|
GMO biz vs consumers
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
I understand that the US public were reasonably accepting of the technology until, the European "Frankenfoods" scare campaign came to town. The US public is still accepting them with no real problem. The US public is largely unaware that they are consuming them. That's not acceptance, it's ignorance. In the greenest part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics. The best genetically modified democracy money can buy. That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed to know what they're getting so there could be a free market. Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices. If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market. Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents don't believe their own propaganda. If GE was really a good thing, the industry would be proud to have their products labelled. problem with green terrorists but we have been having that for a long time Attempting to plant an association between advocates of consumer rights and "terrorists" is a transparent smear. -- delete N0SPAAM to reply by email |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Walter Epp" wrote in message ... "Gordon Couger" wrote: I understand that the US public were reasonably accepting of the technology until, the European "Frankenfoods" scare campaign came to town. The US public is still accepting them with no real problem. The US public is largely unaware that they are consuming them. That's not acceptance, it's ignorance. In the greenest part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics. The best genetically modified democracy money can buy. That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed to know what they're getting so there could be a free market. Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices. If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market. Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents don't believe their own propaganda. If GE was really a good thing, the industry would be proud to have their products labelled. problem with green terrorists but we have been having that for a long time Attempting to plant an association between advocates of consumer rights and "terrorists" is a transparent smear. People that burn buildings and destroy property are not advocates. They take these threats very serious here when we have been getting death threats on professors for 10 years from these advocates. Gordon |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp wrote:
The US public is still accepting them with no real problem. The US public is largely unaware that they are consuming them. That's not acceptance, it's ignorance. Well, the US consumers were the first to drink water out of packaged bottles and toss them without refilling. In the greenest part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics. The best genetically modified democracy money can buy. Who voted - the legislature, or the people? problem with green terrorists but we have been having that for a long time Attempting to plant an association between advocates of consumer rights and "terrorists" is a transparent smear. But it works, because it has the support of the media. People are so busy chasing the next buck they can't give a shit about the long term ramifications. And I'm not sure which is the greater evil - the possibility of severe biological mishap, or the fact that grown produce is rapidly being imprisoned by intellectual property encumbrance, to the point where in a few years non-encumbered seeds for basic staple foods will be totally unavailable. |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Evil *******" wrote in message ... On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp wrote: The US public is still accepting them with no real problem. The US public is largely unaware that they are consuming them. That's not acceptance, it's ignorance. Well, the US consumers were the first to drink water out of packaged bottles and toss them without refilling. In the greenest part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics. The best genetically modified democracy money can buy. Who voted - the legislature, or the people? The people. |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:40:01 +0000, Gordon Couger wrote:
In the greenest part of the country a vote on [a law requiring GM labelling] lost 3 to 1. Who voted - the legislature, or the people? The people. After reading "The Loved One" by James Joyce as a teen, I thought nothing could shock me about Americans. I'm at a complete loss to understand why supposedly sane people would vote *against* knowing what their food is made of. But then again, 'food' as we know it is not available in the USA. For instance, you can't buy cheese there. 80% of people buy this orange plastic stuff, that makes Kraft Processed Cheddar Slices seem like the finest Kiwi or Aussie matured cheeses by comparison. This is typical of the foods over there (lived in Boston and SF for some months, visited NY and LA). |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Evil *******" wrote in message ... On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:40:01 +0000, Gordon Couger wrote: In the greenest part of the country a vote on [a law requiring GM labelling] lost 3 to 1. Not quite 3 to 1 over 70% voted down a laws that would require GM lables. Who voted - the legislature, or the people? The people. After reading "The Loved One" by James Joyce as a teen, I thought nothing could shock me about Americans. I'm at a complete loss to understand why supposedly sane people would vote *against* knowing what their food is made of. It's made of soybeans and corn they don't want to pay the cost it would take to segregate GM crops. If they are concerned about that they can buy organic. But then again, 'food' as we know it is not available in the USA. For instance, you can't buy cheese there. 