Roger that. Its just incorrect to say that selecting the best corn and only growing that is somehow similar to spider goats, or a tomato that wont break when i throw it at the wall because the skin is so leathery.

entropic_existence: Modulistic: No, we have not been adding cod genes to tomato plants to make them cold resistant for thousands of years.

That transgenic variety of tomato (and it was the gene that codes for an "antfreeze" protein that prevents water crystallization from winter flounder) was never commercialized. It was developed as an experiment to see if it would work. They also tried in tobacco plants, where it didn't work properly.

PsiChick: My attitude sucks because I know how the FDA trial process works. We're getting better, but that is no excuse for not being safe. If a doctor recommends it or if it's been around for a long time, yes, it's probably safe, but very few people get that.

I won't say that the process for drug trials couldn't be better. Registration of trials being a big improvement to be made (and starting to be made) so negative trails can't be swept under the rug. But the problem tends to be more skewed towards drugs that are ineffective getting approval for treatments versus drugs that are unsafe being approved.


And like I said, the FDA's trial structure is inherently flawed. 'Strictest of any product' doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

IIRC the approval process for GM crops is very different from the approval process for pharmaceuticals. Different regulations, different red tape, different requirements. And I believe more than the FDA is involved.

PsiChick: /There are times when Western medicine and globalization and other such 'evils' work, but there are times when spiritual medicine, localization, and not taking pills like candy are a good plan. Balance in all things, and if something's out of whack, a reasonable rule of thumb before moving on with life.
//It's not like I spend my whole day going 'ZOMG IT'S NEW ZOMG!!11!!', I just take a minute to check around before taking anything.

I hate calling it "Western-medicine", I'll take evidence based medicine thanks. An objective standard of saying whether or not a treatment is effective in what it claims to do compared to an appropriate placebo. If it works, great we use it. Conflating this with taking things like candy is a bad idea, although I agree that people (particularly in the US) are way overmedicated. You can thank the boomer generation because it is largely their fault as demanding patients who wanted a pill for everything. And direct-to-consumer marketing is an abomination, but again that is an American problem not a global one. We don't do that shiat nearly as much (if at all) elsewhere.

entropic_existence: Indubitably: Except for the fact that your monoculture relies upon synthetic chemicals to operate efficiently. Earth made food just fine before you locally. People live and think locally: why do you keep farking with the process?

We don't live in the paleolithic anymore, and I'd rather not return to it thanks. And money has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't even want to return to the society of 100 or 50 years ago thanks. Not that there isn;t value there, but overall we live in one of the absolute best period of human history in terms of people's overall health, longevity, and quality of life. There is shiat that is broken, but we don't need to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

And I don't think exclusively local. I also think regionally and globally. fark only being concerned with local concerns, I care about humanity and the world.

Indubitably: P.S. AQcross species, biatch.

AQcross?

Your simplific explanations of concern explain all. Of course we don't live in the paleolthic; you sound like you're selling something. I would argue whether we live in the "best period" of human history of not. We destroy the planet on which we live, daily. We destroy each willfully. We make chits over making love in our world. For the record: I create, think, and write globally in an effort to reeducate people to think locally while living globally, you?

Your dismissal and lack of creative thinking both spatially and visually in regards to my word on Fark speaks, man.

Please Q me never?

JK.

I think I'll rest here.

;)

sprgrss: Since 1997, Monsanto has filed 145 lawsuits and have taken 9 to trial. In every single instance, the famers were stealing Monsanto products and when caught tried to claim cross-pollination and wind blown seed. What those farmers told the press was completely different than what they included in their court filings.

Oh, lookit, a Monsanto lawsuit between 1997 and now that had nothing to do with pirating proprietary technology!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/business/monsanto-sues-dairy-in-mai n e-over-label-s-remarks-on-hormones.html

Monsanto is a VERY sue-happy company. They LOVE a lawsuit. And it's a bit of a red flag for a company to try to sue another, smaller company for that smaller company's informing their customers that they don't use the larger company's product.

Give me the information; let me decide. Capitalism implies consumers making informed choices. If I don't have access to the information, I'm not making an informed choice, ergo it isn't capitalism.

peasandcarrots: If I don't have access to the information, I'm not making an informed choice, ergo it isn't capitalism.

