GMO-free diet adds almost $3,000 per year to average US family food budget, study finds

|

[Editor’s note: The following is a study by Barry Goodwin, Michele Marra, and Nicholas Piggott, from the Agricultural and Resource Economics department at North Carolina State University.]

We examine the consumer cost consequences of choosing GMO-free food over food that contains GMOs. Using text-mining algorithms applied to detailed product descriptions contained in a proprietary database of individual GMO and GMO-free foods at the retail level, we find that, when directly compared item by item, GMO-free food costs an average of 33% more than a comparable food item that is not GMO-free. When compared on a per-ounce basis, GMO-free foods cost an average of 73% more. Generalizing to the cost of a typical market basket of food consumed by American households, GMO-free food consumption would increase the average family food budget from $9,462 to $12,181 per year.

In short, the budgetary implications of a GMO-free diet are substantial. GMO-free food items are shown to be more expensive than conventional alternatives. GMO ingredients play an important and ubiquitous role in the US food supply. Even small increases in the costs of these ingredients translate into significant impacts on the typical US household.

[The full study is available here]

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: The Cost of a GMO-Free Market Basket of Food in the United States

  • Robert Howd

    This AgBioForum article is very interesting, a nice compilation of data about food pricing and the consequences of GMO vs. non-GMO food choices. Actual impacts of such choices are much more complicated, however. One important detail is whether people who are so concerned about health as to pay much more for a non-GMO diet otherwise eat a “typical American diet.” Wouldn’t health-conscious people eat less processed food and more fresh produce, almost all of which is non-GMO? Do they eat less red meat, and perhaps more fish? These choices also may result in a higher-cost diet, but are not necessarily related to whether or not non-GMO foods are chosen.

    • Factchecker

      You make several excellent points. Looking through the actual study, it’s clear that the authors used some consumer data almost a decade old and also made many questionable assumptions about consumer behavior. To your point, if you look at Table 1 in their article you’ll see a list of highly processed junk food that folks avoiding GMOs would be unlikely to purchase. Low consumer demand would lead to higher prices for equivalent non-GMO food products. Also look at the prices for some non-GMO products…a Chocolate peanut butter
      protein bar for $15.19? That makes no sense…

      • alex

        lol so non gmo isn’t a manipulative marketing con based on lying to people to manipulate them using fear to pay more for a product that offers nothing better…

        • WeGotta

          Pretty much all major corporations rely on manipulative marketing based on lying to people to manipulate them to pay more for a product that offers nothing better….

          • alex

            Lol really….I’ve never seen the like of a petrochemical company claim that another companies has will fuck your car up while trying to sell the same gas at a higher price….. the only place I’ve seen such tactics I’d in the organics industry

          • WeGotta

            Is English your first language? What an ugly mess you’ve built upon your sandy foundation.

            Oh ya…..lol

          • alex

            Naw you’re grammar fag

          • WeGotta

            Uh oh. Here comes the emotional outburst from the guy who also claims to speak for science.

            I feel proud to hold different views than the person who would write such an ugly comment.

          • alex

            Lol keep on trying to claim the moral high ground while lying and fear mongering against science, keep on distracting from the fact by criticizing grammar instead of the argument presented

          • WeGotta

            Boy, you sure like telling other people what to do.

            I don’t need to “claim the moral high ground” when you just yield it to me with every one of your personal emotional crises.

            An emotionally unstable bigot is a poor choice for a science spokesman.

            I haven’t seen anything resembling a valid “argument” from you. Unless you actually want to argue that petrochemical companies are 100% truthful in business against competitors and that means people should support a certain technology over any other. That would just be weird.

            Non-gmo plant breeding technology is based on science too. So stop crying about “fear mongering about science” chicken little.

          • alex

            Lol against thanks, here I was thinking you were about to link some valid empirical scientific data showing gm crops are harmful

          • WeGotta

            Why would I eat something that needs testing when the gold standard for safety in that same study is readily available for consumption?

            No thanks.

            Especially when such changes are done merely for someone else’s monetary gain.

          • alex

            lol brilliant logic of course there is no need to actually evaluate newly developed crop cultivars before they enter the market, it’s not like there has ever been crop cultivars developed that don’t involve gm technology that have caused harm. thanks again

          • WeGotta

            You’re reverting to your native tongue again.

            It’s not like there has ever been something developed that don’t involve things that have caused harm?????
            Sorry, that makes no sense and seems unrelated to my comment.

            Like I said, if someone’s food science experiment needs to be tested for safety, I would rather just eat the thing it would be tested against.
            Why take the risk? So some stranger makes a few more bucks?

            GMO is risk without any benefit.
            If I was so poor that I would consider eating chemicals instead of food, it would be cheapest to buy whole foods in bulk (like beans and rice) rather than to buy gmo cookies cause non-gmo costs more.

          • alex

            Lol wow thanks for confirming you’re actually retarded

          • WeGotta

            Like I said before. Proud to have you think so.

          • alex

            stop being completely disingenuous here is my comment

            “alex WeGotta • a day ago
            lol brilliant logic of course there is no need to actually evaluate newly developed crop cultivars before they enter the market, it’s not like there has ever been crop cultivars developed that don’t involve gm technology that have caused harm. thanks again”

            here is what you claimed i said

            “It’s not like there has ever been something developed that don’t involve things that have caused harm”

            yea if you change my wording it stops making sense…. go ahead eat all the unregulated food products you want

            it shows your ethical standards when you think one crop breeding method should be regulated and that alone is reason to boycott it, while think all other types of crop breeding should be tested for toxicity by simply throwing them into the commercial market place for consumption by people.

            http://www.uh.edu/~trdegreg/genetic_engineering_not_significantly.htm

            http://www.tested.com/science/weird/454414-dangerous-genetically-modified-potato/

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1090496

          • WeGotta

            Nope. My quote was the same except I substituted:
            -something for “crop cultivars”
            -things for “gm technology”
            Doesn’t make any sense to me. Especially when you try and claim some sort of technological or science superiority over others.

            Of course some technology should be regulated and others should not.
            When I use a stick to dig a hole in the ground I am using a technology. I don’t see the need to regulate that stick.
            When I try and manipulate the genetic code of some plant so’s that my investors can make a return on their investment, I should expect lots and lots of regulation.
            Duh.

            I don’t click on links.

