Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-10 1:23 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >> Feel the ignorance, revel in the ignorance. The truth doesn't matter,
> >> only that you've found someone else to share your ignorance with.
> >
> > You are one who is in favor of ignorance. The rest of us have the
> > right to know.
> >
> >
>
> I guess it is okay to be ignorant of something if it is cheaper.

You leftists love to think you're smarter than everyone else and that
they must be ignorant if they disagree with you. Guess what, you are
wrong and the bulk of you are at or below average (especially your
stoner members). We, the majority voters who continue to reject your
attempts to legislate your prejudices on us are well aware or what is in
the foods we eat, and most of us pay more attention to what we eat and
investigate its origins than those of you who demand an expensive
non-GMO label.

sf wrote:
>

> >
> > If you want that "honest information", you can pay for it from producers
> > who voluntarily mark their products as GMO/non-GMO just as you can pay
> > more for "organic". Don't try to force a law on the rest of us to
> > increase our costs soothe your paranoia.
>
> Your costs will be going up no matter what and a simple label change
> that reflects what producers already know will have little to do with
> it.

It's not a simple label change and I have clearly articulated why it
isn't. That you willfully ignore those facts speaks volumes about you
and why your views will always be in the minority.

> Funny how they want to use GMO seeds, but don't want to let the
> consumers know what they are eating. If it was something consumers
> considered a good thing and wanted, you can be sure there would be big
> letters saying "Contains GMO!" on the label.

They, as in those evil companies that feed the world. The farmers who
bust their butts growing crops so you don't starve. The folks who work
in the processing plants canning, freezing, drying, and preparing those
foods so you can buy them year round without having to can and store
them yourselves. Those evil folks toiling to make your life easier so
you have free time to bash them on the Internet.

> Nope. They know is
> something they know a large part of the public and would not buy a
> product with that said it contained GMOs anywhere on the label so they
> hide the information.

I'm quite sure the food producers couldn't care less if 5% of the
population didn't buy their products.

> Your support of keeping the public uninformed
> and ignorant is astounding.

Your assumption that the public and the voters who disagree with your
prejudices are somehow uninformed is astounding. Your arrogance in
thinking if you believe something and others don't then they must be
wrong and you must force your superior knowledge on them is exactly like
the religious extremists. SF = ISIS.

Dave Smith wrote:
>

> I refuse to buy the argument that it would be a major expense to simply
> indicate on the packaging that the product uses GMO, especially when the
> issue is primarily about grains. Wheat comes in by the truckload from
> farms and it goes into the elevators, so GMO grain can go into one
> storage compartment and the non GMO into another. When it goes into the
> mill they can keep track of which is GMO and which is not. I don't think
> anyone is pushing for absolute purity, but when you are getting a back
> of flour it should not be hard to figure out if it is GMO or not.

And if some of that GMO pollen blew across town and contaminated the
crops of the farmer who planted non-GMO wheat? Now the contents of that
non-GMO silo are invalid. 95% of the population is not willing to pay
20% more for their flour to humor the paranoia of 5% of the population.
The 5% of the population can buy their flour from some boutique producer
that voluntarily decides to test and label their product as noncom. If
there is a market someone will serve it.

On 2014-11-10 3:06 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2014-11-10 1:23 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> Feel the ignorance, revel in the ignorance. The truth doesn't matter,
>>>> only that you've found someone else to share your ignorance with.
>>>
>>> You are one who is in favor of ignorance. The rest of us have the
>>> right to know.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I guess it is okay to be ignorant of something if it is cheaper.
>
> You leftists love to think you're smarter than everyone else and that
> they must be ignorant if they disagree with you.


Yeah, well.... whatever.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:21:55 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-11-10 3:06 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2014-11-10 1:23 PM, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Feel the ignorance, revel in the ignorance. The truth doesn't matter,
> >>>> only that you've found someone else to share your ignorance with.
> >>>
> >>> You are one who is in favor of ignorance. The rest of us have the
> >>> right to know.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I guess it is okay to be ignorant of something if it is cheaper.
> >
> > You leftists love to think you're smarter than everyone else and that
> > they must be ignorant if they disagree with you.
>
>
> Yeah, well.... whatever.

I think he's confused.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 2014-11-10 3:24 PM, sf wrote:

>>>> I guess it is okay to be ignorant of something if it is cheaper.
>>>
>>> You leftists love to think you're smarter than everyone else and that
>>> they must be ignorant if they disagree with you.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, well.... whatever.
>
> I think he's confused.
>


He was certainly confused if he thought that labelled me leftist to
dismiss my concerns would get him any points.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-10 3:24 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>>> I guess it is okay to be ignorant of something if it is cheaper.
> >>>
> >>> You leftists love to think you're smarter than everyone else and that
> >>> they must be ignorant if they disagree with you.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah, well.... whatever.
> >
> > I think he's confused.
> >
>
> He was certainly confused if he thought that labelled me leftist to
> dismiss my concerns would get him any points.