Well, true, but neither is the regulatory model we use.

untaken_name: I didn't. I didn't even mention "adverse reactions", only fatalities, and I find it hard to believe that the rise in drug-related deaths since the 1950s (a steady and steep rise) is not meaningful data, nor that it indicates an "incredibly good track record". So you can actually look into the issue and educate yourself, or you can refuse to do the research so your existing beliefs are not questioned. Either way, I don't really care. I only feel obligated to correct you, not convince you.

We are also have way more medications on the market, intervene in far more ailments then ever, and have far more people with ready access to more extensive medical care. That is really important to keep in mind, and not reflected in the raw numbers or even basic statistics. And from what I recall, a rather significant portion, if not the majority, of the increase in drug-related deaths (legal drugs, administered legally) is due to accidental overdose from opiod drugs. That was data from the CDC.

If you have data that says otherwise by all means point me to it, I would love to read it.

Modulistic: Roger that. Its just incorrect to say that selecting the best corn and only growing that is somehow similar to spider goats, or a tomato that wont break when i throw it at the wall because the skin is so leathery.

It is incorrect yes. Although I think the use of deliberate scare words like spider-goat, frankenfood, fish-tomato, etc to be misleading as well most of the time.

I have the occasional special experience with my girlfriend that involves "meat glue."

entropic_existence: PsiChick: My attitude sucks because I know how the FDA trial process works. We're getting better, but that is no excuse for not being safe. If a doctor recommends it or if it's been around for a long time, yes, it's probably safe, but very few people get that.

I won't say that the process for drug trials couldn't be better. Registration of trials being a big improvement to be made (and starting to be made) so negative trails can't be swept under the rug. But the problem tends to be more skewed towards drugs that are ineffective getting approval for treatments versus drugs that are unsafe being approved.


And like I said, the FDA's trial structure is inherently flawed. 'Strictest of any product' doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

IIRC the approval process for GM crops is very different from the approval process for pharmaceuticals. Different regulations, different red tape, different requirements. And I believe more than the FDA is involved.

PsiChick: /There are times when Western medicine and globalization and other such 'evils' work, but there are times when spiritual medicine, localization, and not taking pills like candy are a good plan. Balance in all things, and if something's out of whack, a reasonable rule of thumb before moving on with life.
//It's not like I spend my whole day going 'ZOMG IT'S NEW ZOMG!!11!!', I just take a minute to check around before taking anything.

I hate calling it "Western-medicine", I'll take evidence based medicine thanks. An objective standard of saying whether or not a treatment is effective in what it claims to do compared to an appropriate placebo. If it works, great we use it. Conflating this with taking things like candy is a bad idea, although I agree that people (particularly in the US) are way overmedicated. You can thank the boomer generation because it is largely their fault as demanding patients who wanted a pill for everything. And direct-to-consumer marketing is an abomination, but again that is an American ...

1) I'm not advocating we go smash all BigPharmaEVULZ headquarters or whatever. I'm just advocating caution, and while I'd disagree about where the damage is done, I think we're both saying the same thing here--use common sense and don't pick the newest drugs unless someone from med school tells you it's a good idea.

2) They're threatening to sue people for saying they don't use it and there's been jack shiat in terms of publicized evidence that it's safe (and I do mean evidence, not 'ZOMG SO GOOOD' PR bullshiat). The last people I saw doing that were the cow growth hormone folks, and that one's been linked to early puberty in children and cancer. Monsanto is a megacorporation, and we live in an oligarchy controlled by megacorporations. It's common sense to say 'hmm, this needs a bit more publicity'.

3) Medicine based on evidence would include things like the placebo effect, the effect of spirituality, and the relationship between psychology and physiology. Western medicine has none of those criteria--it emerges from the American\British culture of mythologizing science and demonizing feelings. I cannot tell you how much I hate the science 'religion' that's sprung up. It's bad science and hurts a lot of people.

entropic_existence: If you have data that says otherwise by all means point me to it, I would love to read it.

Sorry, are you not connected to the Internet? Start by googling "iatrogenic disease" and go from there. I'm not your personal researcher, unless you are willing to compensate me for my time. Reasonable rates; eip.

timujin: downstairs: Even cheap steaks have marbling of fat. How do they fake that? And are they faking the bones?