          • alex

            naw you poor stupid person, i’m sorry that you’re too stupid to notice it’s incredibly disingenuous to change words around and claim something doesn’t make sense once i you’ve changed what has been said, how sad…
            and thanks again for further acknowledging you think regulating recombinant DNA technology is reason enough to boycott that technology yet other crop breeding technologies that can and will cause harm if released into the commercial food market untested are ok and shouldn’t be tested to see it they are toxic before entering the market.. the test to see if all other crops other than gm should be done on consumers once already in the market… that’s just fucking sick.. then again an idiots like you would support vile crap like the seralini studies so i don’t expect anything else from you

            oh and of course you need to run from the fact that non gm crops have been sold to people and caused harm by not clicking links to such facts, again thanks for showing how pathetic you need to be to stand opposed to crop breeding improvements.

          • WeGotta

            And once again.
            Not supporting thing A does NOT mean automatic support for things B & C.

            All the food we could ever want to eat already exists. I’ll eat those.

            Conventional plant sex works just fine.
            If it’s too slow for venture capitalists and vain scientists, it matters not to me.

          • alex

            lol your argument is like saying we have the ability to build a house without a hammer ….. therefor ban all hammers…. thanks for being an idiot

          • WeGotta

            Wrong again.

            I’m saying we have the ability to build a house with a hammer so let’s not use a super-widget that runs on drug resistant tuberculosis just because it saves the contractor a few bucks and some nerds think it’s “cool”.

          • alex

            yea no sorry but you’re actually beyond stupid… please do instantly boycott any food products protected with any pesticides and all crop ever bred in labs using scientific methods.. the sooner you do this the better everyone else will be

          • WeGotta

            The sooner we all do this the better.

          • alex

            you first, no such food products exist… it would take you about 4 weeks to starve to death, please give it a go

          • WeGotta

            I guess none exist cause you don’t remember if you saw some or not, right?

          • alex

            thanks again for continuing to be completely disingenuous

          • WeGotta

            You’re welcome………I guess.

          • alex

            seriously please boycott all food products now

          • alex

            lol you do know in these modern days most builders use nail guns and not hammers…… wana try to ban them?

          • WeGotta

            That’s why it’s called an analogy and not real life.
            Oh ya, lol!

          • alex

            what about children that undergo genetic therapies to cure disease, should we mandate they be labeled?

          • WeGotta

            Only if the children were being put in my food.

          • alex

            Lol and why do you not with t get any information about any other crop breeding technologies used in crop food production

          • alex

            Btw…. non gmo is a manipulative marketing com not a type of crop breeding… and it has no scientific basis

          • WeGotta

            So Mendel was no scientist and plant breeding science didn’t exist prior to gmo, got it.

            Our whole society is built on manipulative marketing cons. What’s that got to do with anything?
            Do you actually believe that diamonds are forever, fat free cookies are diet food and that drinking crappy beer makes you more attractive to sexy young women?
            Ya, let’s invade another country and give away more of our rights so ISIS doesn’t come out of my closet tonight.

            It’s all a con little fella.

          • alex

            lol i don’t recall Mendel fear mongering against safe effective crop breeding technologies to inflate prices sell a marketing con and profit from fear and manipulation… do link what ever evidence of such actions you have
            and that’s a key difference you’ll find between the biotech industries and the organics industry, the biotech industry invest it’s profits back into more scientific research to better their own products and give their consumers an advantage, where as the organics industry invest their profits into pushing anti scientific fear mongering propaganda to manipulate people and buy into their marketing cons to further their profits

          • WeGotta

            I don’t think Mendel sold anything, nor made money off his research. Many of the science giants believed their discoveries were for the benefit of all mankind rather than personal gain.

            Fast forward a century and science has become the “new continent” where any wannabe Columbus in a lab coat is scouring the genetic code looking to plant his flag for a few dollars. What the public wants is secondary to their arrogance, greed and pride.

            You keep crying about business decisions of one industry as if no other industry in the world does the exact same thing.
            Sorry lil guy, its just modern corporatacracy which you are describing. We are in the golden age of lies complete with our liar in chief.

          • alex

            Really so what other industry except organic or selling snake oil relies on lying and fear mongering against other products in the market to sell another products at a higher price that offers no benefits

          • WeGotta

            Insurance, wall street, auto, anything made for babies, pharmaceutical, hospital, prison, pentagon, law enforcement, college, lawyers, security alarms, clothes, etc, etc.

          • alex

            how so…. i can’t think of any car manufacturer that claim don’t buy a Volkswagen because it was started by the nazis or don’t buy a Mitsubishi becasue they made the planes that bombed pearl harbor…. please link me the ad if it exist

          • WeGotta
          • alex

            just show me anywhere any other industry has ever acted like the organics industry, selling a product with no benefits but relying on unethical lies and fear mongering to manipulate people into buying their products

          • WeGotta

            The defense industry.

          • alex

            lol how and when, i don’t recall watching them pointlessly torture animals to produce shock value propaganda images

          • WeGotta

            “lol” and “pointlessly torture animals” in one sentence. What a piece of work.

            You don’t recall watching them pointlessly torturing animals? Is that your response?

            Should we start with the obvious like
            -whether you remember something or not doesn’t affect the validity of any claim
            -whether you see something or not doesn’t affect the validity of any claim
            -an opinion on the pointlessness of an action depends on the opinion holder.

            Then we can move to slightly more nuanced things like
            -how you keep changing the rules of the game (moving the goalposts in trollspeak).
            -must be ignorant of the term “shock and awe” and where it started.

            Then all that’s left is the unbelievable belief you seem to have that no arms dealer has used propoganda.

            Simply stunning!

          • alex

            go on there idiot try to defend just how vile fear mongering propaganda images of tortured animals have any scientific merit at all…. seralini himself can’t defend his own action and runs like a little bitch from the idea of debating his peers while being recorded

          • WeGotta

            Fascinating.
            You cast insults in the same sentence you accuse me of being vile.
            You assign blame to me for the actions of another.

            You are a liar unless you provide evidence where I defend using images of tortured animals for propaganda.

          • alex

            you’re defending the organics industry and claiming their actions are no different to other industries…. these are the actions of the organics industry.. quite simple really

          • WeGotta

            Claiming all parties act similarly is not a defense of the action.

            The food industry reeks of dubious actions. How much have they spent pushing people into addiction? Marketing junk to children.
            Shameful.

          • alex

            lol keep distracting away from just how vile some of the actions of the organics industry are

          • WeGotta

            Lol, like okay.

          • alex

            when has any industry ever acted like the organics industry then

    • Damo

      I wonder the same. Will introducing GMO varieties of fruits and vegetables bring down the price of whole fruits and vegetables? Or even canned fruits and vegetables? Would this lead to more consumption of fruits and vegetables? Wouldn’t this lead to a healthier population overall?