80% of people buy this orange plastic stuff, that makes Kraft Processed Cheddar Slices seem like the finest Kiwi or Aussie matured cheeses by comparison. This is typical of the foods over there (lived in Boston and SF for some months, visited NY and LA). I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in every grocery store. The US government has established scientific agencies starting in 1873 by establishing the USGS followed by the USDA in 1894. We have a good deal more respect for them than we do a bunch of sensational tabloid new stories. The faked studies of Lynx, DDT and egg thinning in birds and the forest fires from the lack of proper forest management are detracting from the environmentalist credibility with the large majority of people in the US. The antics of PETA, earth liberation front and others using terror tactics are detrimental to their cause. Our press reports both sides. When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue stands on its own. Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs. Farmers don't have the political clout that they have in some European counties either. Gordon |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Evil *******" wrote in message ... On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:40:01 +0000, Gordon Couger wrote: In the greenest part of the country a vote on [a law requiring GM labelling] lost 3 to 1. Who voted - the legislature, or the people? The people. After reading "The Loved One" by James Joyce as a teen, I thought nothing could shock me about Americans. I'm at a complete loss to understand why supposedly sane people would vote *against* knowing what their food is made of. But then again, 'food' as we know it is not available in the USA. For instance, you can't buy cheese there. 80% of people buy this orange plastic stuff, that makes Kraft Processed Cheddar Slices seem like the finest Kiwi or Aussie matured cheeses by comparison. This is typical of the foods over there (lived in Boston and SF for some months, visited NY and LA). I find that remark rather amusing. What kind of cheese do you eat? Are you aware of that terrible bad "Genetically Modified Chymosin" that's used in the process of the majority of those wonderful worldly cheeses. This is one of the things that bother me about some of these countries. They don't accept G.M.O. products from U.S.A, Canada, etc. but find using the G.M.O. Chymosin quite acceptable. Go figger!!!!! Dean Ronn |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Evil *******" wrote in message ... On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:40:01 +0000, Gordon Couger wrote: In the greenest part of the country a vote on [a law requiring GM labelling] lost 3 to 1. Who voted - the legislature, or the people? The people. After reading "The Loved One" by James Joyce as a teen, I thought nothing could shock me about Americans. I'm at a complete loss to understand why supposedly sane people would vote *against* knowing what their food is made of. simple, you don't end up knowing what you food is made of, you end up with long incomprehensible labels and because the manufacturers are terrified of being sued so everything contains the phrase "may contain nuts". sue every manufacturer if they have any undeclared gm contamination and everything will be labeled with 'may contain gm'. This tells you exactly what? Jim Webster |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:59:05 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:
sue every manufacturer if they have any undeclared gm contamination and everything will be labeled with 'may contain gm'. This tells you exactly what? It tells me that I would rather sit on a rotating pineapple than ingest such food. |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:44:56 +1200, Evil *******
wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:59:05 +0100, Jim Webster wrote: sue every manufacturer if they have any undeclared gm contamination and everything will be labeled with 'may contain gm'. This tells you exactly what? It tells me that I would rather sit on a rotating pineapple than ingest such food. That can be arranged. Please email to make an appointment. ;-) |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Brian Harmer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:44:56 +1200, Evil ******* wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:59:05 +0100, Jim Webster wrote: sue every manufacturer if they have any undeclared gm contamination and everything will be labeled with 'may contain gm'. This tells you exactly what? It tells me that I would rather sit on a rotating pineapple than ingest such food. That can be arranged. Please email to make an appointment. ;-) I will finish the pineapple. One of the cast iron and black power variety with a 5 second fuse:). There is no way to serrate crops. Seed gets in the wrong bin, sacks get on the wrong pallet, drills don't get completely cleaned out Combines get in the wrong field, combines done get complete cleaned out, trucks got to the wrong elevator, trucks don't get cleaned out. Grain get put in the wrong bin and blended with the wrong grin for shipping. These don't happen every once in a while they happen every day and that is only getting it to the country elevator. At least every other year I would have a neighbor's hired combiner or hay cutter get in one of my fields moving around at night or one of mine would get in his. We settled up the best we could and went on. There were fields on that farm I couldn't find after dark. Gordon |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp
posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: I understand that the US public were reasonably accepting of the technology until, the European "Frankenfoods" scare campaign came to town. The US public is still accepting them with no real problem. The US public is largely unaware that they are consuming them. That's not acceptance, it's ignorance. Yep, most don't want them new-fangled gene thangs in their fodder :) In the greenest part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics. For instance? Show too where it is wrong please. The best genetically modified democracy money can buy. That's nearly as good as "Frankenfoods". That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed to know what they're getting so there could be a free market. Garbage. So that your lying scare campaigns could take effect. Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices. Only if you know and understand the facts. You lot have gone out of your way to spread lies. Show one example of GM harm. If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market. Then tell the truth. If there are scary lies promulgated, there can be no informed choice, whatever information is given on a label. How would you think a food label that says CONTAINS GENETIC MATERIAL would sell after your lying nonsense? Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents don't believe their own propaganda. Their opposition to labelling is due to gross ignorance of the general public (free choice requires education) lack of necessity in things like oils that contain no protein, and all the lies that the greenies have spread without an iota of truth. If GE was really a good thing, the industry would be proud to have their products labelled. Not after the lies the greenies have spread. It is often difficuly to determine exactly what is in mixtures. Hence the common catch all: "May contain traces of nuts". problem with green terrorists but we have been having that for a long time Attempting to plant an association between advocates of consumer rights and "terrorists" is a transparent smear. Well they both "terrorise" a group of people. One with lies and one with vandalism. |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:26:11 +1200, Evil *******
posted: On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:40:01 +0000, Gordon Couger wrote: In the greenest part of the country a vote on [a law requiring GM labelling] lost 3 to 1. Who voted - the legislature, or the people? The people. After reading "The Loved One" by James Joyce as a teen, I thought nothing could shock me about Americans. I'm at a complete loss to understand why supposedly sane people would vote *against* knowing what their food is made of. Seems reasonable, in view of the fact that most of them haven't a clue what the constituents mean. |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. Price of Big Mac in US$, as at April 24 2003 ------------------------------------------- Uruguay 1.05 China 1.20 Belarus 1.21 Philippines 1.24 Ukraine 1.31 Russia 1.32 Malaysia 1.33 Sri Lanka 1.34 Egypt 1.35 Thailand 1.38 Macau 1.39 Argentina 1.43 Hong Kong 1.47 Brazil 1.48 Honduras 1.51 Poland 1.62 Georgia 1.65 Bulgaria 1.68 Macedonia 1.70 Pakistan 1.71 Yugoslavia 1.77 Indonesia 1.84 South Africa 1.84 Australia 1.85 Singapore 1.86 Chile 1.95 Czech Rep 1.95 Jamaica 1.99 Taiwan 2.01 Guatemala 2.03 Lithuania 2.06 Estonia 2.07 Colombia 2.13 Croatia 2.17 Kuwait 2.17 Hungary 2.18 Mexico 2.18 Japan 2.19 New Zealand 2.21 Canada 2.21 Bahrain 2.25 Slovakia 2.26 Peru 2.29 Aruba 2.29 Venezuela 2.32 Turkey 2.34 Oman 2.34 Morocco 2.34 Saudia Arabia 2.40 UAE 2.45 Qatar 2.47 Dominican Republic 2.61 South Korea 2.71 USA 2.71 Lebanon 2.85 Costa Rica 2.89 Britain 3.14 Surinam 3.18 Sweden 3.60 Denmark 4.10 Switzerland 4.59 Norway 5.51 Iceland 5.79 |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:44:56 +1200, Evil *******
posted: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:59:05 +0100, Jim Webster wrote: sue every manufacturer if they have any undeclared gm contamination and everything will be labeled with 'may contain gm'. This tells you exactly what? It tells me that I would rather sit on a rotating pineapple than ingest such food. Sounds like a good plan to me. |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:09:25 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. Price of Big Mac in US$, as at April 24 2003 ------------------------------------------- Uruguay 1.05 China 1.20 Belarus 1.21 Philippines 1.24 Ukraine 1.31 Russia 1.32 Malaysia 1.33 Sri Lanka 1.34 Egypt 1.35 Thailand 1.38 Macau 1.39 Argentina 1.43 Hong Kong 1.47 Brazil 1.48 Honduras 1.51 Poland 1.62 Georgia 1.65 Bulgaria 1.68 Macedonia 1.70 Pakistan 1.71 Yugoslavia 1.77 Indonesia 1.84 South Africa 1.84 Australia 1.85 Singapore 1.86 Chile 1.95 Czech Rep 1.95 Jamaica 1.99 Taiwan 2.01 Guatemala 2.03 Lithuania 2.06 Estonia 2.07 Colombia 2.13 Croatia 2.17 Kuwait 2.17 Hungary 2.18 Mexico 2.18 Japan 2.19 New Zealand 2.21 Canada 2.21 Bahrain 2.25 Slovakia 2.26 Peru 2.29 Aruba 2.29 Venezuela 2.32 Turkey 2.34 Oman 2.34 Morocco 2.34 Saudia Arabia 2.40 UAE 2.45 Qatar 2.47 Dominican Republic 2.61 South Korea 2.71 USA 2.71 Lebanon 2.85 Costa Rica 2.89 Britain 3.14 Surinam 3.18 Sweden 3.60 Denmark 4.10 Switzerland 4.59 Norway 5.51 Iceland 5.79 And when you express it in minutes needed to be worked? |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:09:25 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. Price of Big Mac in US$, as at April 24 2003 ------------------------------------------- snip Whoa - pull up for a minute there sunshine. Who said a Mig MAc qualifies as 'food'? I could imagine the Big Mac of 2012 - prepared entirely from laboratory-grown cultures. |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Evil *******" wrote in message ... I could imagine the Big Mac of 2012 - prepared entirely from laboratory-grown cultures. Which could of course be produced "organically" like tofu. |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue stands on its own. Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs. Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating. Michael Taylor worked for Monsanto, then went to work for the FDA where he wrote the rules for labels regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered product saying there's no difference, then he went back to work for Monsanto. When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and safety problems disappear, he was fired. Margaret Miller worked on rBGH safety studies at Monsanto, then got hired as an FDA deputy director, coincidentally around the time Burroughs was fired, where she approved the studies she had done while at Monsanto. Her assistant at the FDA and primary rBGH reviewer coincidentally happened to be Suzanne Sechen, who had previously worked on Monsanto-funded studies. A USA TODAY analysis of 159 FDA advisory committee meetings found: At 92% of meetings, at least one member had a financial conflict of interest. At 55% of meetings, half or more of the FDA advisers had conflicts of interest. At the 57 meetings when broader issues were discussed, 92% of members had conflicts of interest. At the 102 meetings dealing with the fate of a specific drug, 33% of the experts had a financial conflict. The faked studies of Lynx, Please inform yourself. What was faked in this affair was the charge that there was a scandal. What actually happened was a perfectly normal blind test of a laboratory suspected of doing faulty analysis. The sample from a captive lynx was just intended as a control. But that doesn't stop those with a political agenda from spreading talk about "planted evidence", or their readers from falling for it. and the forest fires from the lack of proper forest management are detracting from the environmentalist credibility with the large majority of people in the US. It's the logging industry and their servants at the USDA whose credibility is suffering as the scientific facts come to light. "Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity. " Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final report to Congress -- delete N0SPAAM to reply by email |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
"Walter Epp" wrote i "Gordon Couger" wrote: I understand that the US public were reasonably accepting of the technology until, the European "Frankenfoods" scare campaign came to town. The US public is still accepting them with no real problem. The US public is largely unaware that they are consuming them. That's not acceptance, it's ignorance. In the greenest part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics. The best genetically modified democracy money can buy. That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed to know what they're getting so there could be a free market. Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices. If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market. Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents don't believe their own propaganda. If GE was really a good thing, the industry would be proud to have their products labelled. problem with green terrorists but we have been having that for a long time Attempting to plant an association between advocates of consumer rights and "terrorists" is a transparent smear. People that burn buildings and destroy property are not advocates. That's precisely my point. The people who put this initiative on the ballot were not burning buildings or destroying property. They take these threats very serious here when we have been getting death threats on professors for 10 years from these advocates. Once again, attempting to manufacture a link is propaganda. -- delete N0SPAAM to reply by email |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world. We don't live on Big Macs. Gordon |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Walter Epp" wrote in message ... "Gordon Couger" wrote: When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue stands on its own. Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs. snip Walter's bull shit |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Moosh:]" wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: In the greenest part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics. For instance? Show too where it is wrong please. http://www.voteyeson27.com/Counterpoints1.pdf This does not mention the possibility that labeling could increase jobs, reduce costs of selling overseas, and make Oregon more competitive. As Consumers Union points out in its letter supporting labeling, "Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand all have mandatory labeling requirements, and a labeling law in Oregon would put the state in a good position to sell products in those markets." The best genetically modified democracy money can buy. That's nearly as good as "Frankenfoods". That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed to know what they're getting so there could be a free market. Garbage. So that your lying scare campaigns could take effect. Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices. Only if you know and understand the facts. Without labelling the consumer is denied knowing the facts. You lot have gone out of your way to spread lies. Show me which statement I have made that's a lie and why. If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market. Then tell the truth. If there are scary lies promulgated, there can be no informed choice, whatever information is given on a label. And when biotech companies are censoring troubling information there can be no informed choice. Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents don't believe their own propaganda. Their opposition to labelling is due to gross ignorance of the general public Lack of labelling keeps the public in the dark. -- delete N0SPAAM to reply by email |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world. That may be true or not, quite independently from the question whether or not you have the cheapest food. We don't live on Big Macs. That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Walter Epp" wrote in message http://www.voteyeson27.com/Counterpoints1.pdf This does not mention the possibility that labeling could increase jobs, if you increase jobs, the extra people employed need paying, which increases costs. reduce costs of selling overseas, by taking on more paid employees and make Oregon more competitive. Yep, we Europeans will not by stuff from Oregon because it is too cheap, but if you jack the price up we are going to fall over ourselves to buy it As Consumers Union points out in its letter supporting labeling, "Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand all have mandatory labeling requirements, and a labeling law in Oregon would put the state in a good position to sell products in those markets." No problem, all you have to do is put on the label 'may contain gm' and no one will take any notice of it anyway Jim Webster |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. as world grain prices are dependent on what the USA is willing to let grains go for, if the US wants US bread to be the cheapest on the planet they can probably arrange it purely by cutting down their exports Jim Webster |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:35:18 +1200, Evil *******
wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:09:25 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. Price of Big Mac in US$, as at April 24 2003 ------------------------------------------- snip Whoa - pull up for a minute there sunshine. Who said a Mig MAc qualifies as 'food'? I could imagine the Big Mac of 2012 - prepared entirely from laboratory-grown cultures. :-) You'll love this Flash movie: http://www.matazone.co.uk/mr_snaffle...fast_food.html |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. as world grain prices are dependent on what the USA is willing to let grains go for, if the US wants US bread to be the cheapest on the planet they can probably arrange it purely by cutting down their exports Very little of the wheat enters movement hands so it has little say in how much we export except to countries they lend money to so they can buy wheat. The only way the government has of acquiring wheat is thought the Commodity Credit Corporation in taking wheat in for collateral for loans and the producer not redeeming the wheat at the end of the loan period or buying it on the open market. When storage costs are 2 cents a month and interest is 1 percent a month the recent market makes it much more profitable to sell the wheat at harvest and take the payment between market price and target price and if you want to hold wheat buy a futures contract or an option that doesn't cost storage or interest. The futures contract does have margin calls if the price goes against you. Gordon |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world. That may be true or not, quite independently from the question whether or not you have the cheapest food. We don't live on Big Macs. That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. The only way to evaluate cost is what a hour of my time will buy. The way countries juggle their currencies there is no other way to compare them. Gordon |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. as world grain prices are dependent on what the USA is willing to let grains go for, if the US wants US bread to be the cheapest on the planet they can probably arrange it purely by cutting down their exports Very little of the wheat enters movement hands so it has little say in how much we export except to countries they lend money to so they can buy wheat. The only way the government has of acquiring wheat is thought the Commodity Credit Corporation in taking wheat in for collateral for loans and the producer not redeeming the wheat at the end of the loan period or buying it on the open market. When storage costs are 2 cents a month and interest is 1 percent a month the recent market makes it much more profitable to sell the wheat at harvest and take the payment between market price and target price and if you want to hold wheat buy a futures contract or an option that doesn't cost storage or interest. The futures contract does have margin calls if the price goes against you. Gordon |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world. That may be true or not, quite independently from the question whether or not you have the cheapest food. We don't live on Big Macs. That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. The only way to evaluate cost is what a hour of my time will buy. The way countries juggle their currencies there is no other way to compare them. Gordon |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
... "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world. That may be true or not, quite independently from the question whether or not you have the cheapest food. We don't live on Big Macs. That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. The only way to evaluate cost is what a hour of my time will buy. The way countries juggle their currencies there is no other way to compare them. Gordon I enjoyed that answer and can certainly appreciate the cause for it. While negotiating with a Canadian company to assume funding which was initially in US funds to me for greenhouse production improvements. I was to be compensated a percentage of the transaction. As this constituted a sizeable amount of money there were several pointed (and legally related) questions due to the exchange rate and the significant advantage the Canadians obtained by accepting my offer. Did I get paid in Canadian funds or US funds and on what amount was the percentage actually to be figured. I was paid the percentage on Canadian numbers and in US dollars and we were all happy. It did take some creative paper work to satisfy the Two governments. This was a hefty 6 figure amount and I reinvested the total lot in another Canadian University project which is directed to improving food quality and availability for the disadvantaged. How did I determine what I wanted in dollars? I used modest but realistic "value of my hourly time" for a period of two years to compensate for the research and expenses. James Curts |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:35:18 +1200, Evil *******
