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

[mad cow]

Thank you for being so specific

I believe this is probably the original source:

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stu...versus_non_gmo

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

http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/04/f...kes-alarm.html

http://thephysicspolice.blogspot.com...-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!

[phonetic lee]

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.

[Occam's Banana]

[donnay]

Yeah...all in the name of science.

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/...l#.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

[dannno]

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.

[dannno]

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.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't have the link at the moment but Moms Across America have since admitted that there were problems with their study.

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

[mad cow]

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 horse$#@!!

[GunnyFreedom]

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 horse$#@!!

Shaming people is just soft tyranny. Similar to "political correctness."

[mad cow]

Shaming people is just soft tyranny. Similar to "political correctness."

You mean like this?

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.

[GunnyFreedom]

You mean like this?

Someone pulls a gun on me I shoot back. Don't expect me to get on my knees and take a bullet to the head. You don't want to be called a lunatic? Then don't try to shame people into eating stuff they don't want. You do not own their bodies, they do. This is one of the most basic principles of libertarianism: Self Ownership.

[mad cow]

So I guess you can't name one member of this forum who wants to dictate to others what they are and are not allowed to eat.

Glad we cleared that up.

[Natural Citizen]

I don't have the link at the moment but Moms Across America have since admitted that there were problems with their study.

It wasn't their study. And the only person here who mentioned Moms Across America was the "new" guy. Now...zippy...are we so naive that we let any old dolt who wants to completely change the source to something that is easier to attack resteer the discussion? If we are, then, perhaps best to get out of the championship kitchen while the getting is good. Because I will hammer you.

You will not spin any post of mine into something that is completely irrelevant just so you can change the terms of controversy. I won't let you.

[Natural Citizen]

So I guess you can't name one member of this forum who wants to dictate to others what they are and are not allowed to eat.

Glad we cleared that up.

That isn't the correct way to look at it. I think it is better to look at who supports industry penned legislation that is introduced to congress by way of congressmen that are at the receiving end of said industry's lobby money. As well as who supports those elected and so called representatives of the people and the anti-freedom legislation.

And, so, when these industry penned bills are specifically penned to remove state rights and their ability to protect their people from the federal government and when they are penned in a way as to remove a consumer's means to ever know what they are purchasing and consuming, then, you'd better damned well believe that those who support that mercantilist model absolutley are interested in dictating to others what they are and are not allowed to eat. And there are many reasons for it.

More specifically, they are destroying the very model of the free market. If people don't have the means to make an informed choice, then, they can't actually take part in and impact a free market and they are forced to consume these products as a result of not being able to make an informed decision. As I said earlier, this kind of fascist fodder is doing nothing but protecting these industries from a free market. It is mercantilism. Period.

Now, sure, those who support that mercantilist model certainly do want the debate to become one of a moral premise whereas we start to argue over what you say here about "name one member of this forum who wants to dictate to others what they are and are not allowed to eat." And, of course, what that kind of question does is it keeps the more critical debate off the board and keeps the debate misguided and short of scope. I'm kind of tired of it, though. And, so, I'm going to start calling those minions out. And I'm going to use the same tone and energy that they like to dish out to others.

[phonetic lee]

It wasn't their study. And the only person here who mentioned Moms Across America was the "new" guy. Now...zippy...are we so naive that we let any old dolt who wants to completely change the source to something that is easier to attack resteer the discussion? If we are, then, perhaps best to get out of the championship kitchen while the getting is good. Because I will hammer you.

ITG

[Natural Citizen]

ITG

Oh no, sparky. I'm real. Bet on that.

[Natural Citizen]

Shaming people is just soft tyranny. Similar to "political correctness."

It has also been a great way for Internet activists/supporters for the industry and mercantilist legislation to avoid the larger debate in settings such as this one. Which I referenced in my previous posting. They don't want to debate the critical aspects. They want to turn the argument into a moral paradigm so they can avoid those aspects of the debate. Which, ironically, is why we get memes about aliens wearing purple hats from those who want to keep a false paradigm alive when they are directed to research the more relevant aspect of the issue. Th GMO debate is geo-political now. And it'll stay that way.

