Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/

In article >, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...gmo-labeling-l
> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/

how does more info limit choice?

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>>
>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...gmo-labeling-l
>> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/
>
> how does more info limit choice?


Excellent question! I do agree it's possible, if forced to label GM foods,
some big conglomerates might raise their prices. But I doubt it would be to
such a degree as to "hurt the poor". Just more fearmongering on Mark's
part.

Jill

In article >, Sqwertz >
wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:20:18 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
> > "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >, Mark Thorson >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...99s-gmo-labeli
> >>> ng-l
> >>> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/
> >>
> >> how does more info limit choice?
> >
> > Excellent question! I do agree it's possible, if forced to label GM foods,
> > some big conglomerates might raise their prices. But I doubt it would be
> > to
> > such a degree as to "hurt the poor". Just more fearmongering on Mark's
> > part.
>
> Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
> of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
> conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
> or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
> have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
> to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
> crowd.
>
> -sw

which is what we call a business opportunity for the organic and non-GMO
farmers/ranchers which will eventually lead to the GMO crowd converting

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:
>
> In article >, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:20:18 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
> >
> > > "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> In article >, Mark Thorson >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...99s-gmo-labeli
> > >>> ng-l
> > >>> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/
> > >>
> > >> how does more info limit choice?
> > >
> > > Excellent question! I do agree it's possible, if forced to label GM foods,
> > > some big conglomerates might raise their prices. But I doubt it would be
> > > to
> > > such a degree as to "hurt the poor". Just more fearmongering on Mark's
> > > part.
> >
> > Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
> > of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
> > conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
> > or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
> > have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
> > to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
> > crowd.
> >
> > -sw
>
> which is what we call a business opportunity for the organic and non-GMO
> farmers/ranchers which will eventually lead to the GMO crowd converting

More likely it will prove once again that there is a small minority who
will pay more to support niche non-GMO products, while the vast majority
simply want affordable food and don't give a rats ass what that minority
thinks of GMOs. This has been pretty well proven in the organic vs.
non-organic space.

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:

>
> > which is what we call a business opportunity for the organic and non-GMO
> > farmers/ranchers which will eventually lead to the GMO crowd converting
>
> More likely it will prove once again that there is a small minority who
> will pay more to support niche non-GMO products, while the vast majority
> simply want affordable food and don't give a rats ass what that minority
> thinks of GMOs. This has been pretty well proven in the organic vs.
> non-organic space.

There is no reason to suggest that GMO products will ever be cheaper. Since
there can be no competition for lower priced GMO seeds, the GMO can keep raising
their seed prices.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
> of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
> conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
> or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
> have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
> to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
> crowd.

It's the organic thing over again. Organic products are more expensive.
Some who want them are willing to pay more. To the extent that GMO
products cost less the price difference will matter. I don't know if
the productivity of GMO crops is high enough to make often price
difference to matter. Eventually they will be for the same reason the
"green revolution" happened.

My current objection to GMO products is the corporate tactics of the
companies sueing farmers for keeping some of their seed for the next
year as has been done since the invention of argiculture.

On 2012-06-25, Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> My current objection to GMO products is the corporate tactics of the
> companies sueing farmers for keeping some of their seed for the next
> year as has been done since the invention of argiculture.

Worse is these company's underhanded tactics of planting GM plants
next to non-GM fields to naturally pollinat the non-GM crops, then
suing them for having GM DNA in the farmer's crop.

Mexico has heirloom corns that need no GM help, they having already
been naturally crossbred over generations to resist insects and other
blights. Yet, GM DNA has already been detected in these non GM crops,
despite no farmer planting any. Three guesses how it got there and
whether or not the companies respondible have already sued for
royalties.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

In article >, notbob >
wrote:

> Worse is these company's underhanded tactics of planting GM plants
> next to non-GM fields to naturally pollinat the non-GM crops, then
> suing them for having GM DNA in the farmer's crop.

I should think that a sufficiently motivated lawyer might try to expand the
definition of rape...after all it isn't consensual

or maybe sue the GM farmer for having the non-GM DNA in it

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
>> of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
>> conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
>> or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
>> have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
>> to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
>> crowd.
>
> It's the organic thing over again. Organic products are more expensive.
> Some who want them are willing to pay more. To the extent that GMO
> products cost less the price difference will matter. I don't know if
> the productivity of GMO crops is high enough to make often price
> difference to matter. Eventually they will be for the same reason the
> "green revolution" happened.
>
> My current objection to GMO products is the corporate tactics of the
> companies sueing farmers for keeping some of their seed for the next
> year as has been done since the invention of argiculture.

How about suing farmers when the GMO material drifts into their
fields?

--
Jean B.

In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:

> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >> Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
> >> of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
> >> conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
> >> or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
> >> have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
> >> to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
> >> crowd.
> >
> > It's the organic thing over again. Organic products are more expensive.
> > Some who want them are willing to pay more. To the extent that GMO
> > products cost less the price difference will matter. I don't know if
> > the productivity of GMO crops is high enough to make often price
> > difference to matter. Eventually they will be for the same reason the
> > "green revolution" happened.
> >
> > My current objection to GMO products is the corporate tactics of the
> > companies sueing farmers for keeping some of their seed for the next
> > year as has been done since the invention of argiculture.
>
> How about suing farmers when the GMO material drifts into their
> fields?

under tort law, that amounts to trespassing and is actionable

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/


BS. More corporate fear mongering.

