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!

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.

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

nb --scratching head

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 10:30:15 AM UTC-6, 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!
>
> 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.
>
> "Uhh... no thanks yer evilship. I don't want to know what's in the
> food I'm putting into my body"
>
I would certainly have voted yes, but I would also certainly not avoid a food because it was labelled GMO. People voted particularly stupidly this election.
>
> nb --scratching head

--Bryan

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 10:30:15 AM UTC-6, 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!
>
> 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.
>
> "Uhh... no thanks yer evilship. I don't want to know what's in the
> food I'm putting into my body"


The agribusiness giants don't think that's something you peons need to know. They also think they should be allowed to use the Certified Organic label even when the stuff in the package has a few chemicals, pesticides and GMOs here and there.

I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.

On 8 Nov 2014 16:30:10 GMT, 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!

Was it one of those deceptive Yes means No and No means Yes type of
ballot measures? It works every time unless there's an effective
advertising campaign alerting the public to pay attention.

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

Agree.


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

Christopher Helms wrote:
>
> I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.

Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.

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


It failed in California too. Massive amounts of corporate cash did it in.
They had people believing that a mere label was such a burden to the food
industry that they would have to raise prices dramatically.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 2014-11-08, Sqwertz > wrote:

> as GMO. As written, pretty much all packaged foods including cooking
> oil, crackers, cookies, canned veggies, etc... would have had to have
> been labeled as such.

And so???.......

Yes, I know that at least 80% of the stuff on sprmkt shelves would
have a "contains GMOs" label on 'em. That's pretty much the whole
point of GMO labeling. Duh! Did Coloradoan's think they'd
automatically have to quit eating everything with a GMO label on it?
I pretty much know what foods have GMOs in 'em, but I'd still like to
see 'em labeled as such.

As for the thing about vendors can add their own GMO label if they
choose to..... can they? ....really? I know that at one time it was
ill advised to label your milk to be "rBGH free" (another Monsanto
gem) in CA. Not sure if it was illegal to do so or if Monsanto would
jes send out a legal team to harass you with "food libel laws" (which
CO already has pleanty of). Whatever the mechanism, it worked. Ask
Oprah!

nb

Gary wrote:
>
> Christopher Helms wrote:
> >
> > I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
>
> Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
> are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.

It seems so. They're having the same angst at the voters rejection of
other "progressive" ideals, the "but but, we're smarter than they are,
how dare they not do what we say" mentality. Pretty sad.

Mostly the reasons that something like a GMO labeling measure fails a

1. People know it will increase the cost of the food they buy.

2. Most people are not paranoid about GMOs unlike the small minority
that pushes for such laws.

Additionally in a "natural" state like CO, the people who do care about
avoiding GMOs already grow their own food or get it from a local grower
and know what to avoid in the stores so they see no need to increase the
costs on the things they do buy.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> >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!
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > "Uhh... no thanks yer evilship. I don't want to know what's in the
> > food I'm putting into my body"
>
> It failed in California too. Massive amounts of corporate cash did it in.
> They had people believing that a mere label was such a burden to the food
> industry that they would have to raise prices dramatically.

Not quite true. They rightly pointed out that it wasn't a simple label,
but rather for commercial food producers where one big honkin' factory
produces a huge array of products it becomes a very large administrative
overhead.

Unless you want to just slap a GMO label on every single product
produced, you have to segregate supplies of GMO and non GMO ingredients
in warehouses, track and ensure the correct ingredients are pulled for
each batch run, ensure every piece of equipment is cleaned to absurd
levels beyond sanitizing (same reason for the "produced in a facility
that also processes xxxx", etc.

The GMO / non-GMO label isn't what adds the cost, it's all the back end
changes and overhead that add the cost.

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 1:02:17 PM UTC-5, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> >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!
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > "Uhh... no thanks yer evilship. I don't want to know what's in the
> > food I'm putting into my body"
>
>
> It failed in California too. Massive amounts of corporate cash did it in.
> They had people believing that a mere label was such a burden to the food
> industry that they would have to raise prices dramatically.

Well, give it a few more years. I never thought I'd see any kind of nutritional labeling either, let along no smoking in public haunts. Steps forward are minute, it seems.

