EU won't sacrifice food safety for US trade deal

[Fojos]

Yes and that is just gross. why eat that crap lol.
You do realize that you can go to local farmer's markets where they are grown in their own green houses since a lot of people at these farmer's markets are highly against the use of pesticides? lol and you also do realize that you can grow your own organic foods without the use of any chemicals and pesticides? there are many ways to avoid this terrible chemical filled foods that some people stuff down their throats you know?

You can also buy non-organic that doesn't have pesticides.

Totally incorrect. 1000%.

Specifically the round-up ready GMOs; they end up using many times more what they normally would. In fact that's the whole fucking idea for the plant; they MADE IT ROUND-UP READY. If they tried the same thing on normal plants, the plants would die.

In the meantime, it's only humans who eat the plants later who die instead.

So you take one example of one thing - I can do the same thing.. Again, your problem is with the company, not the technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Toxicity
This is what organic farmers used for decades as pesticides. Because you know, it's "natural" and oh so beautiful. It's not even banned in Europe yet.

[Deleted]

It's pushed by members of an industry to protect the false exclusivity of their product. It's a perfect definition of corporatism. They want to use the government to protect their business model, limit competition, and increase their profits. How does that make them any different than Monsanto?

You get it wrong, this is just protecting a Trademark.

You can't just use the trademark of a renown product for your own, that's stealing the trust and goodwill the consumer places on these products.

I'll make simple example.

If you make a drink and call it Coca Cola, Coke has all the rights to sue you. You can call that a Cola, or a Soda, etc.. but not a Coca Cola.

Do you agree on this?

Ok now change Cola Cola with Parmesan or Champagne and every other place of origin mark.

You can call them "dry cheese" and "sparkly wine" but the other names are protected trademarks. You can't use them (well, not in Europe, seems US can do what they want with labels anyway, but we want none of that.)

I hope this example was simple enough.

[Spectral]

Now, as I well know that we have plenty of GMO-fans (or even fanatics) here, I am not going to waste my time (or ruin my evening) trying to change the mind of those that have no intention of having their mind changed. Apologies to those that wanted an actual debate, but I'll leave the above points to stand as my contrbution to the discussion. Hopefully, at least some will come to realize that there are a lot more reasons to oppose GMOs than the health concerns that the GMO fans always try their best to ridicule.

What condescending tripe. Throw out a Gish Gallop without even a hint of citation from which a discussion can proceed, declare that opposition are just fanatics anyway, and declare victory. Cool.

[Machismo]

You get it wrong, this is just protecting a Trademark.

You can't just use the trademark of a renown product for your own, that's stealing the trust and goodwill the consumer places on these products.

I'll make simple example.

If you make a drink and call it Coca Cola, Coke has all the rights to sue you. You can call that a Cola, or a Soda, etc.. but not a Coca Cola.

Do you agree on this?

Ok now change Cola Cola with Parmesan or Champagne and every other place of origin mark.

You can call them "dry cheese" and "sparkly wine" but the other names are protected trademarks. You can't use them (well, not in Europe, seems US can do what they want with labels anyway, but we want none of that.)

I hope this example was simple enough.

They are protected trademarks, pushed by specific members of an industry, using their sway within the government to get what they wanted. It's no different than when Jack Daniels lobbied to require that they be the only ones qualified to label their product as Kentucky bourbon.

The term "champagne" is not an actual trademark, it's a label allowed for certain companies and vineyards. It would be like it Coca Cola would make it so they were the only ones who could call themselves "soda." The term "champagne" is not owned by a single company, but refers to a region, so your analogy is somewhat misplaced. It is analogous to what Jack Daniels did when trying to lobby to be the only "Kentucky bourbon."

In the end, it is nothing more than a corporatist lobby designed to limit competition.

[Daerio]

So you take one example of one thing - I can do the same thing.. Again, your problem is with the company, not the technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Toxicity
This is what organic farmers used for decades as pesticides. Because you know, it's "natural" and oh so beautiful. It's not even banned in Europe yet.

Problem with the company, not the technology? What sort of drivel are you speaking about?

You tell me what the point in engineering a plant to be able to survive more pesticide is.

[Machismo]

Problem with the company, not the technology? What sort of drivel are you speaking about?

You tell me what the point in engineering a plant to be able to survive more pesticide is.

Well, if it can survive a pesticide, then you can use the pesticide on it. Glyphosate is an effective pesticide, and does not often require the dosage that is used by many organic farmers with their pesticides.

I hate Monsanto, I think they are the epitome of corporatism in our country. That does not mean I'm going to ignore the science surrounding GMo crops.