I'm not buying this.

They're saying that you could make it look like tenderloin, which is lean and isn't usually served with the bone and you can, technically... but, what really happens is a restaurant will have a piece of tenderloin that isn't round, so they'll use a little "meat glue" to reform it into that shape. They don't take "$4 stew meat" and turn it into filet mignon.

I suspect Costco was doing this. I used to buy packaged filet mignons there, but one day they started to not really look like filet mignons, except in that they were still round. There were weird bits of untasty connective tissue where there shouldn't have been. Stopped buying it and I must not have been the only one because a little while later they were gone.

Corvus: This text is now purple: And as to actual modification, we've been selectively breeding plants for tens of millennia.

Yes I always hate when people go "We are know genetically modifying our food" we have been doing that for what like 30,000 years now? All the food you eat even when you were a kid has no bearing what so ever to food that is "wild".

I really think people don't understand the agricultural revolution or what has been done to fruits/vegetable through the ages.

There is a great deal of confusion in how the anti-GMO crowd talks about things. For instance, I'm against Roundup Ready crops, because I don't want Roundup potentially in the food on my plate. But people who feel the same then too often talk about being against genetically engineered food, as if the problem is modifying plants we've messed with for thousands of years and not what they've been modified to allow.

Okay, I got some issues with this article...

When I was in High School, I worked at a Golden Corral. I was a cook there. The only sham was that a chopped steak was a hamburger without the bun.

The steaks were real. I enjoyed working the days that the butcher came in to slice up the steaks for the week. I love filet mignon and would watch him cut it up and pick my prime piece out to cook for my dinner that night.

Not sure about other places but Golden Corral does not use this meat glue.

PsiChick: 2) They're threatening to sue people for saying they don't use it and there's been jack shiat in terms of publicized evidence that it's safe (and I do mean evidence, not 'ZOMG SO GOOOD' PR bullshiat). The last people I saw doing that were the cow growth hormone folks, and that one's been linked to early puberty in children and cancer. Monsanto is a megacorporation, and we live in an oligarchy controlled by megacorporations. It's common sense to say 'hmm, this needs a bit more publicity'.


Monsanto != GM. Monsanto is one company. I'm not a fan of Monsanto or their business practices in general, I'm not even a fan of all of their products. But basing your view of GM product safety and GM crops in general on one company is just plain wrong. Bovine Growth Hormone similarly has nothing to do with genetic modification. They were giving cows doses of growth hormone to stimulate milk production. That was banned in Canada by the way (unless it was later allowed) although not for human safety reasons. We banned it because farmer's didn't want it (Canadian government doesn't buy excess milk like the US government does) although the reason given was that it caused arthritis in the cows (true) so was banned for animal welfare reasons.Anyway, a digression but the point being that that isn't a GM thing.

As for GM safety you have to keep in mind that anything they are adding is generally a gene from another crop. It produces a protein that we already eat. Or the source is a bacterial gene, again often something we already eat or say in the case of Bt something already evaluated for its safety. Generally the resulting protein should be identical, and they would have to prove that it is anyway, and it won't significantly alter any of the rest of the proteins produced by the plant. Now in the case of things like Bt there are some other potential areas of concern, such as what the dosage would be by consuming the plant due to what tissues the Bt gene is expressed in compared to plants being sprayed with Bt. And I acknowledge that technology limitations have meant that could be problematic. But new molecular technology becoming available can change that and make things far more precise.



3) Medicine based on evidence would include things like the placebo effect, the effect of spirituality, and the relationship between psychology and physiology. Western medicine has none of those criteria--it emerges from the American\British culture of mythologizing science and demonizing feelings. I cannot tell you how much I hate the science 'religion' that's sprung up. It's bad science and hurts a lot of people.

I would include spirituality in with psychology. Its a pretty diffuse term to begin with. And the relationship between psychology and physiology is really the major thing underlying the placebo effect to begin with. The placebo effect is quite interesting and something that needs to be studied more in its own right but it is still the best comparison we have to study if a treatment is effective or not.