When smoking was outlawed in my office, - oh, the hue and cry --but I didn't see one smoker resigning.

On 08/11/2014 9:30 AM, 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!
>
> 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.
>
> "Uhh... no thanks yer evilship. I don't want to know what's in the
> food I'm putting into my body"
>
> nb --scratching head
>
The trouble is that there are certain words or initials or acronyms that
engender illogical fears and emotions. People react against "GMO",
"Fracking", "Big Pharma" etc. out of ignorance.
Graham

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:28:28 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> Additionally in a "natural" state like CO, the people who do care about
> avoiding GMOs already grow their own food or get it from a local grower
> and know what to avoid in the stores so they see no need to increase the
> costs on the things they do buy.

That's a false argument for those who grow their own.


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

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:33:35 AM UTC-6, Gary wrote:
> Christopher Helms wrote:
> >
> > I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
>
> Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
> are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.

But Gary, in that aspect of your life, you *are* an idiot. You're a Republican
without a pot to **** in. I can understand greedy rich folks voting GOP out of
what they perceive as their economic self interest, but you're just a working
stiff. You're a chump.

--Bryan

On 2014-11-08 1:28 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Helms wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
>>
>> Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
>> are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.
>
> It seems so. They're having the same angst at the voters rejection of
> other "progressive" ideals, the "but but, we're smarter than they are,
> how dare they not do what we say" mentality. Pretty sad.
>
> Mostly the reasons that something like a GMO labeling measure fails a
>
> 1. People know it will increase the cost of the food they buy.

How exactly will slapping a GMO label on the food increase the cost of
food?
>
> 2. Most people are not paranoid about GMOs unlike the small minority
> that pushes for such laws.

Most of the people are ignorant about some of the details. Farmers used
to be able to buy their seed, harvest it and keep a portion for the seed
for the next year's crop. GMOs won't let you do that. There is concern
about them contaminating other crops and farmers being on the hook for
patent fees. Look at the case of Monsanto vs.Schmeiser where a farmer's
field was accidentally contaminated and Monsanto sued.



>
> Additionally in a "natural" state like CO, the people who do care about
> avoiding GMOs already grow their own food or get it from a local grower
> and know what to avoid in the stores so they see no need to increase the
> costs on the things they do buy.

Sure... a note on the packaging acknowledging that it is GMO.... that's
got to cost at least $5 per package.


>

On 2014-11-08 2:59 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>
> But Gary, in that aspect of your life, you *are* an idiot. You're a Republican
> without a pot to **** in. I can understand greedy rich folks voting GOP out of
> what they perceive as their economic self interest, but you're just a working
> stiff. You're a chump.


They are the kind of people who work as cashiers and spend half their
days demonstrating the self checkout. It is a position like that of the
Judas goat.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 08:44:38 -0800 (PST), Christopher Helms
> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 8, 2014 10:30:15 AM UTC-6, 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!
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> "Uhh... no thanks yer evilship. I don't want to know what's in the
>> food I'm putting into my body"
>
>
>The agribusiness giants don't think that's something you peons need to know. They also think they should be allowed to use the Certified Organic label even when the stuff in the package has a few chemicals, pesticides and GMOs here and there.
>
>I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.

That's normal for any election though.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:34:53 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>Christopher Helms wrote:
>>
>> I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
>
>Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
>are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.

Rep - Dem
Coke - Pepsi
Ford - Chev

Pick your team. The other team is stoopid!
AKA...
Same shit, different lable.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 07:33:42 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:34:53 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
>>Christopher Helms wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
>>
>>Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
>>are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.
>
>Rep - Dem
>Coke - Pepsi
>Ford - Chev
>
>Pick your team. The other team is stoopid!
>AKA...
>Same shit, different lable.

Yes, the political parties today are bad and worse. In our election
for governor, the exit polls told the truth. Most everyone they spoke
to said they voted for the guy they disliked less.

As for the ballot questions, many are phrased in such a way that you
have to answer yes to mean no or no to mean yes

Do you want to stop the discontinuance of aiding terrorist
organizations?