[Deleted]

TTIP is Bullshit, everyone with at least two braincells can see that.

Still, I will believe our politicians aren't going to sell us out when Trump is president and wipes his ass with the TTIP papers.

Trump will only sell you out in a different way. Or does America want their president to alienate the rest of the world and all Americans who arent while males?

[Cyberowl]

So your uneducated claims fueled by paranoia trump actual scientific research that clearly shows it's perfectly safe.

Got it.

You don't even know how dirty I feel agreeing with you on THAT.... D:

[Noradin]

But who would be discriminated against? It's not discrimination, it's information. Or, are you saying people will use that unnecessary information for disingenuous purposes, just like with GMO labeling? After all, the people should get things labeled that they want labeled, right? And if people decide they want it, they should get it, at least according to your argument.

People. It would discriminate against peole, as you know because that is why you brought up that example.

- - - Updated - - -

The corn they make is safe, so call it what it is... "corn."

You want to tell people what words they can use and which they cannot? And you call others "authoritarian".

[Machismo]

People. It would discriminate against peole, as you know because that is why you brought up that example.

I brought up the example, because it is arbitrary information that would be used to perpetuate an ignorant bias... just like forcing GMO labeling. I should have put on my /sarcasm light.

People who think that GMO foods are dangerous or unhealthy, are no different than the people who want to deny global warming...

"I'm no scientist, but..."

[ShmooDude]

No, they link "proof" about certain GMO products being save.
They never link any proof that GMO is always save, because they cannot. (Because it is impossible to prove.)

... You didn't actually bother to read my post did you?

As a note, I personally agree that each new food does need an individual test, I've seen that argued and I agree with it.

[Krille]

I brought up the example, because it is arbitrary information that would be used to perpetuate an ignorant bias... just like forcing GMO labeling. I should have put on my /sarcasm light.

People who think that GMO foods are dangerous or unhealthy, are no different than the people who want to deny global warming...

"I'm no scientist, but..."

Are you still going? Holy fuck! You really do care about European labelling don't you.

[Machismo]

People. It would discriminate against peole, as you know because that is why you brought up that example.

- - - Updated - - -



You want to tell people what words they can use and which they cannot? And you call others "authoritarian".

Once again, how am I telling them to do anything? To do so would mean I desire to force my opinion onto them, which would require a gun or legislation.

If someone wants to voluntarily label their product as "GMO corn" more power to them. If they want to label it as "born" more power to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you still going? Holy fuck! You really do care about European labelling don't you.

I care, I really do.

[Noradin]

Hypothetically, if the people wanted a label saying the nationality / race of the person who picked their food, would that be ok? This is just as arbitrary as the whether the foods are genetically modified.

No it wouldn't (in the case of race) because people have a right not to be discriminated against based on race.

- - - Updated - - -

The exact same argument can be made for demanding the race and nationality of everyone who youched the product. It may be irrelevant to you, but maybe not to other people.

No it cannot, because the race of people is about people, and people have a right not to be discriminated against based on race.
(You can discriminate based on nationality.)

- - - Updated - - -

If corn is corn, then label it as "corn." Problem solved, right?

Just because you, personally, cannot distinguish between two things does not make them the same. You aren't god and you aren't the supreme authority who gets to decide how to name things. Not regarding English and not regarding any other European language.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm only a big supporter of personal freedom, not economic. Sorry.

He isn't a supporter of economic freedom either, because he wants companies to have freedom instead of people, but companies cannot have freedoms, because they cannot act on them on account of not being sentinent. Thus, effectively, he is against freedom of any kind.

- - - Updated - - -

I brought up the example, because it is arbitrary information that would be used to perpetuate an ignorant bias... just like forcing GMO labeling. I should have put on my /sarcasm light.

People who think that GMO foods are dangerous or unhealthy, are no different than the people who want to deny global warming...

"I'm no scientist, but..."

No you brought up that specific example to bait this into a race discussion to further derail the thread, since apparently discussing the merits of democracy and laws in general is not off topic enough for your tastes.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone wants to voluntarily label their product as "GMO corn" more power to them. If they want to label it as "born" more power to them.

Yes, that is exaclty the problem, you want all "freedoms" to lie with corporations and none with customers.

- - - Updated - - -

I brought up the example, because it is arbitrary information that would be used to perpetuate an ignorant bias... just like forcing GMO labeling. I should have put on my /sarcasm light.

People who think that GMO foods are dangerous or unhealthy, are no different than the people who want to deny global warming...

"I'm no scientist, but..."

