http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvzzO7PovOs&feature=share&list=PLE09CC6B760FFA00D

>>It’s not the GM crops that’s harmful, its the increasing use of pesticides and herbicides.

That isn’t right and barely qualifies as wrong.

If you say “heavy hitters” while the graphics shows the actual power imbalance, it will make the message much clearer.

You could also exaggerate the “heavy hitters” a bit more…

In this case, my brain had to do a quick double-take and internally replay that part to be sure I understood it right. I would agree that many would find it confusing.

Well traditionally, “detectable GMO residue” has caused mass hysteria almost like the Tylenol-cyanide terrorism case, except that nobody actually gets injured.

Color me skeptical that entire culture and all the activists will suddenly pack it in.

https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/265182901275074560

Also, Godwin voted no on Prop37.

Agent orange is 2,4-D plus 2,4,5-T.  In their pure form, both are herbicides with very low toxicity to man and the environment (except for dicotyledonous plants).

The problem with agent orange is that both ingredients have the potential to produce highly carcinogenic dioxins when  manufactured under the wrong conditions (basically, high temperatures). This is especially the case for 2,4,5-T – which is banned pretty much everywhere due to dioxin fears.

2,4-D can and is be made very safely at temperatures that do not form dioxins. Manufacturers must prove that their dioxin levels are undetectable using the best analysis techniques available.

I believe the problem with Agent Orange was that high temperatures decrease reaction times allowing it to be produced more cheaply. I could be charitable and say that the toxicity of dioxins was poorly understood (they are also highly persistent and bioaccumulative). Less charitably, I could say that it was getting sprayed on “the enemy” in a foreign country during a war, so the US EPA weren’t overly concerned about product safety or consumer exposure.

The GMO crops were also developed as a way to reduce pesticide use, since you could spray a low-toxicity general-purpose herbicide like glyphosate instead of multiple applications of highly selective herbicides (that can kill a weed but not the crop).
The industry has been a bit dodgy here by focusing development on GMO versions of the generic stuff that made them no money. Dow/monsanto don’t make that much from 2,4-D/glyphosate since they’re off-patent and all the data are publicly available – but they can now make crazy cash by selling the GMO seed and possibly use dodgy contracts to lock in the farmer to their own brand herbicide instead of the cheap imports from India/China.

The problems of weed resistance are real, but no worse (and arguably better) than the traditional use of selective herbicides at doses that are only just high enough to kill the weed. I don’t know much about resistance management in America. It’s certainly a bigger problem than in the EU, due to your use of mega-farms and monocultures – plus the generally lower level of regulation in the US.

Glyphosate and 2,4-D get a lot of press because everyone uses them in their garden and recognises the names. IMO, they are some of the least worrisome pesticides since they are not persistent and not acutely or chronically toxic. The only real worries are ecosystem effects from killing plants (since some wildlife may depend on ‘weeds’ for their habitat).

Hey is that you M. F. S. ?  See you over at the great orange satan!

See, you are not being told the truth by your allies. You should do some more research on the topic before showing your ignorance so widely. 

The video that came from is here: http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/11/29/the-food-movement-and-the-horse-its-tied-to/

People aim at GMOs because it’s what they’ve been told, not because they understand the issue. It’s a proxy for all the stuff they hate (monocultures, patents, and herbicides). It’s very sad. This arena is so full of Dunning-Kruger. And they don’t know how bad their arguments are because they only talk to each other.

It would be totally awesome if all products had a website that listed all their ingredients, agricultural practices, labor practices, corporate political lobbying, and kid’s football team on it.  That way we *could* be better consumers, and choose products that are created in sustainable, ethical ways.  However when I’m given the choice between “label products based on scientific modification to their dna, based fear, ignorance and misguided environmentalism” and “don’t require these labels”…

Well, I suppose I got to help choose for my state.  

This certainly muddies the water when it comes to the right-to-know argument.

Here’s a detailed handling of USDA organic requirements regarding GMO technology: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5096493 (pdf)

Joe Potato Farmer (JPF): “…this label says ‘may be Poisonous’…”

APA: “well they could be!  They could be improperly stored, and contain huge amounts of Solanine!(sp?)”

JPF: “Or, you know, they could not, and forcing me to label my product this would unnecessarily scare people off.  In comparison to, say, foods with enough sodium to send someone into a heart attack.”

APA: ”Well potatoes are scary!  Haven’t you heard of Posanto(tm), the giant evil Potato corporation?  They sue small farmers and spray pesticides everywhere!”

JPF: ”…then why aren’t you going after aggressive lawsuits and excessive pesticide use?”

APA: ”because SCIENTISTS ARE MEDDLING WITH FORCES BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION!  IF MAN WAS MEANT TO FLY, GOD WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM WINGS!  IF HE WAS MEANT TO EAT POTATOES, GOD WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM BETTER KETCHUP!”
So I suppose the moral of this story is only women can fly and eat potatoes?  I dunno, I got a little lost in my argument somewhere there. 

Oh right, because they sounds scary.

All I suggested was that the law wouldn’t have provided the kind of clear information people want because of its arbitrary rules and the baseless fears that inspired them.

How on earth does that suggest that I “get to decide what’s important for people to know?”  I think people should know as much as they want to know, but there are variety of ways of giving them access to that information and it’s perfectly reasonable to disagree on those methods.

Like I said, baffling.