I'm not saying feelings aren't important, clearly the right sort of personal connection and attention to the mental state and feelings of patients can have a large impact on health outcomes. And attention to that is something people in the "western medicine" community are actually starting to pay more attention to.

entropic_existence: PsiChick: 2) They're threatening to sue people for saying they don't use it and there's been jack shiat in terms of publicized evidence that it's safe (and I do mean evidence, not 'ZOMG SO GOOOD' PR bullshiat). The last people I saw doing that were the cow growth hormone folks, and that one's been linked to early puberty in children and cancer. Monsanto is a megacorporation, and we live in an oligarchy controlled by megacorporations. It's common sense to say 'hmm, this needs a bit more publicity'.


Monsanto != GM. Monsanto is one company. I'm not a fan of Monsanto or their business practices in general, I'm not even a fan of all of their products. But basing your view of GM product safety and GM crops in general on one company is just plain wrong. Bovine Growth Hormone similarly has nothing to do with genetic modification. They were giving cows doses of growth hormone to stimulate milk production. That was banned in Canada by the way (unless it was later allowed) although not for human safety reasons. We banned it because farmer's didn't want it (Canadian government doesn't buy excess milk like the US government does) although the reason given was that it caused arthritis in the cows (true) so was banned for animal welfare reasons.Anyway, a digression but the point being that that isn't a GM thing.

As for GM safety you have to keep in mind that anything they are adding is generally a gene from another crop. It produces a protein that we already eat. Or the source is a bacterial gene, again often something we already eat or say in the case of Bt something already evaluated for its safety. Generally the resulting protein should be identical, and they would have to prove that it is anyway, and it won't significantly alter any of the rest of the proteins produced by the plant. Now in the case of things like Bt there are some other potential areas of concern, such as what the dosage would be by consuming the plant due to what tissues the Bt gene is expressed in compare ...

Pffft.

Man, please don't insult my intelligence.

You have more to prove industrially than I do...

People growing food to feed their family effectively predates chits, man.

;)

Thorak: James F. Campbell: And it's not the case at all that GMO crops are regularly monoculture. Nope, not at all. Not the case at all that a large part our food supply is made up of GMO monocultures, leaving us dangerously susceptible to blight, climate change, or other factors. Nope.

No more than it ever has been, really. Farmers have been sharing seed crop and the life for the same tens of millenia you got called out on. You've always got some just making the stuff that's popular and widespread, and a few others playing genetic games to try and improve on the basic stock. Sure, when there's a blight that hits the main strain, it's disastrous, but GMO crops are no more vulnerable than our crops have ever been, and are arguably stronger since they can be tweaked to be more resistant to said blights. We now have the capacity to see an entire crop lost to a blight, and see the GMO-modified variant resistant to said blight available on the market shortly thereafter. It won't save the crop that was hit, but it'll save the population from widespread famine.

There's always been monocultures. If anything, GMO allows for GREATER variation, not less.

GMO allows for greater variation, but the free market failure that companies like Monsanto are perpetrating does not. Farmers are being sued out of existence, essentially for the crime of farming non-GMO crops one field over. Eventually, there will be no one left who can afford not to be part of the monoculture.

GMOs are not inherently evil, but the way large corporations are manipulating the laws and the market is very, very bad for all of us. Genetic strains should NOT be patentable. Period.

untaken_name: Sorry, are you not connected to the Internet? Start by googling "iatrogenic disease" and go from there. I'm not your personal researcher, unless you are willing to compensate me for my time. Reasonable rates; eip.

Dude, you claimed I was uninformed and talked like you had actual numbers at your disposal. I responded with a reference to data I had read. And iatrogenic disease includes a hell of a lot more things than deaths from prescription medications (legally administered).

I have seen data, and am currently looking at data, that shows an estimate of about 100,000 deaths a year from "non-error, negative effect of drugs." But that is just a raw number, on its own it doesn't really tell us a whole lot. Some of that increase is from the general increase in drug prescriptions, some of which is a good thing and some of which is not.

The CDC data seemed to include accidental overdoses of pain killers in to this category because it isn't necessarily a medical error.

PsiChick: /Yes, I'm serious.
//Don't take any drugs that haven't been around for fifty years.

If I followed your advice I would be dead, as would many other Americans, so no, thank you.