You have no concerns, only paranoid emotions. You have no rational
argument to support your position.

On 2014-11-10 5:19 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2014-11-10 3:24 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I guess it is okay to be ignorant of something if it is cheaper.
>>>>>
>>>>> You leftists love to think you're smarter than everyone else and that
>>>>> they must be ignorant if they disagree with you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, well.... whatever.
>>>
>>> I think he's confused.
>>>
>>
>> He was certainly confused if he thought that labelled me leftist to
>> dismiss my concerns would get him any points.
>
> You have no concerns, only paranoid emotions. You have no rational
> argument to support your position.
>

Yeah, well... whatever.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:07:35 -0000, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> > Like Europe's Best frozen foods. You look at the package and assume it
>> > is European. Then it turns out to be from China.
>>
>> It's still the best the folks in Europe get...
>
> Dream on

Yet another of her idiotic comments. I don't know how she comes up
with so many illogical nonsense so consistently.

> European food-labelling legislation is way ahead of the USA in
>compulsory country of origin labelling AND GMO labelling
>
>http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/c...belling-under-
>the-eu-food-info/
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotec...belling_en.htm

Pete C. wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > On 2014-11-08 22:48, cshenk wrote:
> >
> > > Yup. Works outside the area too. Not everyone is paranoid about
> > > GMO.
> > >
> > > We all have enough things to worry about. If someone wants to eat
> > > GMO free and have the money for it, then they should do it. They
> > > should not tell the rest of us to be paranoid and eat the same.
> >
> > Most people are not aware of the extent of GMO food or the
> > implications of it.
>
> Yes, they are, but they don't agree with the paranoia of the tiny GMO
> minority.
>
> > If there are no problems with GMO foods there should be no
> > problem labeling it as such.
>
> There are problems with labeling it as it's not a simple matter of a
> label, it also requires segregated warehousing, tracking, testing,
> potentially entirely dedicated processing facilities and a lot of
> additional overhead which does indeed increase costs.
>
> Recall the meat scandal that rocked the UK and is still ongoing. If
> you have to keep your processing plant GMO free does that mean you
> need to build quarantine warehouses and DNA testing labs so you can
> verify that the 50 tons of wheat flour the truck brought in doesn't
> contain any GMO wheat varieties? Do you think this will not increase
> food costs substantially?
>
> It's not "just a label" and those who claim it is are either ignorant
> or lying.

Correct. I'm not that paranoid.

--

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2014-11-09 10:12 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Recall the meat scandal that rocked the UK and is still ongoing. If
> > you have to keep your processing plant GMO free does that mean you
> > need to build quarantine warehouses and DNA testing labs so you can
> > verify that the 50 tons of wheat flour the truck brought in doesn't
> > contain any GMO wheat varieties? Do you think this will not
> > increase food costs substantially?
> >
>
> It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying
> that it is or is not GMO.

REad what Pete said. It's the control factor and costs to do it.

--

Pete C. wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > On 2014-11-09 10:12 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > > Recall the meat scandal that rocked the UK and is still ongoing.
> > > If you have to keep your processing plant GMO free does that mean
> > > you need to build quarantine warehouses and DNA testing labs so
> > > you can verify that the 50 tons of wheat flour the truck brought
> > > in doesn't contain any GMO wheat varieties? Do you think this
> > > will not increase food costs substantially?
> > >
> >
> > It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying
> > that it is or is not GMO.
>
> Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.

Correct again. The best the anti-GMO crowd can hope for is a few very
expensive items labeled as 'GMO free' and they will pay out the nose
for all the testing of it to have the label.

--

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2014-11-09 20:21, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > >
> > > It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on
> > > saying that it is or is not GMO.
> >
> > Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
> > change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
> > operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
> >
> Is it wilful ignorance to suggest that if they product they are
> producing is made with ingredients that are from GMO seed could be
> labelled as such? Companies that want to cater to people not wanting
> GMO food can purchase their grains from non GMO sources and label it
> as such.

Pete, there is NOTHING stopping any GMO free producer from adding that
label now. Expect the cost of those items to go up as they then have
to have testing to prove it's all GMO free.

--

On 2014-11-11 19:07, cshenk wrote:

>>
>> It is not a disease. All they have to do is to put label on saying
>> that it is or is not GMO.
>
> REad what Pete said. It's the control factor and costs to do it.
>

I don't think many people are insisting that every small amount of
ingredient has to be tested. I don't see a big problem with things like
flour being labelled for GMO, and bread and other baked goods being
similarly labelled.

