Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Controversial Californian Proposition 37 test case on GM labeling defeated.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,321 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    People will pay the extra for organic products, (Savings will be made up on family medical bills) .

    Any genuine proof for that?


  • Options
    #33
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,802 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    super_furry wrote: »
    Any genuine proof for that?
    couple studies i think but again, nothing stops people from doing this already.


  • Options
    #34
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    So what.

    People will pay the extra for organic products, (Savings will be made up on family medical bills) .

    I don't give a damn about manufacturer incorporating pesticides and other chemicals into their products to 'improve'' their yields (and profits) as long as they declare it on their packaging.

    People don't like the wool being pulled over their eyes.

    GM and pesticides are two completely different things. "genetically modified" i.e: DNA has been altered. No amount of pesticides will change DNA.

    Having a greater tonnage per acre is an improvement, so what are the inverted commas for? :confused:
    Also, improved profits is a problem why? You do know what the whole idea behind a business is don't you?

    Also, so what? If you care about having oxygen to breathe, you should care about not turning every rainforest into organic farmland.


Advertisement