New Study: 80% of Consumers Would Pay More for Non-GMO Foods

Thank you for being so specific :rolleyes:

I believe this is probably the original source:

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning_corn_comparison_gmo_versus_non_gmo

Here are a couple of links explaining why it's clearly a hoax:

http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/04/fake-anti-gmo-data-stokes-alarm.html

http://thephysicspolice.blogspot.com/2013/04/dont-eat-soil.html

Here's the author's defense from the comments section at the Moms Across America link:

So you like your corn grown in nutrient deficient soil?
 
"phonetic lee" - My source isn't from your link. As I said, it is clearly marked in the latter comparison.

I admire your persistence in sleuthing, however, and am interested in your wisdom. And, so, if you'd like to follow through on the major revelations that pertain to the issue in scope, then, perhaps take the time to validate the following sources and reports as well. I like to learn...

Monsanto in US Foreign Policy

72 points of BRICS Summit Declaration

Now, there are quite a few pages to study, mind you. But since you're interested in facts and sources with regard to the issue I'm comfortable that you'll see it through. You seem like a real go-getter, "phonetic lee".

Just whistle when your done going through those and I'll certainly discuss any inconsistencies and sources that you may question. I'm usually around some place.
 
Last edited:
Denying that it will drive up all food costs makes the anti-science crowd look ignorant. Imagine that. Here's a thought: GMO free food is already labeled "organic." Leave the rest of us and our food the fuck alone.

By labeling, I mean GMO or non GMO in every box. If that is the labeling requirement, the only cost increase will be the cost of the ink. Also we have had this discussion before, not all non GMO is organic. If I grow my hybrid bred cocoa tree with industrial produced fertilizer, that disqualifies my non GMO plant from getting the label organic. It can still be labeled non GMO.
 
Here's the deal p. lee.. some GMOs may be safe for consumption. Others are probably not safe for longterm consumption or for some individuals with certain conditions. Now let's ignore for a minute that some of these hazardous traits could be passed on to the food supply indefinitely through cross pollination from farm to farm, that isn't the end of the argument.

The argument is about the nutritional quality of "conventionally" grown foods which tend to use GMO seeds, which may or may not be safe, which are grown in nutrient deficient soil that is blasted with chemical fertilizers that don't contain enough micro nutrients to be very beneficial healthwise as well as chemical herbicides and pesticides. Each of those things, individually, may not be that bad. But all of them put together are a barrage on America's health.

It is in part why our medical costs have skyrocketed, along with being told lies about the benefits of heavy grain consumption by those very same scientists and people who control the food supply. The worst part is these large agri-businesses get huge government subsidies in the billions of dollars.

If you want to be a preacher of politicized corporate for-profit science, then keep going, you can join the choir with Angela and Zippy. You can be the baritone to Zippy's bass. Angela is definitely a soprano.
 
Corn_Comparison_1.jpg

whoa, just look at the difference in energy/calories. This makes me think go GMO if one wants to lose weight. Those numbers just cannot be real.
 
... then, perhaps take the time to validate the following sources and reports as well. I like to learn...

Monsanto in US Foreign Policy

72 points of BRICS Summit Declaration

Now, there are quite a few pages to study, mind you. But since you're interested in facts and sources with regard to the issue I'm comfortable that you'll see it through. You seem like a real go-getter "phonetic lee".
All done, thanks. And now, I present my summary of the scientific evidence against GMOs:

CwG4Dtf.png
 
whoa, just look at the difference in energy/calories. This makes me think go GMO if one wants to lose weight. Those numbers just cannot be real.
:D

Yup, the report appears to be falsified far beyond the mere issue of misrepresenting a soil report as a crop report.
 
Especially this gaggle of uneducated people ;) ->
Capitol_Hill_03_16_12_5.jpg


OMFG.

This is why legislation by large groups of uneducated people is so bad for the entire nation.
I strongly suggest you look up the definition of "chemicals" before making that statement again. You won't, but you should.

ingredients-of-all-natural-blueberries-poster.jpeg
 
Thank you for being so specific :rolleyes:

I believe this is probably the original source:

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning_corn_comparison_gmo_versus_non_gmo

Here are a couple of links explaining why it's clearly a hoax:

http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/04/fake-anti-gmo-data-stokes-alarm.html

http://thephysicspolice.blogspot.com/2013/04/dont-eat-soil.html

Here's the author's defense from the comments section at the Moms Across America link:
WE MOMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW. We have the right to protect our kids. So nothing you can say about “no reports of harm” or “safety studies” matters to us, because we choose to be “Better safe than sorry”. Just like putting the seat belt on our kids every time we get in the car even though we know that it’s not “for sure” that we are going to get into an accident, we choose to take action to be safe. Your mother’s did and would still want you to do the same thing. Err on the side of safety, take care of yourselves, be cautious with what you eat because you are important. Moms love their kids. Nothing you can say will stop us from protecting our children.

Hilarious!
Science?We don't need no steenking Science!

If you disagree with me,you hate Mom's in general and your Mother in particular and I'm not going to try to have a rational argument with a bunch of motherhaters!
 
If you disagree with me,you hate Mom's in general and your Mother in particular ....
I think it's a fine example of the "Gish Gallop":

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own.
 
