stats, not the words :)
I always mention the crony relationship Monsanto has with the govt. No different than any other major corp-

I agree but it's funny, only way to make them label is laws. More laws more government, catch 22

First of all GMO means genetically modified organisms, it is not a specific product. Clearly it is possible to create products that have unfortunate aspects. It's a tool, it can be misused.

That being said it's not clear that colony collapse disorder is actually a growing problem or if there was a spike a couple of years ago. They seem to be recovering both here and in Europe. And if it is, the involvement of neonics is still under study.

You are mixing issues, since Roundup is not a genetically modified organism, it's a pesticide -- basically you are going for the "Monsanto is Evil" argument and using it against GMO technology.

I don't have a problem with either non-organic or GMO foods in any way shape or form. Modern farming techniques, including chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified crops combined are responsible for the fact that we use less arable land and employ fewer people for agriculture, yet produce more food than at any time in our world's history. If those are bad things, then call me crazy.

That being said, I think the labeling of such foods is important for it allows for more consumer choice. Having more choices is ultimately a good thing as well. I don't believe that this sort of labeling should be mandated however.

I think part of the surge in popularity over organics, or non-gmo foods has been driven by a more heightened awareness of where our food comes from. As we all have moved further away from an agrarian existence, a profound disconnect between the consumer and their food supply has formed. Most people really don't have any idea where the foods they consume every day come from, how they got there, how they were processed, etc. Awareness and education are good for the consumer.

I don't give a hoot about organic, it's just another word to make Liberals feel good about themselves.

I've read all the comments, and noone has given a scientific reason for non-GMO. I'm a scientist, but that's not my field. Does anybody out there know about this?

Life has been designed since humans invented agriculture. "Domestication" is the term used for designing life. In the past it was done by trial and error, crossing different strains to get desired goals, or nurturing random mutants that are found with beneficial aspects.

Do you think that all the various breeds of dogs naturally evolved?

Genetic modification isn't new. The biggest genetic modification project in human history was the development of corn from a common grass. Pre-Columbian society in Central America created that miracle, and native populations exploded. Corn was the mainstay of the MIssissippian culture, with its mound cities and a continent-wide trading network. The downside of corn is that it returns few nutrients to the soil, which is part of the cause of the collapse of native societies in the Americas, since they didn't entirely understand the crop cycle. There ain't no free lunch.

Life is not designed. The whole point of GMO is to start designing life forms, thus making them better.

The notion of "organic" food (aka natural or health food) comes from a conspiracy theory that says the major food processing companies want to poison us. It's just stupid to believe anything of the sort.

My wealthy daughter-in-law is a fanatic about organics and non-GMOs since having kids and insists they've made a huge difference in her oldest's mood and behavior.
Poor kid; lives on a steady diet of rabbit food and cardboard.

Disclaimer: I disagree with blindly buying unlabeled produce, so I am biased, too. ;^)

C'mon, kh, the Post as a reliable source?
Not in this lifetime.
That writer's work doesn't give any reassurance either. Looks almost all politically motivated.
This article looks like typical "don't worry, be happy", sweep it under the rug, and business as usual corrupt administration line to me. The question should be, why are the bees dying, and is it related to chemical insecticides or other man-made products.
The rest of the question is: what other effects have been glossed over or hidden or were longer term than the tests of the manufacturers? the article doesn't answer the questions that matter.
I do not have a problem with all GMO foods, and although there will be a cost to labeling, to paraphrase the fedgov, if they don't have anything to hide, what's the problem?
Monsanto does have something to hide and they are using every unethical tool they can to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Q: Why is the fedgov protecting Monsanto? A:The fedgov are bought and paid for.
Assuming a fair trial and if found guilty by the market, if Monsanto was bankrupted over this, would research and dev on GMO's stop? NO, the honest competitors would flourish, and all the researchers at monsanto would find other work.
It's little different from TBTF banks being protected. Its corrupt, and it should face the court of the free market without protection from looters.