Paul

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:00:48 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>>>
>>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/
>>
>> BS. More corporate fear mongering.
>
> Heaven forbid the big corporations actually produce products the
> consumers prefer.
>

Labeling does not mean that they will cease to produce anything, dumbo.
It's called "choice" and if you have an argument why people should not know
what is in the food they buy then by all means entertain us with your
arguments. That whole web site is 100% pure industry propaganda. GMOs are
causing massive problems both environmentally and socially.

Paul

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:30 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

> Labeling does not mean that they will cease to produce anything, dumbo.
> It's called "choice" and if you have an argument why people should not know
> what is in the food they buy then by all means entertain us with your
> arguments. That whole web site is 100% pure industry propaganda. GMOs are
> causing massive problems both environmentally and socially.

I don't usually agree with you, but I'm SO in agreement with you on
this point.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:30 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>> Labeling does not mean that they will cease to produce anything, dumbo.
>> It's called "choice" and if you have an argument why people should not know
>> what is in the food they buy then by all means entertain us with your
>> arguments. That whole web site is 100% pure industry propaganda. GMOs are
>> causing massive problems both environmentally and socially.
>
> I don't usually agree with you, but I'm SO in agreement with you on
> this point.
>
Moi aussi.

--
Jean B.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:30 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:00:48 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/
>>>>
>>>> BS. More corporate fear mongering.
>>>
>>> Heaven forbid the big corporations actually produce products the
>>> consumers prefer.
>>>
>>
>> Labeling does not mean that they will cease to produce anything, dumbo.
>> It's called "choice" and if you have an argument why people should not
>> know
>> what is in the food they buy then by all means entertain us with your
>> arguments. That whole web site is 100% pure industry propaganda. GMOs
>> are
>> causing massive problems both environmentally and socially.
>
> And heaven forbid I should actually side with you on anything else
> you'll take offense to it, somehow.

What can I say, you're just an offensive kinda guy.

Paul

Mark Thorson > wrote:

>Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.

>http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/


I'm not reading this because the "Freakonomics" guy is a drooling
Ayn-Randhole.



Steve

On Jun 24, 10:29*pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> >Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> >http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...2%80%99s-gmo-l...
>
> I'm not reading this because the "Freakonomics" guy is a drooling
> Ayn-Randhole.

I agree. When I hear him on the radio, I wish that he would die.
>
> Steve

--Bryan

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:20:58 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/

Oh, golly geee whiz. Limiting GMOs is bad, soooo bad. Walmart will
have to sell higher cost products and the Republicans might lose a way
to tell the poor to eat cake. Boo F*cking Hoo.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Jun 24, 7:20*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...2%80%99s-gmo-l...

gee, who do you suppose paid for that 'article'???

follow the money.

On 2012-06-25, ImStillMags > wrote:

> gee, who do you suppose paid for that 'article'???
>
> follow the money.

I love the line:

"nothing about the process of recombinant DNA makes genetically
engineered (GE) crop plants inherently more dangerous to the
environment or to human health than the traditional crop plants that
have been deliberately but slowly bred for human purposes for
millennia."

Oh? They've been crossing vegetable genes with fish and frog genes for
mellennia? I seem to have missed that little bit of history.


nb


--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

On Jun 24, 10:20*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...2%80%99s-gmo-l...

These are similar to the laws that are being passed across the country
that you can't directly help the homeless by giving them food because
you should instead give to the government and they will decide how
much to give to the poor and how much to keep for themselves. You are
most likely not a licensed Dietician and you have not had your
premises reviewed by the Board of Health and Heaven forbid you give
these homeless people home prepared foods that aren't organic or might
have too much sodium or cholesterol.

Michael OConnor wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 10:20 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> >
> > http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...2%80%99s-gmo-l...
>
> These are similar to the laws that are being passed across the country
> that you can't directly help the homeless by giving them food because
> you should instead give to the government and they will decide how
> much to give to the poor and how much to keep for themselves. You are
> most likely not a licensed Dietician and you have not had your
> premises reviewed by the Board of Health and Heaven forbid you give
> these homeless people home prepared foods that aren't organic or might
> have too much sodium or cholesterol.

In California, the problem with Food Not Bombs
giving away food is that the food is not made
in a controlled kitchen. That is a requirement
for any food offered to the public, even if it
is free. Technically, even bake sales are illegal
in this state. You can't have a controlled kitchen
in a residence.

Having gotten food poisoning from home-made food
sold (illegally) at a Chinese cultural event,
I can't say I'm totally against this.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:02 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> You can't have a controlled kitchen in a residence.

Technically, you can - but you have to pass the inspection first.
Most people opt for a professional kitchen rather than jump through
the hoops.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:02 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> > You can't have a controlled kitchen in a residence.
>
> Technically, you can - but you have to pass the inspection first.
> Most people opt for a professional kitchen rather than jump through
> the hoops.

When I looked into it, that was explicitly stated
on some California government web page.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:02 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You can't have a controlled kitchen in a residence.
> >
> > Technically, you can - but you have to pass the inspection first.
> > Most people opt for a professional kitchen rather than jump through
> > the hoops.
>
> When I looked into it, that was explicitly stated
> on some California government web page.

The answer is probably in-between - like you can convert your garage
into a commercial kitchen (with zoning approval) for your catering
business, but your regular kitchen can't qualify. One of the specs for a
commercial kitchen is the three basin sink (wash, rinse, sanitize) which
most residential kitchens lack.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:09:16 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:02 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You can't have a controlled kitchen in a residence.
> >
> > Technically, you can - but you have to pass the inspection first.
> > Most people opt for a professional kitchen rather than jump through
> > the hoops.
>
> When I looked into it, that was explicitly stated
> on some California government web page.

Then the law has changed since I looked into it, which admittedly was
a very long time ago.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.