posted: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:09:25 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. Price of Big Mac in US$, as at April 24 2003 ------------------------------------------- snip Whoa - pull up for a minute there sunshine. Who said a Mig MAc qualifies as 'food'? It is certainly a reasonable meal in Australia. I could imagine the Big Mac of 2012 - prepared entirely from laboratory-grown cultures. Is this important? Doesn't the nutritional quality count for anything? |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:00:53 +1200, "lily" posted:
"Evil *******" wrote in message .. . I could imagine the Big Mac of 2012 - prepared entirely from laboratory-grown cultures. Which could of course be produced "organically" like tofu. Tofu is neither organic (necessarily) or laboratory grown. |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:16:43 -0700, Walter Epp
posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue stands on its own. Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs. Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating. Michael Taylor worked for Monsanto, then went to work for the FDA where he wrote the rules for labels regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered product saying there's no difference, then he went back to work for Monsanto. And you have evidence of any fraud or other wrongdoing? When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and safety problems disappear, he was fired. And where did you get this story from? |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
posted: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world. Big disposable income? |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world. That may be true or not, quite independently from the question whether or not you have the cheapest food. We don't live on Big Macs. That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative. |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:28:36 -0700, Walter Epp
posted: "Moosh:]" wrote: On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: In the greenest part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics. For instance? Show too where it is wrong please. http://www.voteyeson27.com/Counterpoints1.pdf This does not mention the possibility that labeling could increase jobs, reduce costs of selling overseas, and make Oregon more competitive. As Consumers Union points out in its letter supporting labeling, "Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand all have mandatory labeling requirements, and a labeling law in Oregon would put the state in a good position to sell products in those markets." My query referred to the last part, "a blitz of deception and scare tactics" The best genetically modified democracy money can buy. That's nearly as good as "Frankenfoods". That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed to know what they're getting so there could be a free market. Garbage. So that your lying scare campaigns could take effect. Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices. Only if you know and understand the facts. Without labelling the consumer is denied knowing the facts. Rubbish, you lot have bent any facts. Any label will only say "May contain GM". What information does this convey? You lot have gone out of your way to spread lies. Show me which statement I have made that's a lie and why. That there is any harm from GM foods. Otherwise, show us just ONE example. If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market. Then tell the truth. If there are scary lies promulgated, there can be no informed choice, whatever information is given on a label. And when biotech companies are censoring troubling information there can be no informed choice. Which troubling information? Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents don't believe their own propaganda. Their opposition to labelling is due to gross ignorance of the general public Lack of labelling keeps the public in the dark. No, after all the lies about scary consequences, nothing but darkness confronts the public. Education and the facts are the only way to shed light. Telling lies about all the harm that will ensue, and then screaming that any trace of GM must be labelled is a tad hypocritical. |
GMO biz vs consumers
"Moosh:}" wrote in message ... When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and safety problems disappear, he was fired. And where did you get this story from? put Richard Burroughs and fda into google and you discover millions of websites which all seem to pass the same story among themselves. The guy has apparently been canonised and god alone knows what the truth really is Jim Webster |
GMO biz vs consumers
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:11:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
posted: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world. That may be true or not, quite independently from the question whether or not you have the cheapest food. We don't live on Big Macs. That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest on the planet. The only way to evaluate cost is what a hour of my time will buy. The way countries juggle their currencies there is no other way to compare them. My question, but Torsten has apparently avoided it so far. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter