Monkeymunch states thusly in viewtopic.php?p=10575#p10575 :

beginExcerpt
Europe and many other countrys have laws enforcing the labeling of GMO's, they're not sold there.
The USA does not, they are!
end

Andy's two statements taken together necessarily imply that because of the presence of labelling laws, GMO foods are not sold in Europe ... and equally, because of the absence of labelling laws, GMO foods are sold in the USA.

There is no other meaning in the collective context (of the two statements).

Yet I clearly highlighted in my earlier post: viewtopic.php?p=10581#p10581 ... the following:

###############################################################################
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/sto ... _gmos.html


beginExcerpt

Purchasing habits: probably not as expected

There are many examples indicating that consumers’ responses in polls (based on hypothrtical situations and choices) often differ to actual behaviour. In contrast to the hypothetical polls for or against GM products, the actual behaviour of consumers while shopping is a more important indicator of the manner in which individuals approach the new technology in an everyday context. In the European Commission funded research project "Consumerchoice", polls were conducted on this topic in 2006 and 2007. In countries in which GM products were available in shops at the time of the polls (the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain), only 20 % of buyers actively avoided such products. The authors of the study therefore regard it as likely that in many European countries GM products would be bought if they were offered for sale. Similar results were obtained in a poll by the Institute of Grocery Distribution in the UK in 2008. More than half (53 %) of respondents claimed not to think about GM when shopping. Only 21 % claimed to check food labels to ensure that food was non-GM.

Even more impressive are the results of a study made in 2007 (University of Otago Marketing Commerce, New Zealand). Tests were carried out in actual market settings in five European countries. In each case, a roadside stall was set up with fruit labelled three different ways (organic, conventional, or spray-free GM) and sold at different price levels. A total of 2,736 customers visited the fruit stalls. Under the pricing scenario researchers considered most plausible (15 % premium paid for organic and a 15 % discount for the spray-free GM option), the GM option gained the dominant market share in the Swedish and German stalls, and reached 30 % or more in the UK and French stalls. The results of the study indicate once again that GM food may prove much more acceptable than has been previously widely stated, provided there is a clear indication of consumer benefits.

end

############################################################################


... specifically, that the reason GMOs are not sold in Europe has nothing to do with labeling laws. That, contrary to Andy's implied claim, tests conducted in Europe actually showed that labeling benefited the marketshare of GMO foods. So Andy's implied claim, namely, that labeling laws were responsible for GMO foods not being sold in Europe was a big fat falsehood. Caught out in his lie, monkeymunch is trying to shift the focus from his mendacity and direct it towards cardboard chew circulars such as the following:

Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003

Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008

The successive amendments and corrections to Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 have been incorporated into the original text. This consolidated version PDF is of documentary value only.


He's dumb ... but not dumb enough to know what he was attempting to pull off ... to advance Prop 37 - a scam vote - by blaming the lack of labeling laws in the USA as the reason for GMO foods being sold here.

It's all legerdemain. The GMO interests wanted the vote to legitimize GMO foods in the public discourses; after all, GMO's were already here on an illegitimate passport.



Pax Veritas
Pax Cognitas
Pax Discerni

ps: For his part, Chico stamps approval yet again for the liar, gatekeeper, and knucklehead of Czar Sunstein's realm ... and disapproval for the truthseeker, Yours Truly (as prescribed by Chico's role of knave of the realm).

Yes, I disapprove of your message, because you are so busted. Aren't you the same person who suggested Monsanto was paying $7 million opposing Proposition 37 in order to get people to vote for it through a process of reverse psychology?

The whole issue of GM foods is one of money, deception, misinformation, manipulation, propaganda, and most of all, money. Yes, money is at the front AND back end. It was money that bought the announced defeat of Proposition 37, which would most likely have passed easily if left to the voters to decide on their own without interference (but it's not over yet). Labeling experimental and potentially harmful GM foods is, after all, a no-brainer for those that value health over profit (i.e. non-sociopaths).

Are there laws in place prohibiting the sale of GM foods in other countries? There should be, and in every country on Earth, given the con-game the patent-holders have played on everyone involved, including the public. Not to mention the irreversible damage we risk to ecosystem and human health by releasing GM foods into the environment based on biased and bogus safety reports.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't everyone on this forum opposed to GM foods? Or let's put it this way -- who will speak in favor of letting sociopathic, profit-driven companies sell us modified foods of questionable safety while refusing to tell us which products they are in?