You might want to look up "false positive" and "false negative" as they relate to drug testings, and the problems with each. The key thing to focus on is how it's impossible to eliminate either, and attempts to get one below a certain point cause the other to increase.

If anything, the FDA is TOO cautious.

Indubitably: Pffft.

Man, please don't insult my intelligence.

You have more to prove industrially than I do...

People growing food to feed their family effectively predates chits, man.

I'm not talking about money. Please stop equating science with greed. And I'm not affiliated with agriculture at all. But I am a scientists, and I happen to know a thing or two about genetics. I did my PhD studying evolution and now work on human genetic diseases. I also grew up growing my own food, and was helping my father plant some potatoes this afternoon while I am visiting for this weekend. I love some great vegetables out of a garden I planted, took care of, and watched grow. But I wouldn't be afraid to plant my own GM crops if I cared to, especially if they were going to be more resistant to stress like drought, or require less inputs. There are a lot of GM crops on the market right now that don't achieve this but there are lots of academics, who aren't working for agribusinesses, who are working on developing GM crops that can really make a positive impact on both the environment and on human health.

And sure, I'll accept that GM crops have more of a hurdle to overcome than a crop that isn't. But if explaining, albeit somewhat simplistically, the genetics of GM crops and what is actually going on when you insert a gene from one organism in to another is insulting your intelligence well, that's just sad.

Z-clipped: GMO allows for greater variation, but the free market failure that companies like Monsanto are perpetrating does not. Farmers are being sued out of existence, essentially for the crime of farming non-GMO crops one field over. Eventually, there will be no one left who can afford not to be part of the monoculture.

GMOs are not inherently evil, but the way large corporations are manipulating the laws and the market is very, very bad for all of us. Genetic strains should NOT be patentable. Period.

I agree that companies like Monsanto are pretty damn evil. And while I am against patenting discovered genes, or patenting the generic idea of "inserting gene A in to Gene B" specific strains do need to be patented for obvious economic reasons. But the patents need to be more restricted in scope than they currently are and more time-limited. Like how drug patents are 5-10 years before generics can be made for instance. And you can only patent the specific strain you created.

ciberido: If anything, the FDA is TOO cautious

The real problem is that too much of the work the FDA should be doing is offloaded on the drug manufacturers themselves, giving them far too much opportunity to cook the books. All trails need to be registered with complete transparency of the trail process and all outcomes and there needs to be far more third party involvement.

Thank god this hasn't spread to the deli counter yet. I'll take my turkey sliced from a vaguely oval shaped 15 lb chunk of boneless natural goodness wrapped in plastic.

PsiChick: meat0918: coco ebert: Ugh. My hubby is trying to export food products from the U.S. to Switzerland and is running into hurdles because of all the GMO in the food here. Good lord is there a lot of GMO- I had no idea. Of course Western Europe doesn't want any of that sh*t in their food.

I still don't understand why, besides technophobia.

Yes, Monsanto's and the other giant agribusinesses are dirty sick farks, but the technology is sound. BT in corn is one objection, I understand, but what about the "enviropig". It's engineered so the pigs can digest the phosphorus in their fodder rather than needed supplements in their feed. That phosphorus ends up in the water and fuels algae blooms and dead zones.

Yes, it is treating a symptom (millions of pigs in CAFOs), but we aren't going to kill demand for pork any time soon.

//Newest conspiracy theory I've heard is that BT crops are an attempt to kill organic farmers that rely on organic BT pesticides by selecting for BT resistant pests.

The problem is that it a) makes it possible for farmers to abuse animals by denying them exercise and leaving them in cages all day, and b) is completely untested. No one knows what genetically altering food does. The FDA's trial stages are the problem in this: They begin by testing the drug for 'will it kill everyone', then test for 'will it work', then release it to the general public as a test of whether it will cause long-term side effects.

/Yes, I'm serious.
//Don't take any drugs that haven't been around for fifty years.

Jane, you ignorant slut.

Indubitably: you are cluelessly paid

Dont I wish

untaken_name: waaaah linebreaks

its from a pdf. dont like it? page down. I know that key is pretty far away to reach

Didn't Arby's perfect tranglutaminase "roast beef" years ago?
It's that rainbow gasoline sheen on the surface that really freaks me out.