  • Factchecker

    These authors should have visited actual supermarkets rather than relying on databases and algorithms to perform this study. If they had, they would have found that most of the time non-GMO products such as Whole Foods 365 house brand food products are priced the same or less than their brand name GMO counterparts. For example, at Stop & Shop stores in 2015 30 oz of Hellman’s and Cain’s mayonnaise made with GMO soybean oil sold for $5.29 and $4.99 respectively, while 32 oz. of Whole Foods 365 Mayonnaise made with non-GMO soybean oil sold for $3.99. Since then those two GMO brands of mayonnaise have been highly discounted because of the growing proportion of consumers who are avoiding foods with GMO ingredients. Consequently, both companies are now selling both non-GMO and organic versions of their mayonnaise in an effort to recoup sales and customers. This same story has been playing out with thousands of other products, as food manufacturers are rapidly reformulating their processed food to non-GMO and organic versions. Doubt this analysis? Look up the history of of Kashi cereals. When General Mills bought the brand, Kashi substituted cheaper GMO ingredients. Consumers balked, Kashi sales collapsed and did not recover despite newer reformulations using non-GMO and organic ingredients. In almost every supermarket you will still see Kashi displays where the products are all discounted to “two for the price of one” but are not moving off the shelves as their expiration dates reveal. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cf63f5d1671d0aca6c0f4604bb4898f78b7ba5a840e24b32d79ded29c5ada1f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8a364b6e9a4bf6e314880447dce1b96d2971bae019db699168320e63027d08d.jpg

    • alex

      What about those opposed to crop breeding technologies actually provide some science to support their ideology

      • WeGotta

        What about those opposed to slavery actually provide some science to support their ideology?

        • FarmersSon63

          I agree.
          There is absolutely zero proof that GMO’s are dangerous.

        • alex

          Lol there’s a reason fail

    • FarmersSon63

      You use a trial of one, they don’t.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Also, he compared the cheaper in house brand to the usually more expensive name brand. Not an honest bone in his body.

  • FarmersSon63

    20 years of extensive GMO consumption and still not even ONE confirmed illness or death from consuming them.
    Guess how many people have been confirmed to have died from consuming alcohol in the LAST WEEK?
    It’s just like animal activists being in favor of abortion.

    • WeGotta

      So you wouldn’t mind 20 years of my dog crapping on your bed if it doesn’t cause you a “confirmed” illness or death?

      • FarmersSon63

        And makes sense to your warped mind how?

        • WeGotta

          You can’t make me tell you which of your pillow cases were used to wipe my dog’s butt.
          I’ve done studies which absolutely demonstrate no “confirmed” harm to rats who’ve slept on such sullied sheets for a few months as compared to others.

          • FarmersSon63

            Take your meds, Ted.
            PLEASE

          • WeGotta

            I don’t need meds unlike the millions who gamble with their lives by eating processed snack food-like chemical combinations wrapped in plastic.

            How many are you on? A little blood pressure med? Some blood sugar pills or a statin maybe? Perhaps a mood stabilizer?

            I think people should only take food advice from fit, healthy people who practice what they preach. I’m definitely not going to believe a scientist whose got a diet related preventable disease regarding the safety of my food.

            Send me a link for all the gmo safety studies conducted by healthy scientists only. If I am in better shape I don’t really care what they have to say about my food choices.

          • FarmersSon63

            None of the above.
            If you do physical work every day from sun up to sun down, you will have very few health problems. The good lord never intended for you to sit in your cubicle all day at work.
            If you work a physical job every day, you can eat most anything you want and still be healthy.
            And yes, carbohydrates, fats and animal protein are healthy for you to eat.
            There is absolutely no proven danger from eating GMO’s.

          • WeGotta

            You obviously have zero medical training.
            You definitely cannot be physical and then “eat most anything you want and still be healthy” unless what you want to eat is whole fruits and vegetables.

            The good lord speaks strongly against greed. I hope each of the sociopaths pushing junk food for profits meets HIM.

          • FarmersSon63

            There is absolutely no proof that whole fruits and vegetables are more healthy.
            Our ancestors lived on whole fruits and vegetables and they did not live half of the life span we have now.
            You city idiots would be perfectly fine with reducing calorie production by 2/3rds?
            How are you going to explain to 1/2 of the people they must die for your cause?

          • WeGotta

            You obviously have zero history training too.

            Lie.
            Lie x2
            Assumption, insult, make believe.
            Emotional plea based on a lie.

          • FarmersSon63

            What does every fallen civilization ever in the history of the world have in common?
            They ate organic food.

          • WeGotta

            They breathed oxygen too. OMG!!!!

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Hmmm…food advice from fit, healthy people…that sounds reasonable, the first reasonable thing I’ve ever heard you mutter, Wegotta.

            OK, so here are Ronnie Cummins, head honcho of the Organic Consumers Ass. and Vandana Shiva, anti-GMO spokesperson # 1 smashing down a set of lawn chairs…

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UD7LXJ8q7IM/hqdefault.jpg

            Nope, not looking svelt, exactly. In fact, these two obese slobs look like death warned over. BTW, they sell organic and non-GMO foods, did you know that?

            Oh, and here’s Kelly Brownell, CSPI crusader against the “toxic food environment”. He sells “healthy real food” — looking at the fat baastid, I’m surprised he’s left any “real food” for the rest of us!

            https://www.activistfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/KB.png

          • WeGotta

            What do I care about those people? Why would I listen to them?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Uh oh, beached whales ahead Cap’n…oh, no, we’ve run aground on ’em, Cap’n, and the blubber is bollocksing up our works!!

            Ring, ring, riiinnggg…REVERSE ENGiNES! FULL SPEED TO THE REAR!! Quick, move the goalposts!!! Deny everything!!!!

            Aw, too late Cap’n, I must report you’ve gone down with the foodie ship. Musta been that top-heavy cargo of organic lard what done you in, sir.

          • WeGotta

            The evidence is mounting. You have poor reasoning skills.
            This makes me more sure I’m on the right track since you don’t agree with most of what I say.

            Once again, just because someone is against GM, it doesn’t mean they are for anything at all except the lack of GM.
            So no, I don’t care about those strangers’ opinions either.

            I am the gold standard expert on my body. I’ve done decades of research regarding food and which kinds make me feel “good” and which make me feel sick.

            The less some human has processed my food the better. Humans are insane and I don’t trust any of them unless I know them personally.

            I don’t care how many papers they write or how many classes they took in college. There is no amount of papers written or classes taken that guarantees they are sane.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, when it comes to sanity, you’re not exactly the poster child. In fact, you are to sanity as Kelly Brownell is to healthy eating.

          • WeGotta

            Ooo…burn.