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 15:00:25 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-11-08 1:28 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>> Mostly the reasons that something like a GMO labeling measure fails a
>>
>> 1. People know it will increase the cost of the food they buy.
>
>How exactly will slapping a GMO label on the food increase the cost of
>food?

It won't of course. But putting the fear out there of higher prices
always does the trick.

>> 2. Most people are not paranoid about GMOs unlike the small minority
>> that pushes for such laws.
>
>Most of the people are ignorant about some of the details. Farmers used
>to be able to buy their seed, harvest it and keep a portion for the seed
>for the next year's crop. GMOs won't let you do that. There is concern
>about them contaminating other crops and farmers being on the hook for
>patent fees. Look at the case of Monsanto vs.Schmeiser where a farmer's
>field was accidentally contaminated and Monsanto sued.

Yeah... 'accidentally'. I know going back several years ago, there was
a spate of non-GMO crops 'accidentally' contaminated with GMO seed.
Even more remarkable was the apparent psychic ability of Monsanto to
locate such crops and get court orders to have them tested. It was
just a ploy to drive out those farmers resisting the change to GMO
crops and maintaining their own seed, of course.


>> Additionally in a "natural" state like CO, the people who do care about
>> avoiding GMOs already grow their own food or get it from a local grower
>> and know what to avoid in the stores so they see no need to increase the
>> costs on the things they do buy.
>
>Sure... a note on the packaging acknowledging that it is GMO.... that's
>got to cost at least $5 per package.

On 08/11/2014 1:00 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-11-08 1:28 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> that pushes for such laws.
>
> Most of the people are ignorant about some of the details. Farmers used
> to be able to buy their seed, harvest it and keep a portion for the seed
> for the next year's crop. GMOs won't let you do that. There is concern
> about them contaminating other crops and farmers being on the hook for
> patent fees. Look at the case of Monsanto vs.Schmeiser where a farmer's
> field was accidentally contaminated and Monsanto sued.
>
If you believe it was accidentally contaminated, I have a bridge that you
might be interested in buying! {:-)
Graham

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 15:57:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 07:33:42 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:34:53 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>>Christopher Helms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
>>>
>>>Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
>>>are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.
>>
>>Rep - Dem
>>Coke - Pepsi
>>Ford - Chev
>>
>>Pick your team. The other team is stoopid!
>>AKA...
>>Same shit, different lable.
>
>Yes, the political parties today are bad and worse. In our election
>for governor, the exit polls told the truth. Most everyone they spoke
>to said they voted for the guy they disliked less.
>
>As for the ballot questions, many are phrased in such a way that you
>have to answer yes to mean no or no to mean yes
>
>Do you want to stop the discontinuance of aiding terrorist
>organizations?

I know what you mean, we have the occasional referendum here, and the
questions are frequently like that. One time I refused to vote because
of it. There was one question where answering either yes or no really
meant yes in both cases.

On 2014-11-08 4:56 PM, Jeßus wrote:

>>> Mostly the reasons that something like a GMO labeling measure fails a
>>>
>>> 1. People know it will increase the cost of the food they buy.
>>
>> How exactly will slapping a GMO label on the food increase the cost of
>> food?
>
> It won't of course. But putting the fear out there of higher prices
> always does the trick.

That was one of the arguments against going metric. You know that no
packaging machines are made to be adjusted or calibrated and that they
are never replaced with newer and more efficient models.

>> Most of the people are ignorant about some of the details. Farmers used
>> to be able to buy their seed, harvest it and keep a portion for the seed
>> for the next year's crop. GMOs won't let you do that. There is concern
>> about them contaminating other crops and farmers being on the hook for
>> patent fees. Look at the case of Monsanto vs.Schmeiser where a farmer's
>> field was accidentally contaminated and Monsanto sued.
>
> Yeah... 'accidentally'. I know going back several years ago, there was
> a spate of non-GMO crops 'accidentally' contaminated with GMO seed.
> Even more remarkable was the apparent psychic ability of Monsanto to
> locate such crops and get court orders to have them tested. It was
> just a ploy to drive out those farmers resisting the change to GMO
> crops and maintaining their own seed, of course.