Meat glue?

Oh FUUUUUUUU - is Outback one to use transglutaminase? Please, no!

entropic_existence: Indubitably: Pffft.

Man, please don't insult my intelligence.

You have more to prove industrially than I do...

People growing food to feed their family effectively predates chits, man.

I'm not talking about money. Please stop equating science with greed. And I'm not affiliated with agriculture at all. But I am a scientists, and I happen to know a thing or two about genetics. I did my PhD studying evolution and now work on human genetic diseases. I also grew up growing my own food, and was helping my father plant some potatoes this afternoon while I am visiting for this weekend. I love some great vegetables out of a garden I planted, took care of, and watched grow. But I wouldn't be afraid to plant my own GM crops if I cared to, especially if they were going to be more resistant to stress like drought, or require less inputs. There are a lot of GM crops on the market right now that don't achieve this but there are lots of academics, who aren't working for agribusinesses, who are working on developing GM crops that can really make a positive impact on both the environment and on human health.

And sure, I'll accept that GM crops have more of a hurdle to overcome than a crop that isn't. But if explaining, albeit somewhat simplistically, the genetics of GM crops and what is actually going on when you insert a gene from one organism in to another is insulting your intelligence well, that's just sad.

Z-clipped: GMO allows for greater variation, but the free market failure that companies like Monsanto are perpetrating does not. Farmers are being sued out of existence, essentially for the crime of farming non-GMO crops one field over. Eventually, there will be no one left who can afford not to be part of the monoculture.

GMOs are not inherently evil, but the way large corporations are manipulating the laws and the market is very, very bad for all of us. Genetic strains should NOT be patentable. Period.

I agree that companies like Monsanto are pretty damn evil. And wh ...

Thank you for your intelligent reply. *bow*

However, your rosy, entitled world-view is subject to local economix. I doubt your neighbors enjoy as enlightened a view and experience as yours.
So it goes...

But, whatever, right?

Mix and match.

I had a "ribeye" at a chain called Rock Bottom about three years ago, and I'm pretty sure this was the kind of thing I got. It was like chunks of low-grade beef interspersed with big chunks of gristle. I couldn't believe how bad it was...I couldn't believe that any place could stay in business selling such low-grade shiat. My plate was full of inedible bits of crud when I was finished.

I won't say I'd never eat there again. Everybody has his price. You give me, say, $1000, and I'd eat another one of those shiat steaks again.

Farking American food companies...they sell you dogshiat, charge you top dollar, and they're full of outraged innocence when they get called on it.

Stinkyy: Oh FUUUUUUUU - is Outback one to use transglutaminase? Please, no!

As we continue to hoover these delicious things down.

Corvus: This is actually very dangerous because the dangerous parts of the meat for your health is the outside because it could be contaminated.

Meh. It's run through a high-percentage ammonia bath before it's packaged out, so ts'allgood, right?

balisane: I don't eat enough meat to patronize my local butcher that often, but goddamn if that man hasn't cut me some of the best steaks to ever grace a grill. Some things really do deserve their own shops and their own specialists.

Agreed. Meat and bread for sure. Miss them so much from my time in Europe.

Lawnchair: Corvus: This is actually very dangerous because the dangerous parts of the meat for your health is the outside because it could be contaminated.

Meh. It's run through a high-percentage ammonia bath before it's packaged out, so ts'allgood, right?

I sense Dick.

Guess what?

Tread carefully, asshole, for I will eat you whole.

Nepotism fails every time, not-friend.

Does it?

Try harder, Dick.

For you seem flaccid...;)

Indubitably: Tread carefully, asshole, for I will eat you whole.

You're just looking for a fight aren't you? How much have you had to drink?

Meat glue AGAIN?!?

Sigh.

This is a non-story being blown up by the press.

1) Transglutaminase is expensive. it's mainly used in modernist cooking and for thickening.

2) Transglutaminase does not unify separate pieces of meat into one solid piece. There's a reason it's called meat glue. Transglutaminase just sticks the pieces together. If you were served a steak that was made up of glued together chunks you'd know the moment you cut into it as the glue joints fail long before the meat cuts. Raw meat is even easier, you can pull apart meat glue joints.