          • Damo

            That is probably the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Smokers know that smoking is unhealthy–they do it anyway. Fat people know being fat is unhealthy–they do it anyway. Hell, coal miners know that black lung is dangerous–they mine anyway.

            Not that that matters, since no one has made the claim that GMOs cause obesity (at least no one credible) beyond the fact that by using GMOs the price of food is reduced allowing us to consume more (which is the actual cause of obesity).

          • WeGotta

            Trusting people who actually practice what they preach is “the most idiotic thing” you’ve ever heard? Okay.
            To me, it’s idiotic to take food safety advice from stranger’s who make money by selling snack foods.

            Heroin addicts know that doing heroin is risky too. For some reason, most people think heroin should be illegal.
            Yet junk food is not only legal, it’s heavily promoted and tax subsidized.
            I don’t really care that things are the way they are. But, you can’t claim that we are a smart country, an advanced country or a scientific literate country while there exists massive incentives for the very things responsible for our biggest health problems.

            The only difference between the snack food industry and drug dealers is that the food industry is winning the marketing battle for now.

          • Damo

            The snack food industry has nothing to do with GMOs. They just make snack foods. Your heroin metaphor actually proved my point. Thanks.

            Good bye.

          • WeGotta

            “has nothing to do with GMOs”???
            Most GMO that would be eaten by humans is in the form of snack foods. That’s definitely “something to do” with them.

            That’s one thing you can say about GMO’s thus far. They’ve made unhealthy food cheaper and probably more unhealthy.
            You could say a lot more too. Pretty much all negative things for most people despite the false claims.

            When it comes down to it, GM is just a thing invented by some people. I don’t have to want it like I don’t have to want air pump technology in my sneakers.

          • Damo

            I never said you have to want it. Just don’t lie about it. Thanks.

          • WeGotta

            What lie? Name one.

            What’s the benefit to consumers? At best, it makes junk food and a fish slightly cheaper.
            I’m supposed to trade away my own perceived “rights” for that?
            I’m supposed to take on risk for that?

            Screw that.

          • Damo

            The lie that just because someone is overweight, they are unqualified to do food research for starters.

          • WeGotta

            I never said they are “unqualified to do food research”.

            I do say this though:
            -If you want me to believe you about food safety, you’d better be at least as healthy as I am.
            -Any scientist who belittles some individual for being skeptical about GMO safety that also happens to be overweight from too much junk food is a first class hypocrite.

  • WeGotta

    What a waste of time. Pretty much nothing can be derived from this article other than some “publication” for academic drones.

    The non-GMO food I can easily grow costs pennies.

    Stop eating processed junk food from billion dollar multinational tax dodging corporations whether GMO or non-GMO. You’ll save lots of money on medical related costs alone.

    • RobertWager

      You do realize the same corporations own the organic food companies as well?

      • WeGotta

        When did I ever say otherwise? GMO is just one of many unpopular things they do to your food in the name of money.
        They didn’t switch to HFCS because it’s better for your health. They don’t choose gmo because people want it. They do these things to increase return on investment. Your health is secondary.

        But go ahead and eat what you want and I’ll do the same. Go ahead and take on all the risks for none of the reward.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          GE, isn’t unpopular. That is proven by the many farmers who grow the seeds and the many folks who buy the products. Also, the reward is lower prices and safer food. I will gladly take them.

          • WeGotta

            Um…..
            Popular things make money and are promoted. For instance, NFL=$$$

            Unpopular things cost money; like advertisements, lobbying, court battles, bribing of regulators, buying journalists and paying trolls to make favorable comments online.
            Unpopular things must be hidden away unless they are forced in the open.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            More nonsense from the economically illiterate. Advertisements like the NFL runs constitute promotion. Promotions cost money. Many popular businesses have had court battles. The rest of your comment is just the usual dishonest shill crap that only idiots use anymore.

          • alex

            This guy actually seems to be retarded

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Either that or he just makes up nonsense to get a response.

          • Damo

            Nah, I think he thinks he is being clever by misusing logic. He isn’t. It just makes him look foolish, or, in your words, retarded.

            I am sure he is laughing because he thinks he has Eric on the rails, but he doesn’t realize that Eric and everyone else are laughing at him.

          • alex

            it’s like he thinks we’re too stupid to realize just how disingenuous he is being

          • WeGotta

            Put “NFL” on a product and you can charge more; popular.
            Gotta force people to put “GMO” on a product; unpopular.

            “Only idiots use anymore”.
            I’ll call a shill a shill anytime. There’s no expiration date on truth, no matter what talking points some shill gets such as “make shill accusations sound passe”.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Fine, call a shill a shill. Trouble is I have a small farm and do landscape work. I have told you this before. You have no evidence to the contrary for 2 reasons. 1. It doesn’t exist and 2. You are too lazy to have even looked. Thus you are about as dishonest as an embezzler. Gotta force? What that really constitutes is a vain attempt by wackos to lessen the popularity of successful products. Especially as there is no logical reason to use force to require such a label. Why? because their is no safety concern.

          • WeGotta

            You must be dizzy with all that spinning!
            Popular things are popular. They don’t get less popular the more you know about them. That would be an unpopular thing you thought you liked.
            An honest woman is not honest because she hides her crimes. She’s just mistaken as honest.

            The fear of a gmo label is unpopular enough to warrant millions in opposition. You think the NFL would pay 10 cents towards having “NFL” taken off tshirts?

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            You get dumber by the minute. If a group of dishonest morons managed to convince ticket holders that they would be poisoned or get cancer as long as NFL was on the logos and thus the league would see large drops in ticket sales. Yes, they would drop the letters, quickly. That is what the purveyors of safe GE derived foods are up against because of low lifes like you. And as I said, the crops are as safe as any. BTW these folks think you are a bit daft. http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/

          • WeGotta

            Furthermore, the idiotic little blurb that appears after “rBST-free” on milk is there by force. The only thing that keeps safe is Monsanto’s profits.

            I can work to force whatever I want on a label. There’s no commandments of food labeling passed down by a prophet.
            If I don’t like a technology, a business practice, or whatever, I don’t need a reason why I don’t like it. I am withold my money and support. I don’t need a reason, least of all do I care if it meets some greedy stranger’s notions of what’s safe for me.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Yes, you keep on working to get the gov’t to restrict liberty for no logical reason. Geeze, and folks like you wonder why I have absolutely no respect for them. Greedy stranger? Are these greedy strangers? http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/ Hopefully for the fine folks who work at Monsanto. I hope their profits continue to grow.

          • WeGotta

            Sure, why not? Everyone does.