On 2014-11-11 19:09, cshenk wrote:

>> Willful ignorance of how commercial food processing works does not
>> change the fact that that "simple label" requires large changes in
>> operations and a lot of additional overhead to implement.
>
> Correct again. The best the anti-GMO crowd can hope for is a few very
> expensive items labeled as 'GMO free' and they will pay out the nose
> for all the testing of it to have the label.
>

Pshaw... loads of wheat that come into the mill can be declared to be
GMO on non, then labelled as such.

In article >,
notbob > wrote:
>A proposition 105 failed to pass, by a two thirds vote, in Colorado on
>Tue. It was a proposition to require GMO labeling on all foods. And
>it failed!

Guess what? A similar proposition failed in Oregon.

>I don't know what to say. I'm aghast. I don't even know what
>happened. Was it simple cuz the qanti's spent 4X the amt on the
>campaign? I jes can't imagine that ppl would NOT want to know there
>might be Franken-foods in their diet.

So if you want GMO labeling on the food you buy, how about you pay extra
for it and leave the rest of us alone? One of the most common items we
find in the clearance basket at our local supermarkets is (originally)
expensive foods labeled GMO free. Nobody is willing to pay extra for
them--but they want all of the rest of us to pay for it.

>"Uhh... no thanks yer evilship. I don't want to know what's in the
>food I'm putting into my body"

In article >,
sf > wrote:
>
>Rising prices are a fact of life and people are willing to pony up the
>money.
>
But at least around here (Southern Oregon) people were willing to vote
to ban GMO crops (in Jackson County) but not only didn't vote to require
GMO labelling, when products labelled as GMO free are available they
aren't willing to pay extra for them.

-ray

On 2014-11-11 11:42 PM, Ray Abbitt wrote:

> So if you want GMO labeling on the food you buy, how about you pay extra
> for it and leave the rest of us alone? One of the most common items we
> find in the clearance basket at our local supermarkets is (originally)
> expensive foods labeled GMO free. Nobody is willing to pay extra for
> them--but they want all of the rest of us to pay for it.


So you say. While you claim they are the most common products in the
clearance baskets I have never seen it. Even if there is a chance that
it is true they could be introductory products that didn't go over well
for various reasons. People tend to stick to known brands, and some
companies are under the impression that they can sell products that
appeal to health conscious consumers and mark their prices up
substantially.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:40:29 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-11-11 11:42 PM, Ray Abbitt wrote:
>
> > So if you want GMO labeling on the food you buy, how about you pay extra
> > for it and leave the rest of us alone? One of the most common items we
> > find in the clearance basket at our local supermarkets is (originally)
> > expensive foods labeled GMO free. Nobody is willing to pay extra for
> > them--but they want all of the rest of us to pay for it.
>
>
> So you say. While you claim they are the most common products in the
> clearance baskets I have never seen it. Even if there is a chance that
> it is true they could be introductory products that didn't go over well
> for various reasons. People tend to stick to known brands, and some
> companies are under the impression that they can sell products that
> appeal to health conscious consumers and mark their prices up
> substantially.

I haven't seen it either. What I see are the new products that didn't
sell quickly enough in that store, so they're on clearance to make
room for more new products they hope will fly off the shelves.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 2014-11-12, Ray Abbitt > wrote:

> So if you want GMO labeling on the food you buy, how about you pay extra
> for it and leave the rest of us alone?

Ppl have the right to know what's in their food.

Jes because you will ingest anything the lying dirtbags in agribiz
toss at you --provided the price is low enough-- doesn't mean everyone
does. There's little doubt I already pay more for my food and will
continue to do so as long as the crap food being foisted off on me is
little more than soy solids mixed with chemicals and coated with HFCS.
You wanna eat garbage, fine by me. Real food costs more $$$$ to raise,
therefore, cost more to buy. Regardless of what it costs, it should
be labeled.

nb

On 2014-11-12, Ray Abbitt > wrote:

> GMO labelling, when products labelled as GMO free are available they
> aren't willing to pay extra for them.

A gross oversimplification!

Lotta ppl are willing to pay for them. In fact, like the short-lived
"no-carb" products that flooded the shelves at the height of the
Atkins craze, organic labeled foods are beginning to appear in greater
numbers on big sprmkt chain shelves. They aren't there because
agribiz and sprmkt chains are a buncha nice guys. Those products are
there cuz customers demand 'em.