Yeah...all in the name of science. :rolleyes:

Flashback:

Edible HIV vaccine breakthrough
09:23 12 April 2002 by Emma Young

Maize genetically modified to contain a key protein found on the surface of the monkey form of HIV has been created by US company ProdiGene. This development brings an edible, more effective, HIV vaccine for people a step closer, says the US National Institutes of Health.

The protein - SIV gp120 - is the simian form of a protein that will be used in an HIV vaccine trial on people in Thailand later in 2002. Researchers will inject a canarypox virus modified to contain HIV genes and then a booster shot of HIV gp120. Both the trial and ProdiGene's SIV maize research are being funded by the NIH.

But the injected HIV gp120 is not expected to provoke a strong immune response in the mucosal layers of the body, whereas an ingested vaccine would. "For AIDS, a mucosal vaccine is important in two respects," says Stuart Shapiro, of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, US.

"First, the HIV virus usually gets into the body through the mucosa, when it is transmitted either sexually or homosexually - so to have a good mucosal immune response is really important," he says. "Second, a mucosal vaccine is safer than an injectable vaccine in the developing world, where needles get re-used and are not sterilized properly."

Sarah Schlesinger, a research scientist at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative in New York, says ProdiGene's announcement is "wonderful news - the protein has been in short supply and hard to produce. It's going to be very useful for vaccine science."

Controlled dose

The NIH asked ProdiGene to create maize that expresses the simian form of the protein and to assess the immune response in mice. "We can then take it and feed it to monkeys in our labs, and see not only if we get a response but if that response is protective against SIV," Shapiro says.

A maize-based source of HIV gp120 would have advantages beyond the possibility of producing large amounts of cheap vaccine in an edible form, says Shapiro. "It would be very stable - it could be dried and stored for long periods of time and safely shipped."

The HIV form of gp120 would not be used alone as a vaccine, Schlesinger points out. "I think it's unlikely this protein would ever be used as a stand-alone vaccine. But it could be useful as part of the vaccine strategy," she says.

Controlling the dose of a crop-based vaccine would be vital, ProdiGene's John McClellan admits. "For a corn product, you would harvest it, mill it and then assay it to check the protein content. This would always be a strictly controlled product."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2161-edible-hiv-vaccine-breakthrough.html#.VWcwwUaefiw
____________________________________


How controlled is it really? Remember that if you are down wind of GMO Maize pollination you could wind up with this GMO Maize in your fields.


Current events:
Rural Indiana Struggles to Contend With H.I.V. Outbreak

Geographic definitions of the region vary. Typically, it is defined to include: Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, southern Michigan, western Ohio, eastern Nebraska, eastern Kansas, southern Minnesota and parts of Missouri.[2] As of 2008, the top four corn-producing states were Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska and Minnesota, together accounting for more than half of the corn grown in the United States.[3] The Corn Belt also sometimes is defined to include parts of South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Kentucky.[4] The region is characterized by relatively level land and deep, fertile soils, high in organic matter.[5]

More generally "Corn Belt" represents the most intensively agricultural region of the Midwest, connoting a lifestyle based on ownership of family farms, with supporting small towns and powerful farm organizations that lobbied to obtain higher prices.[6][7]
Source
 
Last edited:
Thank you for summarizing your viewpoint above. Personally, I find the evidence against GMOs unconvincing, therefore I don't avoid GMO foods.

Your mileage may vary :)

Well maybe you should take the time to grow some of your own food and learn how it all works rather than being paid by scientists bought off by the establishment.
 
Hilarious!
Science?We don't need no steenking Science!

If you disagree with me,you hate Mom's in general and your Mother in particular and I'm not going to try to have a rational argument with a bunch of motherhaters!

So is your argument that if one GMO opponent makes an incorrect argument, then GMOs must be healthy? What a great logical conclusion.

It was a soil test - and it was VERY telling and VERY informative to any intelligent person who can think past the double-speak of the establishment shills.
 
I don't have the link at the moment but Moms Across America have since admitted that there were problems with their study.
 
I continue to be astonished at the number of alleged "liberty" people who want to dictate to others what they are and are not allowed to eat. Whether or not GMO is good, bad, or indifferent is irrelevant. If someone doesn't want it, it is their right to not have it. smdh. Someone chooses to drink tea instead of soda and nobody bats an eye, but God forbid someone chooses to eat natural over GMO and the lunatics crawl out from under the woodwork and try to shove that crap down other people's throats. Yikes.
 
I continue to be astonished at the number of alleged "liberty" people who want to dictate to others what they are and are not allowed to eat. Whether or not GMO is good, bad, or indifferent is irrelevant. If someone doesn't want it, it is their right to not have it. smdh. Someone chooses to drink tea instead of soda and nobody bats an eye, but God forbid someone chooses to eat natural over GMO and the lunatics crawl out from under the woodwork and try to shove that crap down other people's throats. Yikes.

Name one member of this forum who wants to dictate to others what they are and are not allowed to eat.


And you better not be falsely accusing me with that horseshit!
 
Name one member of this forum who wants to dictate to others what they are and are not allowed to eat.


And you better not be falsely accusing me of that horseshit!
Shaming people is just soft tyranny. Similar to "political correctness."
 
Back
Top