While people claim they have somehow refuted anything I have said, which they have not...
Actually we have refuted stuff you've said....
You claim that food in europe is cheaper. We pointed out (quite correctly) that your "cheaper" food is based on consumer reports, which ignores the fact that European agriculture is
more heavily subsidized than U.S. agriculture.
That is probably one of the main reasons you
think food is cheaper there.
This has been explained to you multiple times. Rather than acknowledge the fact that you were wrong, you do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la I can't hear you" whenever your errors are pointed out.
Which of the following things do you disagree with:
GMO labeling is done around the world without apparent problems.
Disagree... because unlike you, we recognize that agricultural subsidies distort the real cost of food, and help hide the fact that food prices are not necessarily cheaper in Europe, and are probably more expensive.
Bsed on international experience, if GMOs are labeled as such the "Ick factor" associated with GMOs will likely result in food being sold to consumers quickly becoming GMO free. When consumers are given the choice, they apparently usually choose GMO-free products.
And if people are given a choice between products containing manure and those not containing manure we go with the poop-free version.
Yet I don't see you suggesting organic produce (which is often fertilized with manure) receive the "May contain manure" label. Why is that?
The GMO properties being used in the US have no real benefit to the consumer, and are related to obtaining higher yields or reduced labor during farming.
Which in turn
reduces costs and
helps the environment since less land needs to be used for farming.
Looking at grocery prices in countries with GMO labeling, there is no clear end user cost to GMO labeling that can be picked out of the noise of other factors.
Ahhh!!!! The stupidity! It burns!
You know, that whole "agricultural subsidy" thing I mentioned? Where European governments spend
much more than the U.S. government to help farmers? Think that might have something to do with the issue of grocery store prices?
Americans eat food that would only be used as discount animal feed in most of the world.
Wait a sec... if GMOs have no cost benefits, why would it be considered "discount" animal feed?
Could it be that GMOs
are cheaper? After all, if they weren't cheaper to produce, then farmers would be able to use non-GMO crops for animal feed with no price difference.
As it is, roundup ready and pesticides are not very palatable to most people.
Ummmm....
all produce is produced with the acceptance of pesticides. The difference between 'roundup ready' and conventional crops is the nature of the pesticides used. (Roundup ready crops will probably have less... since its a broad-action chemical.)