Clue: Between our two small burgs (3K and 5K pop), we have 3 sprmkts
and 6 health food stores. Go figure.

nb

On 12/11/2014 10:15 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2014-11-12, Ray Abbitt > wrote:
>
>> GMO labelling, when products labelled as GMO free are available they
>> aren't willing to pay extra for them.
>
> A gross oversimplification!
>
> Lotta ppl are willing to pay for them. In fact, like the short-lived
> "no-carb" products that flooded the shelves at the height of the
> Atkins craze, organic labeled foods are beginning to appear in greater
> numbers on big sprmkt chain shelves. They aren't there because
> agribiz and sprmkt chains are a buncha nice guys. Those products are
> there cuz customers demand 'em.
>
> Clue: Between our two small burgs (3K and 5K pop), we have 3 sprmkts
> and 6 health food stores. Go figure.
>
> nb
>
IME, it should read "health" food stores. The ones that I've been in
sell so many quack items that one wonders how the word "health" is defined.
Graham

On 2014-11-12, graham > wrote:

> IME, it should read "health" food stores. The ones that I've been in
> sell so many quack items that one wonders how the word "health" is defined.

I can't argue that.

Lotta processed foods, specially bulk. Not sure what's in the falafel
"mix", but I'll not buy it. Jes like tools and most other aspects of
life, ya' gotta be smarter than the product!

nb

On 2014-11-12 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:40:29 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-11-11 11:42 PM, Ray Abbitt wrote:
>>
>>> So if you want GMO labeling on the food you buy, how about you pay extra
>>> for it and leave the rest of us alone? One of the most common items we
>>> find in the clearance basket at our local supermarkets is (originally)
>>> expensive foods labeled GMO free. Nobody is willing to pay extra for
>>> them--but they want all of the rest of us to pay for it.
>>
>>
>> So you say. While you claim they are the most common products in the
>> clearance baskets I have never seen it. Even if there is a chance that
>> it is true they could be introductory products that didn't go over well
>> for various reasons. People tend to stick to known brands, and some
>> companies are under the impression that they can sell products that
>> appeal to health conscious consumers and mark their prices up
>> substantially.
>
> I haven't seen it either. What I see are the new products that didn't
> sell quickly enough in that store, so they're on clearance to make
> room for more new products they hope will fly off the shelves.
>
>

Maybe he actually meant was that one time a couple years ago he saw
something with a GMO free label in a clearance bin.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:40:29 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-11-11 11:42 PM, Ray Abbitt wrote:
>>
>> > So if you want GMO labeling on the food you buy, how about you pay
>> > extra
>> > for it and leave the rest of us alone? One of the most common items we
>> > find in the clearance basket at our local supermarkets is (originally)
>> > expensive foods labeled GMO free. Nobody is willing to pay extra for
>> > them--but they want all of the rest of us to pay for it.
>>
>>
>> So you say. While you claim they are the most common products in the
>> clearance baskets I have never seen it. Even if there is a chance that
>> it is true they could be introductory products that didn't go over well
>> for various reasons. People tend to stick to known brands, and some
>> companies are under the impression that they can sell products that
>> appeal to health conscious consumers and mark their prices up
>> substantially.
>
> I haven't seen it either. What I see are the new products that didn't
> sell quickly enough in that store, so they're on clearance to make
> room for more new products they hope will fly off the shelves.

Me either. I see wine, seasonal products and odd things like cooking sauces
that just didn't sell. I also see things like vitamins and OTC medicines.
But rarely anything of interest to me.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:
>On 2014-11-12 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:40:29 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-11-11 11:42 PM, Ray Abbitt wrote:
>>>
>>>> So if you want GMO labeling on the food you buy, how about you pay extra
>>>> for it and leave the rest of us alone? One of the most common items we
>>>> find in the clearance basket at our local supermarkets is (originally)
>>>> expensive foods labeled GMO free. Nobody is willing to pay extra for
>>>> them--but they want all of the rest of us to pay for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you say. While you claim they are the most common products in the
>>> clearance baskets I have never seen it. Even if there is a chance that
>>> it is true they could be introductory products that didn't go over well
>>> for various reasons. People tend to stick to known brands, and some
>>> companies are under the impression that they can sell products that
>>> appeal to health conscious consumers and mark their prices up
>>> substantially.
>>
>> I haven't seen it either. What I see are the new products that didn't
>> sell quickly enough in that store, so they're on clearance to make
>> room for more new products they hope will fly off the shelves.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe he actually meant was that one time a couple years ago he saw
>something with a GMO free label in a clearance bin.
>
How about last week? A couple of years ago I had never seen a GMO free
label. Now I'm seeing them, but nobody is buying them if they cost more
than normal products.

-ray

On 2014-11-16 5:12 PM, Ray Abbitt wrote:

>>
>> Maybe he actually meant was that one time a couple years ago he saw
>> something with a GMO free label in a clearance bin.
>>
> How about last week? A couple of years ago I had never seen a GMO free
> label. Now I'm seeing them, but nobody is buying them if they cost more
> than normal products.
>


Okay. So now you have gone from GMO foods being the most common things
in bargain bins to you saw one last week. Are you Julie?