            But if that was something I cared about I’d make a list of those liberties that mattered most to me and those people that were taking those away.
            Our government is busy busy busy taking away liberties right now, yet I don’t see any comments from you about such things. You only seem to care about corporate rights.

            So don’t pretend to care about anyone’s liberty.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            I comment quite often about liberty. Truth is that commenting about liberty isn’t often a part of refuting your lies about GE. crops.

          • WeGotta

            Okay Patrick Henry.

            Keep fighting for those downtrodden multinational corporations against the evil consumers wanting to know about the things they buy and ingest.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            The information is available to consumers. It is easily found by any who are genuinely concerned. The only evil ones out there are those who, like you spread misinformation.

          • WeGotta

            What misinformation?

            GM is just a technique to breed plants. I don’t have to support it just like I don’t have to support a nuclear powered coffee maker.

            GM eaten by humans is mostly found in junk food. If it makes those foods more accessible then it contributes to some of the worst diseases in the US.

            It’s a beautiful thing to see so many people taking an interest in the things they eat.

            We all should have the right to ask questions about our food (who made it? How? Where?) free from harassment.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Where GE derived crops are found is due to consumer demand. You are attacking the safe use by farmers. That is why you are always opposed. It is you who are doing the harassing. Use of the technology is safe. To refuse to admit that is to be dishonest. You are in the wrong place. Go harass the folks on advertising or food processor sites.

          • WeGotta

            Bull. What person wanting to eat food ever “demanded” GM technology?

            You talking about farmers? Guess what? Farmers and eaters priorities are not always aligned.

            If farmers need help they should reach out to consumers and not the giant corporations that likely caused their problems in the first place.

            I feel bad for farmers. They get the shaft all the way around if they got stuck growing certain things.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Consumers continue to buy the products. That is the demand. Whether you like it or not. The only way that demand can be negatively effected is by lying about the safety. The demand could be shifted by education into healthier products. But whining on agricultural sites will not do that. Farmers did not get the shaft. They guy the seeds because they are superior and worth the money. They allow us to use less and/or safer pesticides. As well as use less diesel and lower our labor. We want more GE varieties.

          • WeGotta

            People can do what they want. I don’t care. To expect things to be different than they are is the most common form of insanity.

            I will point out absurdity when I see it though.
            Like the absurd comment “the only way that demand can be negatively effected is by lying about the safety”. That’s obviously wrong. What about if a product is found to be unsafe? I bet demand goes down then too.

            There are way too many types of farmers to make such sweeping generalizations. When I say “stuck”, I mean those that are unable to shift from one market to another because of contracts, debt or whatever.

            Specifically:
            If you use a whole bunch of pesticides, then you would want a technology that allows you to use less. That would save you money.
            When you think of the people working for your farm as a liability, then of course you are excited when you can fire them.
            When you have all kinds of expensive machinery that needs hundreds of gallons of fuel, of course you want a magic technology that will allow you to use less.

            But that’s those people, and I’m not one of them. I don’t choose my food based upon what’s better for a farmer unless that farmer shares the same values as me.

            Good thing the market is responding because there are dozens of farms around me where they value my health, the earth and the people who work for them as much as they value price per pound.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            If, If, If, The crops currently approved are safe. Quit deliberately misunderstanding. “magic technology?” nope scientifically sound technology. Also your assumption that saving on labor means folks are fired reflects your own evil instincts. The truth is that good farm help is hard to find. Thus what farmers do, if possible, is find them something more productive to do. There are always chores that need to be done yesterday.

          • WeGotta

            More nonsense.
            Now you are trying to claim that no one has ever lost a farm job?

            The rest of your comment is just jibber jabber. Deliberate misunderstanding or real, telling either way.
            You must have nothing left when you start dancing around like that.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Another straw man argument. I never said no one has ever lost a farm job. Time to take remedial reading.

          • hyperzombie

            I never said no one has ever lost a farm job.

            Almost everyone that has worked on Ag has been let go at one time or another, even me the “Great and Wonderful Hyper Z”.
            I was “forced to resign” as agricultural technician (farm laborer) when I was 13 for setting my boss’s tool shed on fire by accident. When I was 15 and employed as an “Agricultural equipment operator” I may have been dismissed when I was caught by my employer with his daughter Naked in the house when I was supposed to be sweeping rocks. I did not ever go back to see why I was official dismissed.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Assuming that there is a small chance that you didn’t make all that up. I knew you were trouble.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep, a swift and graceful voluntary resignation has it’s proper place in the grand scheme of things, don’t it? Live to love another day, that’s what I always say!

          • WeGotta

            That’s my favorite. When bullies accuse me of doing things they just did and suggesting remediation more suited for themselves.

            This usually comes after the talking points have run dry.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Because everyone who oppose your lunacy is a bully. Go cry on mommy’s shoulder.

          • WeGotta

            You’re the one who appears emotional about any of this, so maybe you outta go cry it out.

          • Damo

            Wow, the elasticity of your logic defies physics.

          • WeGotta

            In that case, you should find it very easy to provide evidence.

            Unless of course you’re one of those hypocrites who pray at the alter of evidence but fail to live by “the word”.

          • Damo

            Evidence to what? You are the one that took Eric’s claim that reducing labor allows farmers to prioritize their needs to mean “no one has ever lost a farm job.”

            That is you twisting what he said. What kind of evidence do you want me to provide, other than your own text?

          • WeGotta

            I have no choice but to conclude that you lack the ability to read and gather information, both necessary steps to forming a reasonable conclusion.

            So here you go:
            Eric: “Farmers did not get the shaft.” “use less diesel and lower our labor.”
            My analysis: Eric is touting the benefits of GM for farmers. I assume “lower our labor” means decreasing labor. I wouldn’t assume lowering means “shifting” or any other parallel movement, but rather a downward movement.
            **Insert your analysis labeled as A.

            WeGotta: “When you think of the people working for your farm as a liability, then of course you are excited when you can fire them.”
            My analysis: This is a logical and truthful statement. People are excited to get rid of perceived liabilities, are they not? No where did I accuse all farmers of anything. Note the qualifier at the beginning of the sentence.
            **Insert your analysis labeled as B.

            Eric: “Also your assumption that saving on labor means folks are fired reflects your own evil instincts.”
            My analysis: An emotion insult built upon his own misunderstanding. See how he changed “lowering” for “saving”? Not that this matters because there is no savings when you pay $25 for a person to do something else rather than what they were doing.
            **Insert your analysis labeled as C. Specifically, what do you think it means when someone says they’ve lowered their labor?

            WeGotta: “Now you are trying to claim that no one has ever lost a farm job?”
            My analysis: A reasonable question given the emotional plea from Eric. No accusations, just a question.
            ***Insert your analysis labeled as D.