Why are you intentionally confusing labeling with education? You are just trying to be obtuse, aren't you?

[Machismo]

No it wouldn't (in the case of race) because people have a right not to be discriminated against based on race.

- - - Updated - - -



No it cannot, because the race of people is about people, and people have a right not to be discriminated against based on race.
(You can discriminate based on nationality.)

- - - Updated - - -



Just because you, personally, cannot distinguish between two things does not make them the same. You aren't god and you aren't the supreme authority who gets to decide how to name things. Not regarding English and not regarding any other European language.

- - - Updated - - -



He isn't a supporter of economic freedom either, because he wants companies to have freedom instead of people, but companies cannot have freedoms, because they cannot act on them on account of not being sentinent. Thus, effectively, he is against freedom of any kind.

- - - Updated - - -


No you brought up that specific example to bait this into a race discussion to further derail the thread, since apparently discussing the merits of democracy and laws in general is not off topic enough for your tastes.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, that is exaclty the problem, you want all "freedoms" to lie with corporations and none with customers.

- - - Updated - - -



Why are you intentionally confusing labeling with education? You are just trying to be obtuse, aren't you?

I did bring it up, because I wanted to compare it to other forms of willful ignorance. I am not god, and I am not the ruler of all things... but apparently you desire to be...

I have no desire to have all freedoms lie with corporations, your comment doesn't even make any sense. When labeling is based on ignorance, I'm going to call it out. It's willful ignorance to think that GMO foods are dangerous, or less healthy.

[Deleted]

They are protected trademarks, pushed by specific members of an industry, using their sway within the government to get what they wanted. It's no different than when Jack Daniels lobbied to require that they be the only ones qualified to label their product as Kentucky bourbon.

The term "champagne" is not an actual trademark, it's a label allowed for certain companies and vineyards. It would be like it Coca Cola would make it so they were the only ones who could call themselves "soda." The term "champagne" is not owned by a single company, but refers to a region, so your analogy is somewhat misplaced. It is analogous to what Jack Daniels did when trying to lobby to be the only "Kentucky bourbon."

In the end, it is nothing more than a corporatist lobby designed to limit competition.

I'm sorry, but seems you simply ignore how this stuff works.

Those are actual registered trademarks here, and they work no less than any other trademark around.

US is simply ignoring EU trademarks.

[Fojos]

Problem with the company, not the technology? What sort of drivel are you speaking about?

You tell me what the point in engineering a plant to be able to survive more pesticide is.

Or you look at where GMOs instead have reduced or removed the need of pesticides. Do you know anything about GMO outside of the little you've heard about monsanto?

[Machismo]

I'm sorry, but seems you simply ignore how this stuff works.

Those are actual registered trademarks here, and they work no less than any other trademark around.

US is simply ignoring EU trademarks.

The difference is in the deignation of what exactly a trademark is, versus a label of origin. In reality, it's not much more than semantics. But, since many companies can use the term "Champagne" (capitalized), it's not directly the same as Coca Cola, since only one company can claim that trademark. France in particular holds more value over location of origin than it does brand names. Since we are talking about a protected label of origin, I compared it to the issue of labeling things as Tennessee whiskey (I said Kenbtucky bourbon before, that was a brain fart). It focuses on location and conditions for application of a term, not necessarily the bran name.

[Independent voter]

GMO rice, the yellow rice, has kept thousands of children from going blind.

[TirielWoW]

*sigh* And if anyone wonders why I don't bother to actively participate in these discussions anymore, I point you to Machismo above. Chemical pesticides are BANNED in organic farming, you can ONLY use organic ones, such as predatory species and easily-biodegradable ones from natural sources. But that is the level of ignorance / lying (delete as appropriate) that these debates always end up with. So I just don't have the energy for that anymore.

And Fojos, I have been through this debate more times than I care to remember, I've spent hours documenting Every. Damn. Point. I listed above, only to have it all dismissed with "well, my sources are better" or "your sources are biased because they don't match what mine says" or worse. So no, you want the evidence, search it out yourself, because I can't be bothered. You might learn something in the process if you're actually interested in doing so. Start by googling "failure to yield", you know, the title that I referenced? The rest isn't hard to find either, but I won't expend the energy on someone who might well dismiss it all out of hand.

Neonicotinoids are the most widely used pesticide in the world, and are considered "natural."

They're also apparently decimating bee populations. You can use them in organic farming, but they may be destroying honey bees, which we kind of need to keep on having food.

"Natural" does not mean "good." The dose determines the poison. And even if something is "natural," that doesn't mean it's a good thing.