[mad cow]

More specifically, they are destroying the very model of the free market. If people don't have the means to make an informed choice, then, they can't actually take part in and impact a free market and they are forced to consume these products as a result of not being able to make an informed decision. As I said earlier, this kind of fascist fodder is doing nothing but protecting these industries from a free market. It is mercantilism. Period.

So Government forcing individuals at gunpoint to test and label products is free-market and letting people choose whether or not to voluntarily test and label their products is fascism in your world.

I don't know what my minions think but You got it ass backwards as far as I'm concerned.

[euphemia]

This wouldn't even be an issue if the government wasn't so heavily involved in food production. With the high-yield farming available in this country, there is no reason for us to pay as much for food as we do now.

Control the food supply and you control the people.

[donnay]

This wouldn't even be an issue if the government wasn't so heavily involved in food production. With the high-yield farming available in this country, there is no reason for us to pay as much for food as we do now.

Control the food supply and you control the people.

/Thread winner!

[Zippyjuan]

We have some of the cheapest food on the planet as a percent of income- not to mention the broadest selection of items to choose from.

http://theweek.com/articles/446652/w...-other-country

Why Americans spend less of their income on food than any other country

In fact, the U.S. Agriculture Department expects prices to jump as much as 3.5 percent in 2014, an inconvenience some experts believe could snowball and potentially derail America's still-fragile economic recovery.

But Americans still spend less on groceries than any other country in the world.

That's right. According to data from the U.S. Agriculture Department, Americans shelled out 6.6 percent of their household income on food in 2012. The next lowest country is Singapore at 7.3 percent.

The highest? Pakistan, where consumers spend a whopping 47.7 percent of their earnings on food each year.

In Canada, food expenditures stand at 9.6 percent. Japan comes in at 13.8 percent, while Russians put 31.6 percent of their pay toward groceries.

So why does the U.S. pay so little? It's partly because American consumers are generally wealthier than those in many other countries, giving them more money overall to spend. But the big factor is food production.

U.S. agricultural productivity has generally risen over time:


Brought to you by USDA's Economic Research Service

Despite recent droughts, the United States has a booming agricultural industry. American farmers still produce a large amount of the grains, vegetables, and meats eaten here at home, and they do it efficiently and at a relatively low cost.

That keeps costs down for U.S. consumers.

America's capitalist culture also plays a role. Big grocers are competitive and are constantly cutting prices and offering deals to keep their customers and attract new ones.

And that percent of income going to food has been declining for decades.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/...od-than-you-do

[dannno]

We have some of the cheapest food on the planet as a percent of income- not to mention the broadest selection of items to choose from.

[/url]

[Created4]

And that percent of income going to food has been declining for decades.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/...od-than-you-do

Yep. And it all started during the Depression and the beginning of farm subsidies:



Stop robing the American taxpayer to keep food prices artificially low, and let people pay the actual value it takes to produce it, and the trend would start in the other direction.

[Zippyjuan]

Maybe it was all that organic food they were loading up on.

[Created4]

[jj-]

The main cause of diabetes is consumption of polyunsaturated fats.





(linoleic acid is one type of polyunsaturated fat)

Another important factor in getting diabetes is having high iron stores. If one knows that, it is easy to get rid of it through bloodletting.

[Created4]

The main cause of diabetes is consumption of polyunsaturated fats.

Probably mainly hydrogenated polyunsaturated fats. But the replacement of refined carbs for saturated fats is also definitely a contributing factor.

Study: Government Guidelines on Low-fat Diet Were Not Supported by Science

[euphemia]

And no, I will not pay more for fresh, unmodified food. The government can stop farm subsidies, repeal the parts of the Food Safety Act that all but ban home gardening and hierloom seeds, and let people buy their foods from anyone they choose at their own risk.

[Created4]

And no, I will not pay more for fresh, unmodified food. The government can stop farm subsidies, repeal the parts of the Food Safety Act that all but ban home gardening and hierloom seeds, and let people buy their foods from anyone they choose at their own risk.

If they do all that ^^^ (not going to happen), then you will definitely be paying more for your food, just like the rest of the world.