Well.... there are limited sources for seed and farmers have a unique
way of finding out everybody's business. If you know any farmers you
would know that they know just about everything about what all the other
local farmers are growing. They also know what kind of farm tractor
equipment everyone around them has.

I used to deal with a lot of farmers on the job, and once acted to stop
the growing practice of them using old highway trailers to haul their
crops around. Screw the rules about lights, brakes and tires, no one
will charge a farmer. I wanted to put an end to that attitude. I
charged a farmer at one end of our district on afternoon. The next
morning I was dealing with a farmer more than 20 miles from there and he
told me about the other incident, not realizing that I was the one who
had done it. Believe me, news travels fast in the farm business.




>> Sure... a note on the packaging acknowledging that it is GMO.... that's
>> got to cost at least $5 per package.
>
>


;-)

On 2014-11-08 4:57 PM, graham wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 1:00 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2014-11-08 1:28 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> that pushes for such laws.
>>
>> Most of the people are ignorant about some of the details. Farmers used
>> to be able to buy their seed, harvest it and keep a portion for the seed
>> for the next year's crop. GMOs won't let you do that. There is concern
>> about them contaminating other crops and farmers being on the hook for
>> patent fees. Look at the case of Monsanto vs.Schmeiser where a farmer's
>> field was accidentally contaminated and Monsanto sued.
>>
> If you believe it was accidentally contaminated, I have a bridge that you
> might be interested in buying! {:-)


It happens. The story is that the there was some accidental
contamination, and the farmer kept the seed from that field. It was
from his field and his crop. He had not planted GMO seed.

The thing is that farmers have long been in the habit of buying seed and
then collected and saving a portion of their crops for seed for the next
year. Lots of home gardeners do the same. They buy the seed and collect
seeds from the garden or allow them to propagate on their own. They
don't have to pay an annual rental on the flowers' genes.

On 2014-11-08 5:48 PM, Jeßus wrote:

> I know what you mean, we have the occasional referendum here, and the
> questions are frequently like that. One time I refused to vote because
> of it. There was one question where answering either yes or no really
> meant yes in both cases.
>

The province of Quebec has been threatening to separate from Canada for
years. They had a referendum in 1995 and the question was "Do you agree
that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to
Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of
the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on
June 12, 1995?"

sf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:28:28 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > Additionally in a "natural" state like CO, the people who do care about
> > avoiding GMOs already grow their own food or get it from a local grower
> > and know what to avoid in the stores so they see no need to increase the
> > costs on the things they do buy.
>
> That's a false argument for those who grow their own.

Spent much time in CO? I didn't think so. I have and most everyone has a
greenhouse and grows some of their own food. There are also a number of
local organic co-op type operations.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-08 1:28 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Gary wrote:
> >>
> >> Christopher Helms wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
> >>
> >> Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
> >> are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.
> >
> > It seems so. They're having the same angst at the voters rejection of
> > other "progressive" ideals, the "but but, we're smarter than they are,
> > how dare they not do what we say" mentality. Pretty sad.
> >
> > Mostly the reasons that something like a GMO labeling measure fails a
> >
> > 1. People know it will increase the cost of the food they buy.
>
> How exactly will slapping a GMO label on the food increase the cost of
> food?

See my other post. The people pushing for such labeling laws are the
simplistic ones who can't see past their prejudices, or worse know what
the real costs and affects are and don't care since it fits their agenda
of attacking commercial farms.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 11:59:55 -0800 (PST), Bryan-TGWWW
> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:33:35 AM UTC-6, Gary wrote:
>> Christopher Helms wrote:
>> >
>> > I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
>>
>> Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
>> are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.
>
>But Gary, in that aspect of your life, you *are* an idiot. You're a Republican
>without a pot to **** in. I can understand greedy rich folks voting GOP out of
>what they perceive as their economic self interest, but you're just a working
>stiff. You're a chump.

Divide and rule. It never fails to work.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 17:51:10 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-11-08 4:56 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>
>>>> Mostly the reasons that something like a GMO labeling measure fails a
>>>>
>>>> 1. People know it will increase the cost of the food they buy.
>>>
>>> How exactly will slapping a GMO label on the food increase the cost of
>>> food?
>>
>> It won't of course. But putting the fear out there of higher prices
>> always does the trick.
>
>That was one of the arguments against going metric. You know that no
>packaging machines are made to be adjusted or calibrated and that they
>are never replaced with newer and more efficient models.