            Eric: “Another straw man argument. I never said no one has ever lost a farm job. Time to take remedial reading.”
            My analysis: An accusation and an insult for something he himself just did in the comment before mine. He’s basically admitting that people lose farm jobs because of new technology but seems afraid to write this down clearly.
            My original point is upheld as true. Some farmers want us to eat GM products because it benefits them. One of the ways it benefits them is when they can fire people.

            Here is where you butt in with an insult claiming my logic is elastic.
            So again, prove it. Because so far, those who most strongly support GMO seem to be those with the greatest paucity of thought.
            They also seem emotionally fragile and rude.

            I don’t take advice from people who are stupid, unstable and rude.

          • Damo

            Your comment is so incoherent to deconstruct it for further analysis is impossible. Try not to put words in other people’s mouths and you won’t have to use these mental gymnastics to rationalize your behavior.

          • WeGotta

            More evidence that my conclusions are valid.

            When I ask you to explain yourself, you reply with “try not to put words in other people’s mouths”. This shows a complete lack of understanding.

            When I ask you to stand and walk you complain this amounts to a double backflip with a half twist.
            Simple tasks seem complex to you. You won’t even try.

            When a lying coward with poor reasoning skills tells me that they think GMO is great, I must be extremely skeptical of such a claim.

          • Damo

            Except that is excatly what you did. You not only did that, you documented several times that you did that, but offered lame excuses why it wasn’t. Go away, troll.

          • WeGotta

            I guess we’ve reached the “I know you are but what am I” phase of the discussion.

            Come to think of it, you started there and ended there.

            Thanks for participating in my study which will be called “Lying cowards with poor reasoning skills tend to support gmo”.

          • Damo

            Sure thing. Amazing how you guys operate. Lie and use ridiculous logic, then claim that the other side is doing so.

            Do you all take the same dishonesty in internet trolling class?

          • WeGotta

            You mean like the school of astroturfing? Well, you should know all about it.
            The classes include:
            -Lying 101
            -How to avoid direct questions
            -Staying on talking point
            -Managing multiple accounts
            -When in doubt, accuse the other of the exact thing you just did

            You’re not very good at it though……..
            I’d get my money back if I was paying your fee.

          • Damo

            Lol, best you got is taking my comment and turning it around? At least I have mountains of scientific evidence on my side. You just have twisted logic.

            Bye-bye.

          • WeGotta

            Which “side” are you talking about? GMO eaters?

            “Mountains of scientific evidence” of what? That it’s safe to eat?
            What do scientists say about the safety of non-gmo corn? Safe too?

            So even if the safety of non-gmo and gmo were the same, “your side” would just be eating something ‘as safe’ as “my side”.

            You don’t even have a point.

          • Damo

            First, I didn’t say safety, but even if I did, just because non-GMO is safe doesn’t take away from the advantages of GMO.

            By the way, I don’t care if you eat GMO or not. I don’t care if you support GMO or not. I merely was pointing out that you put words in Eric’s mouth, everything else is just your deflection of that simple fact.

          • WeGotta

            Sticking up for your bud? Cool then.

            I like to stick up for people too.

          • Damo

            I don’t know Eric, he is not a friend, but I do know that what he says on these boards is correct.

            For you to try and prove your point by lying about what he says makes you a less than trustworthy source.

          • WeGotta

            By a “less than trustworthy source”, do you mean like a biotech promotion website that gets funding from one of the biggest backers of climate change denial?

          • Damo

            I meant you specifically. Since you lied several times about what was actually said. If there are lies in this article or on this website, feel free to document them with evidence why they are lies.

            Otherwise, good bye.

          • WeGotta

            This whole website is a lie.

            It says “science, not ideology”, yet it is funded in part by climate science deniers.
            The very same ones who deny the science because they make lots of money from doing things scientists say are causing negative climate change.

          • Damo

            So, you can’t document any lies, I see. Meanwhile, in your comments on this website I was able to point out several lies you told.

            Good day.

          • WeGotta

            See ya.

  • It is inevitable that there will be some variance in the prices from place to place and taking one or two supermarkest as a guide is ghardly scientific. Personally I would pay a premium for GMO bred products as they need to be encouraged but others might not which is their choice; just as it is for ‘organic’ foods.

    • FarmersSon63

      There has been no proven danger from GMO’s.
      Quit being such a Drama Queen.

      • I don’t understand why you think I am a drama queen; I am in total agreement with you. Drama, what drama?

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          I suspect that he misunderstood your comment.

          • Thanks Eric,You response is most appreciated. I must resolve to stop debating with people who seem to have such little understanding of the science. All it does is to give me high blood pressure! Best wishes, JAH

  • kenroseboro

    At the bottom:
    The authors have worked as consultants to Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer Crop Science. This research was supported in part by a grant from Monsanto.
    That destroys the credibility of this study.

    • FarmersSon63

      What part of the study do you disagree with?

    • “That destroys the credibility of this study.”

      No it doesn’t, you see, we live in what is known as the real world. And in this real world, tragically, people don’t conduct research for free, which unfortunately means the funding has to come out of someones pocket, be it taxpayer, charity, individuals or companies.

      So you see, in this cruel real world all research is funded by someone, and you may think that this makes all research lack credibility. But, we know the real world contains many examples of credible research, hence we can say that the funding of research does not necessarily influence the credibility of the research.

      If you have questions about the real world, feel free to ask them.

      • WeGotta

        “Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.” ~ Anonymous

        Trust in science is DEAD. Any study could be biased at any time which means it would be wise to be skeptical of any science all of the time.

        That’s the real world, like it or not.
        It doesn’t mean trust all science because there is a good chance most of it is true.

        This is the age of the LIE and the FAKE. These are the consequences.

        • I never said trust all research, please address what I am saying, not something else.

          What I was saying by the way is that the source of funding for any given study does not necessarily mean the study is not credible.

          From what I have read on these forums from the anti-GMO side is that they want independent research otherwise they will not trust it. When you ask them are they willing to fund the research they say no. When you ask who should fund the research they will say the companies producing the GMO’s. When those companies fund research about GMO safety the anti-GMO side say that it is not credible since it was funded by the companies who produced the GMO, so you ask again are they willing to fund the research they say no. When you ask who should fund the research they will say the companies producing the GMO’s. When those companies fund research about GMO safety the anti-GMO side say that it is not credible since it was funded by the companies who produced the GMO etc.

          Not a rational or consistent line of thinking is it?