BTW, do we need a new thread every time you want to mug someone?

Chico, can we please leave the valley girl chipmunk chatter aside? It's not becoming of a sixty-year-old to be.




Yes. One and the same. A very plausible theory at that because Monsanto has a terrible reputation. Somewhat informed people would be expected to align against the reputation to pass or fail Prop 37, that sorta thing. If Monsanto really cared about Prop 37 passing or not passing, they would be expected to park their reputation on the opposing side.

On further inspection, my other theory is even better, namely, that Monsanto and its power pyramid associates just wanted a plebiscite in place to legitimize GMO foods in the public discourses. Whether Prop 37 passed or not is immaterial - in this scenario - for the real goal is to establish GMO foods as a viable option in the consumer mind. The European marketshare testing experiments of 2006-07 (with organic, conventional, and GM labels) proved the viability of GMO foods ... so Monsanto would know about these results and be emboldened to introduce the "labeling laws" public exercise. If the public votes against the laws, so be it ... status quo and business as usual. If the public votes in favor of the laws, then GMO foods are officially in, and with a competitive advantage over conventional and organic foods. Either way, GMO foods would be rescued from their dire reputation and entered into a beauty contest with conventional and organic foods ... and the viewing beholders would be mostly uninformed citizenry.

"Get it, dumdum?" (Whispereth the Great Gazook!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Gazoo



The irony of it all ... for it takes surface thinking (e.g. no brains) to accommodate the ongoing scam of democracy and suffrage, whether it be about GMO foods, Congressional Bill passages, or Presidential elections. Give the people the appearance of representation, and voila, you can steer them towards most any design.

Lack of a holistic understanding of Prop 37 (in our specific case) accommodates a contrived public stamp of approval (or disapproval) ... and this contrived public stamping emboldens the private interests who really run the show. Do comment on Alex Bogusky, Chico ... lets see you try and dress this establishment poster boy up in gladiator garb and place him at the head of a rubber rebellion.






Don't talk from both sides of your mouth, Chico. What you speak of immediately above are public health laws. By contrast, what Prop 37 speaks to are marketing laws (e.g. labeling laws). The marketing laws obstruct the essence of the health laws and vice versa.



We may all be opposed to GMO foods ... but some of us are surface thinkers that are either incapable of holistic thinking or in duty against it (e.g. the realm's gatekeeping guard of knights, knaves, and knuckleheads). The genuine surface thinker is easily manipulated by the power pyramid establishment, with fake promises of personal stake, e.g. representation, when in reality there is only teh appearance of representation. The gatekeeping surface thinker is a manipulator themselves, whose task then is to characterize any exposition of the Prop 37 scam, as support for Monsanto.



Let the facts hug. And let the facts mug. In either case, mugging in the open ... is degrees more sportsmanlike than mugging in the back alley of an old thread. Back alleys are better for hugging, anyways. Go hug a banana.

Pax Discerni

Are you incapable of contextual comprehension? Your focus on delivery belies your complete misunderstanding of communication. It's about the message, stupid.


This is surface-level thinking, the very same thing you accuse me of repeatedly like a broken record in your gatekeeping post.


I already did, and you ignored it, since it contradicted your ravings about everyone but you being a gatekeeper. You often ignore contradictions to your self-professed intellectual might. Or perhaps you just don't read with normal comprehension. Or perhaps, as you have demonstrated so often in the past with numerous videos and links, you simply don't bother to seek the truth, as truth-seeking is not required for your gatekeeping task.


More simple-minded, surface-level thinking. You completely ignore how Proposition 37 is a desperate attempt by the people to impede the powerful GMO juggernaut using whatever meager means are still left to them, which is almost nothing. Instead, you use mind-numbing intellectual trickery to change it into a deceptive, binary, oversimplified issue. Just like a good gatekeeper would do.


Still trying to promote yourself to the head of the class by denigrating all challengers. You are one sick cookie. Yet the description you try to hang on others fits you to a Tee.


More vacuous gatekeeping, like the bulk of your post. You are so busted, Mr. GateKeeper.

You really are a funny guy UncleSpook!

You idiotically state Europe doesn't have any labeling laws, even going as far to accuse me of lying about them, and then when I publish proof that they do in fact exist you immediately sidestep and start BS'ing about some survey that you claim discovered that European's would happily buy labeled GMO's!