Heh I recall when Aus went metric, there really wasn't any problems
once it was implemented. At least that was how it seemed to me as a
kid...

>>> Most of the people are ignorant about some of the details. Farmers used
>>> to be able to buy their seed, harvest it and keep a portion for the seed
>>> for the next year's crop. GMOs won't let you do that. There is concern
>>> about them contaminating other crops and farmers being on the hook for
>>> patent fees. Look at the case of Monsanto vs.Schmeiser where a farmer's
>>> field was accidentally contaminated and Monsanto sued.
>>
>> Yeah... 'accidentally'. I know going back several years ago, there was
>> a spate of non-GMO crops 'accidentally' contaminated with GMO seed.
>> Even more remarkable was the apparent psychic ability of Monsanto to
>> locate such crops and get court orders to have them tested. It was
>> just a ploy to drive out those farmers resisting the change to GMO
>> crops and maintaining their own seed, of course.
>
>Well.... there are limited sources for seed and farmers have a unique
>way of finding out everybody's business. If you know any farmers you
>would know that they know just about everything about what all the other
>local farmers are growing. They also know what kind of farm tractor
>equipment everyone around them has.
>
>I used to deal with a lot of farmers on the job, and once acted to stop
>the growing practice of them using old highway trailers to haul their
>crops around. Screw the rules about lights, brakes and tires, no one
>will charge a farmer. I wanted to put an end to that attitude. I
>charged a farmer at one end of our district on afternoon. The next
>morning I was dealing with a farmer more than 20 miles from there and he
>told me about the other incident, not realizing that I was the one who
>had done it. Believe me, news travels fast in the farm business.

Indeed it does, and if you lived here and done that, your house would
have been burned down and you would have to leave the area. Only one
cop here in recent memory chose to not get along with the locals, he
had to leave and be replaced. The house attached to the police station
was also burned down.

Pete C. wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > Christopher Helms wrote:
> > >
> > > I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if
> > > they had realized what they were actually voting for.
> >
> > Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
> > are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.
>
> It seems so. They're having the same angst at the voters rejection of
> other "progressive" ideals, the "but but, we're smarter than they are,
> how dare they not do what we say" mentality. Pretty sad.
>
> Mostly the reasons that something like a GMO labeling measure fails
> a
>
> 1. People know it will increase the cost of the food they buy.
>
> 2. Most people are not paranoid about GMOs unlike the small minority
> that pushes for such laws.
>
> Additionally in a "natural" state like CO, the people who do care
> about avoiding GMOs already grow their own food or get it from a
> local grower and know what to avoid in the stores so they see no need
> to increase the costs on the things they do buy.

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.

--

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. If there are no problems with GMO foods there should be no
problem labeling it as such.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 21:48:02 -0600, "cshenk" > wrote:


>We all have enough things to worry about.

And?

>If someone wants to eat GMO
>free and have the money for it, then they should do it.

That's not the problem. The problem is for those who want to avoid
GMOs, it's extremely hard for those who buy their food to do so.
Not to mention the contamination of non-GMO crops and wild plants that
is happening around the world.

>They should
>not tell the rest of us to be paranoid and eat the same.

That cuts both ways, but for those who don't care about GMOs, it's
easy and you have no problem, although it seems you're trying
desperately to find one to blame on those who don't like GMOs.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 23:02:13 -0500, 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. If there are no problems with GMO foods there should be no
>problem labeling it as such.

Yep. Amazing how much resistance there is to labelling in the U.S.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 18:26:57 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-11-08 5:48 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>
>> I know what you mean, we have the occasional referendum here, and the
>> questions are frequently like that. One time I refused to vote because
>> of it. There was one question where answering either yes or no really
>> meant yes in both cases.
>>
>
>The province of Quebec has been threatening to separate from Canada for
>years.

Good on them. I wish Tasmania would do the same in Australia.