          • WeGotta

            I feel no responsibility whatsoever for what other humans say or do.
            When a stranger asks me to hate on another stranger based upon circumstantial evidence I will withhold judgement.

            Here’s what I say:
            Humans are insane.
            Most people will sell out everyone for their own self interests.
            There are many examples where things were once considered “safe” by science, but later found to be not safe after all.
            A scientist can also be an incompetent fool.
            There’s zero benefit derived from eating plants that were created using GM technology. The benefits of this technology go to others who will not necessarily take on the risks.

            Most people in the US who are sick and who die are sick or dead from their diet. Yet lots of money gets spent on “keeping us safe” from very rare things (ie, terrorism, immigrants) and I have yet to see a peep from those same scientists who try and belittle others who would make a simple dietary choice out of precaution.

            Safety issues are only one reason to avoid this technology out of many.

          • “There’s zero benefit derived from eating plants that were created using GM technology.”

            This is wrong, although GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to non GM plants the benefit to eating them is that they tend to be cheaper to produce therefore cheaper to buy. Round up ready GMOs reduce the need for more toxic herbicides, BT plants reduce the need for more toxic insecticides, this is better for the environment you live in. GM plants tend to have higher yields, this reduces the land requirement to feed people again better for the environment you live in.

          • WeGotta

            If I wanted to save money on food, I’d buy simple whole foods in bulk like beans and rice. I’d grow a few of the thousand varieties of edible plants at home. Many grow like weeds.
            The last thing I’d be buying is the prepackaged heavily processed snack foods in which most gmo’s are found.
            And last I checked, the growing list of brands ditching gmo have not raised prices.

            I find the best way to not eat pesticide is to eat none rather than less than before. So I find farmers who use no petroleum based anything on my food.

            So no benefit to me whatsoever. When I’m in the mood for a snack I’ll choose producers that use non-gmo, no artificial crap and no petroleum on it.

          • A large percentage of GMO food is fed to animals,

            Your entire post reeks of ignorance,

            “I’d buy simple whole foods in bulk like beans and rice”

            I wonder why poor starving people have not thought of that? did you ever think whats cheap to you is out of reach for many people? Do you think that maybe a technology that allows more food to be grown in a smaller area with less pesticides could help lower food prices? is it possible that GM technology could be useful for bean or rice crops?

            “find the best way to not eat pesticide is to eat none rather than less than before. So I find farmers who use no petroleum based anything on my food.”

            Are you aware that farmers who use no pesticides produce a lot less food than farmers who do? you may have money to eat even if food prices go way up, but many do not. If all farmers decided not to apple pesticides then food production would go way down and prices would go up.

            “So no benefit to me whatsoever”

            You don’t live on this planet then? GMO technology allows crops to be grown with less pesticides without the associated yield losses that organic produces face. This means less land has to be used for food production, how can you not see the benefit.

          • WeGotta

            Your entire post reeks of a used car salesman.

            What do you know about what “poor starving people” have thought about? Have you asked them?
            If I had to guess it would be this: “I wish rich people would stop taking advantage of us.” and “These corporations are stealing our natural resources.” and “Why can’t these billion dollar companies pay us enough to eat?” and “Stop stealing my land to grow soy and palm oil!”
            So stop pretending you give a sh!t about them. How many people could have been fed with all the money spend on pushing this unpopular technology literally down our throats?

            Guess what? There are other ways of growing more food with no pesticides. Are you seriously trying to argue that the ONLY way is with GM technology?
            GM is just ONE way to breed plants. Breeding plants is just ONE tool at our disposal.
            So I’m going to support some of the OTHER ways rather than the one that has, thus far, just given us more snack food ingredients, lies and corporate corruption.

            What percentage of corn or soy actually is used for “food”?
            Of that “food”, how much is snack foods?
            So you are going to feed the world oreos and corn chips wrapped in plastic wrapped in plastic?

            I wish more land was used for food production. Cities should plant native food trees and shrubs instead of ornamentals. Parks should be full of food plants.
            Farms should be everywhere growing all sorts of plant varieties.
            Farms are beautiful and peaceful to visit. They employ people in the community. They connect us to one another and to nature.

            Oh, but I’m talking about the farms where I like to buy my food. The ones that are not a liability to the environment. The ones not trying to convince me to take on risk for their benefit.
            Definitely not talking about the chemical plant farms you tried so hard to sell me.

          • The first part of your post shows a poor understanding of basic economics and has nothing to do with the topic we are debating.

            “Guess what? There are other ways of growing more food with no pesticides. Are you seriously trying to argue that the ONLY way is with GM technology? ”

            Nice strawman, I never said there was only way to grow more food is with GM technology. I believe all options should be explored.

            “GM is just ONE way to breed plants. Breeding plants is just ONE tool at our disposal. ”

            Yes I AGREE. (your NOT the only one who can write in CAPS).

            “What percentage of corn or soy actually is used for “food”?”

            From a quick google search 55% for corn (some of this fed to livestock, but livestock make/are food) the remainder is used for export and ethanol, I cannot find a figure for soy but most is used for animal production some is used for biofuel.

            “Of that “food”, how much is snack foods?”

            I don’t know and I don’t care, what food is used for is consumer driven not farmer driven at least in the US and Australia. It seams a large percentage of GMO food is fed to animals, animals are only “snack foods” if that’s what they are processed into, again consumer driven.

            “I wish more land was used for food production”

            If you are talking park land and cities go for it, if you are talking about clearing natural habitats to make way for more farming land then that will be harmful to the environment. Food production needs to increase per unit of farm land other wise more farm land is needed.

            “Farms should be everywhere growing all sorts of plant varieties”

            Farms need to make money, people will have to be open to consuming “all sorts of plant varieties” otherwise they will not be grown. Why don’t you spend your time trying to get people to buy a larger range of plant foods instead of spreading fear about GMO’s?

            “The ones not trying to convince me to take on risk for their benefit.”

            No they lie about the health benefits of organic food to make you pay more for it, meanwhile they apply pesticides when you are not looking (a large amount of “organic” food tests positive for banned pesticides). Also they do not produce a sustainable amount of food per unit of farm land hence why they have to fool you into paying more.

          • WeGotta

            A quick search reveals estimates as low as 10% for corn and less than 2% for soy. The vast majority of the rest goes into making sugary drinks and junk food.

            So I don’t know how anyone gets off saying that GM is needed for anything except animal feed and junk food.

            I also take your “consumer driven” statement with a chunk of salt. We are under constant assault by sophisticated and blunt attacks on our senses through overt and hidden advertisements.
            Tell me, how do foods associated with our worst and most expensive diseases qualify for tax subsidies and why is this disgraceful industry so free to market them to us?

            I don’t know what you are talking about with “natural habitat”. I have to drive a long long way before I find anything resembling natural habitat. Theres plenty of degraded looking land all around. Lets use that and turn it into beautiful farms.

            Talk about a strawman. I never said anything about the organics industry. I’ll bet my food bills are smaller than most.
            I don’t buy processed heavily packaged junk foods.

            And if you are going to criticize my knowledge of economics, you should be specific.
            And if you are going to ask a question about a topic, don’t claim I’m off topic when I answer.

          • “So I don’t know how anyone gets off saying that GM is needed for anything except animal feed and junk food.”

            You do realise that the animals that are getting fed are mostly then used for food?

            “Tell me, how do foods associated with our worst and most expensive diseases qualify for tax subsidies and why is this disgraceful industry so free to market them to us?”

            Take it up with your government, I am not interested in politics and I assume we are in different countries anyway. What I care about is people not spreading lies and fear about the most sophisticated and precise method of planting breeding ever created. What I also care about is not so much what GMO’s are currently used for but what they could be used for. But if scare tactics scare people away from them they can never be fully developed.

            “I also take your “consumer driven” statement with a chunk of salt. We are under constant assault by sophisticated and blunt attacks on our senses through overt and hidden advertisements. ”

            Perhaps, but just because GMO’s end up in junk food in no way stops them from being useful.

            “I don’t buy processed heavily packaged junk foods.”

            Either do I, its bad for you, not because of the GMO content of course..

          • WeGotta

            A cruise missile is sophisticated and precise. That’s little consolation to all the people killed by them.
            You put too much faith in technology. It won’t feed the hungry or solve the problems caused by our other technology. We could solve all our problems right now, with tools already at our disposal. But we don’t.

            Humans are insane. Until we deal with this insanity there will always be suffering. No matter how many tools we have, we will always find a way to use them against each other. Especially if it can be controlled by just a few.

            So sorry if I don’t share your enthusiasm for this advanced technology. I know humans will just screw it up like we always do.

            If you are in the GM field, you got in bed with a powerful and corrupt industry. Stop trying to blame others for your woes and stop pretending supporters of GM don’t use lies and fear.

          • I like your analogy, but only because it supports what I am saying, think of all the unintended deaths if a cruise missile was not precise. Genetic engineering is a plant breeding method with extremely low unintended consequences, would you prefer a less precise way of plant breeding and a less precise cruise missile?

            I am not saying GMO’s are the answer to the worlds problems, but they can help with some.

            I am not in the GM field, accusing people of being a shill is really all the anti gmo crowd has. Very sad. I have not seen a fear based argument from the supporters of GM technology, only facts and critical thinking.

          • WeGotta

            How do you know the number of consequences there will be when they are “unintended consequences”?

            Yes, I prefer the less precise method of plant breeding. What’s the hurry?
            We haven’t even scratched the surface of what already exists. Over 20,000 varieties of edible plants and most people eat less than 10.
            If I had a problem I’d reach in the toolbox for a solution first before I invented a new tool.

            But like I said, humans are insane.

            If you are going to insist that
            you “have not seen a fear based argument from the supporters of GM technology, only facts and critical thinking”, then you can stop commenting to me because I don’t like talking to liars.

          • “How do you know the number of consequences there will be when they are “unintended consequences”?”

            you test for them.

            “Yes, I prefer the less precise method of plant breeding. What’s the hurry?”

            I guess people like to be well fed at low costs.

            ” Over 20,000 varieties of edible plants and most people eat less than 10. ”

            How many of these would be commercially viable? Since they are not being produced on a commercial scale my guess is most are not viable.

            “But like I said, humans are insane.”

            I never disagreed.

            ” then you can stop commenting to me because I don’t like talking to liars.”

            I told the truth, if you are going to insist that I am a liar then I don’t like talking to you.

          • hyperzombie

            Very sad. I have not seen a fear based argument from the supporters of GM technology, only facts and critical thinking.

            Well if you don’t watch your back, GMO crops will steal your wallet travel to the local strip bar and spend all the money on pub food and not tip the dancers, cant get much more evil than that. Plus they never say yes to air miles.

        • Snickers

          Or the anti-GMO people need to be honest about their real target that seems to be pesticides and you need more science education.

          There is an emotional response to this issue that I have tried to figure out what exactly the anti-GMO people are frightened. As I read the arguments against GMOs, there doesn’t seem to be concerns or evidence about the safety of themselves. Rather the arguments center around the use of pesticides and the ownership of the seeds by corporations. These are two different issues. I can understand the emotion around the question of “is my food safe?” It is a rather disingenuous and manipulative to frighten people about the idea that a inserting a gene in a chromosome can hurt people is a completely different than the issue of patents on plants because of that gene or the issue of the safety of pesticides. The later is much less frightening and is relatively boring, thus harder to engage the public in protest. This seems more like a power struggle over economic issues and control of the market than over food safety.

          • WeGotta

            There’s definitely a power struggle at the moment.
            Many people are frightened on both sides. If you make a living off GM, you may be frightened you might lose your job or funding.

            But not all those against gmo are scared. Many of us just don’t want to buy it. Why? Because there’s just no reason to buy it.

            Imagine if all people’s consumer choices were subjected to the same scrutiny as with gmo.
            How many purchases do you make that are not aligned with scientific consensus?
            Should doctors go on comment boards trying to belittle people who buy junk food against their advice?
            Should Nike form a panel of scientists to “educate” people who buy Adidas?

            I don’t support gmo because it’s an unecessary risk like tailgating. It doesn’t help me and if not tailgating keeps me out of just one accident it’s worth it to me. I feel no fear when I choose not to tailgate.

      • Aaron Aveiro

        Statementvremoved as I posted to wrong comment

        • Statement removed, see above

          • Aaron Aveiro

            No i posted that on wrong comment my appoligies…..

          • LOL, no problems.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      Ummm, which wacko site is it that you write for? Do you get paid? By whom?

  • FEDUPAmerican1

    I think what people must ask themselves is this, do you really want one corporation or maybe 3 or four controling the food supply? The more farmers this country (USA) or any other country has the better fed and the healthier their populations will be. Also i must add, that we as species have advanced enough in farming practices that we should know how to feed our populations locally, right now comodity crops are in the hands of a few people world wide and they are pushing a agenda, and not its not the public good.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      “3 or 4 controlling the food supply” Not happening. Over 90% of the farms in the U.S. are family owned. Plus “controlling” is difficult as many crops are perishable and need to be sold relatively quickly to prevent shrinkage and for cash flow. The grains that are dried and stored also need to be sold before the next crop can be stored.