Who funded these surveys that you're so confidently waving around as evidence?

As usual UncleKook you completely ignore any legitimate questions put to you!

Is this " A lesson in logical consequence" you mentioned?

You're just as pathological as Chico, monkeymunch. You tried to deceive the readership by implying that GMO foods have a foothold in the US because of the lack of labeling laws ... with the logically-implied suggestion that Prop 37 would have remedied that because it would have given consumers the choice to not buy GMO foods. You referenced Europe in this context - and this context only - namely, that consumer-directed labeling laws were the reason that GMO's are not sold in Europe.

As it is, the existing labeling laws in Europe are producer-directed, with shipments being refused entry if GMO-content in the foods exceeded fixed threshold levels. That was your first deception, e.g. to deliberately confuse consumer-directed labeling laws (e.g. the kind sought in the US by Prop 37) ... with producer-directed labeling laws (e.g. the kind in effect in Europe).

Your second deception is the implied notion - which, btw, is another logical consequence of your original misleading statements - that consumers would reject GMO foods if given the choice (via labeling). To this attempted deception, I pointed out the European trial consumer experiments with differentially labelled foods (e.g. GM, organic, and conventional) ... which yielded the surprising result of GM-labeled foods having the highest marketshare in key European markets. This result, of course, is totally contrary to your attempted deception, namely, that labeling will make GM-foods a pariah proposition (which was the putative reason for supporting Prop 37 in the first place).

I exposed both your deceptions without much effort ... because you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to understand the logical consequences of your own statements. English is a beautiful language when it is used properly. When the riff raff get a hold of it, that tends to constipate the self-contained logic inside it.



Pax To The Planet Of The Apes

ps: Give up while you're behind, ester-jester-made-for-pester ... dimwit pundit-in-polyester.

ps2: Fukk I hate myself for being so rude. But mendacitors and prevaricators simply irritate the Helsinki outta Finland for me.

There is no doubt that labeling GMO foods does give consumers a choice. Nobody is claiming that is a "remedy" or the best solution to the GMO problem.


A surprising result is not necessarily accurate, valid, or unmanipulated. If it were true that labeling GMO foods would bring them the highest market share, we would not have witnessed Monsanto and company spending all that money to convince Californians to vote against such labeling.


You exposed your foolishness and lack of empathy. It's no surprise that it took you little effort.


The opportunities to change are all around you. You need only pursue them.

Again, you've avoided answering my question!

You are so busted, Zook.

And you don't even know it.

You sit up there on your high horse, trying to grind the real truth-seekers into atomic particles, when in fact it is you that has no mass.

Let's go back to your opening post. The link that you give for your excerpt is broken, but I have corrected it here. You wave this in Andy's face as evidence that labeling laws have little to do with the market share of GM foods in Europe. You then slander Andy with utter disrespect, and do Chico for good measure. Andy politely asks "Who funded these surveys that you're so confidently waving around as evidence?" As usual when Andy asks pertinent questions, Zook falls strangely silent on the direct question and instead creates a raucous racket on some other subject to distract the noobs.

Needless to say, Andy's question was all it takes to bust you BIG TIME!

The website you quote is GMO Compass. The company behind the website is a German marketing company called Genius. Among the clients of Genius are the American Soybean Association, BASF, Bayer, EuropaBio, and Syngenta -- all leading GMO promoters.

• The American Soybean Association claims to represent soybean growers but receives funding from GM firms.
• EuropaBio is "The voice of the European biotech industry", with over 600 companies as members, including the GM giants Bayer, Monsanto, and Novartis.
• Bayer's history speaks for itself.
• Syngenta is aligned with Monsanto to monopolize and control the GM seed market.
• BASF is right there at the top of the GM food profiteers.

As for the accuracy of the poll you so happily cite in your opening post, read this. Not only do they skew the questions, they enlist their GMO cronies to skew the poll results. It's pure propaganda.

In a nutshell, GM Compass claims neutrality on GM, but is avidly pro-GM. The website is propaganda, a con, and you fell for it. Great discernment there, Zookie. Andy nailed you with that question, which you dutifully ignored, but you did remember to flame him into the ground. Falsely. And you did the same to me too. Falsely. Nice truth-seeking, wot?

How many times have I told you that you are working with woefully incomplete information? Or are you simply an employed gatekeeper, doing it on purpose?

In either case, you are so busted!