> They had a referendum in 1995 and the question was "Do you agree
>that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to
>Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of
>the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on
>June 12, 1995?"

I had to read that three times before I understood it 100%.
Talk about convoluted!

On 08/11/2014 4:23 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-11-08 4:57 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 08/11/2014 1:00 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2014-11-08 1:28 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> that pushes for such laws.
>>>
>>> Most of the people are ignorant about some of the details. Farmers used
>>> to be able to buy their seed, harvest it and keep a portion for the seed
>>> for the next year's crop. GMOs won't let you do that. There is concern
>>> about them contaminating other crops and farmers being on the hook for
>>> patent fees. Look at the case of Monsanto vs.Schmeiser where a farmer's
>>> field was accidentally contaminated and Monsanto sued.
>>>
>> If you believe it was accidentally contaminated, I have a bridge that you
>> might be interested in buying! {:-)
>
>
> It happens. The story is that the there was some accidental
> contamination, and the farmer kept the seed from that field. It was
> from his field and his crop. He had not planted GMO seed.
>
He *had* but the stupid sod kept some to plant the following year and
tried to
convince them that it had blown in from neighbours.
Graham

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 20:05:35 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:28:28 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Additionally in a "natural" state like CO, the people who do care about
> > > avoiding GMOs already grow their own food or get it from a local grower
> > > and know what to avoid in the stores so they see no need to increase the
> > > costs on the things they do buy.
> >
> > That's a false argument for those who grow their own.
>
> Spent much time in CO? I didn't think so. I have and most everyone has a
> greenhouse and grows some of their own food. There are also a number of
> local organic co-op type operations.

They have no reason not to object.


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

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:33:35 AM UTC-6, Gary wrote:
> Christopher Helms wrote:
> >
> > I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
>
> Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
> are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.

You must not know what you're talking about.

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 3:49:59 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 15:57:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 07:33:42 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:34:53 -0500, Gary > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Christopher Helms wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect a lot of people wouldn't have voted the way they did if they had realized what they were actually voting for.
> >>>
> >>>Good grief~ So are you saying that those that didn't vote your way
> >>>are all idiots? Sure sounds like it. You must be a liberal Dem.
> >>
> >>Rep - Dem
> >>Coke - Pepsi
> >>Ford - Chev
> >>
> >>Pick your team. The other team is stoopid!
> >>AKA...
> >>Same shit, different lable.
> >
> >Yes, the political parties today are bad and worse. In our election
> >for governor, the exit polls told the truth. Most everyone they spoke
> >to said they voted for the guy they disliked less.
> >
> >As for the ballot questions, many are phrased in such a way that you
> >have to answer yes to mean no or no to mean yes
> >
> >Do you want to stop the discontinuance of aiding terrorist
> >organizations?
>
> I can see lots of people answering that question with a heartfelt Yes!
>
The Republicans are tough and principled, albeit almost purely evil, and
the Democrats are wimps who are really the last hope against Republican
evil, but they try to triangulate, and always play defense.
>
> --
> Bruce

--Bryan

On 2014-11-08 11:58 PM, graham wrote:

>>
>> It happens. The story is that the there was some accidental
>> contamination, and the farmer kept the seed from that field. It was
>> from his field and his crop. He had not planted GMO seed.
>>
> He *had* but the stupid sod kept some to plant the following year and
> tried to
> convince them that it had blown in from neighbours.

Perhaps so, but it was grown on his property and it was accepted that he
never planted it originally.It is not enough for Monsanto to have
developed a seed that is resistant to Round Up, another Monsanto
product, and to charge a premium for it. They expect to get a percentage
of it every year it is resown.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 20:05:35 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:28:28 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Additionally in a "natural" state like CO, the people who do care about
> > > > avoiding GMOs already grow their own food or get it from a local grower
> > > > and know what to avoid in the stores so they see no need to increase the
> > > > costs on the things they do buy.
> > >
> > > That's a false argument for those who grow their own.
> >
> > Spent much time in CO? I didn't think so. I have and most everyone has a
> > greenhouse and grows some of their own food. There are also a number of
> > local organic co-op type operations.
>
> They have no reason not to object.

Er, exactly though I don't think that's what you intended to write.

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.