3) There has never been a documented case where anyone was shown to have misrepresented glued meat as a whole steak.

Someone heard of Transglutaminase, heard it's nickname was meat glue and started fear mongering, nothing more.

sprgrss: majestic: sprgrss: ambercat:
Oh Jesus, not this bullshiat again. The farmers in question who were sued by Monsanto were sued because they were caught using pirated Monsanto seed. Not because of cross-pollination. In every single instance, which by the way is not many (Monsanto is not a very litigious corporation), the farmers in question claimed that they were not using Monsanto seed, but were caught with copious amounts of Round-Up. If they weren't using Monsanto seed, there would have been zero reason for them to have had that much Round-Up because Round-Up would have killed all non-Monsanto plants it was sprayed it.

Would that not be the basis of their claim, though? That their crops were super pollinated by Monsato's strain and, therefore, would only be controlled by Round-Up?

No. Roundup ready crops can be sprayed with Roundup and will not die. The non-Roundup ready crop, if sprayed with Roundup will die. It is completely illogical to try to kill off Roundup ready crops by spraying them with a chemical that they are resistant too while killing the crop you didn't want destroyed.

Since 1997, Monsanto has filed 145 lawsuits and have taken 9 to trial. In every single instance, the famers were stealing Monsanto products and when caught tried to claim cross-pollination and wind blown seed. What those farmers told the press was completely different than what they included in their court filings.

Another way of saying that is that they only thought they could win 9 of the 145 lawsuits they filed. The farmers still had to pay for lawyers to deal with the 136 cases that didn't make it to trial. Just because a few people try to game the system doesn't invalidate the fact that pollen is an issue for some people.

Purity is also a big deal to people who sell seeds, and seed companies who sell non-GMO seeds DO test their seeds constantly, and have trouble keeping them free of non-GMO to the point where for certain crops like corn, they will only put disclaimers on the packets saying that they have tried to keep them GMO free but that they can't guarantee it. But I suppose you think they're out there sneaking GMO corn into their crops so that independent testing labs can find it and that will increase sales due to paranoia, because individuals and small business owners are the only ones who are ever dishonest, and not large corporations like Monsanto.

Yummy. Pink Slime.

/Beef based-product.

Something something filet mignon something something glue something something...

*reads further down*

*******Bacon Sundae!*******

Where do I get one?

/bacon

I had a steak at Logan's 2 weeks ago and I couldn't even finish it. Had a suspicion of this but didn't think it was possible. This explains a lot!

/I know, what did I expect?
//Alone on a business trip
///So. Very. Alone.

cowtipn: I had a steak at Logan's 2 weeks ago and I couldn't even finish it. Had a suspicion of this but didn't think it was possible. This explains a lot!

No, your steak at Logans was probably some Grade C beef cut from the nether regions of a cow pumped full of steroids, vac packed with tenderizers, enzymes and chemical flavour enhancers then shipped by freighter from Australia, taking 3 months to reach a massive warehouse in El Salvador, where it was stored for several weeks, then loaded onto a truck and shipped to your local Logans.

entropic_existence: I meant calling labeling issues like they use to make cheaper fish sound like a fancier fish. Chilean Sea Bass for instance. I'm not in favour of it because I think it is misleading. I think it is usually stupid for a consumer to not want to eat whatever it really is in the first place, but I don't think naming it something it isn't (or so it sounds similar to something fancy) is good either.

I have mostly agreed with you in this thread, but I have to draw the line here. It's not the Slimehead/Toothfish/Rat Tail/Pilchard's fault it was given an unappetizing name 100 years ago. They're delicious, and there's nothing wrong with giving them a new name fi it means people will buy them. The food culture surrounding fish, and the perception of quality specifically, is extremely arbitrary and oscillates wildly from generation to generation. Fin fish are not a sustainable resource for mass consumption, so anything that diffuses the market attraction to a single type of fish benefits everyone (except the assholes trying to get rich quick at the expense of the rest of us).

entropic_existence: I agree that companies like Monsanto are pretty damn evil. And while I am against patenting discovered genes, or patenting the generic idea of "inserting gene A in to Gene B" specific strains do need to be patented for obvious economic reasons. But the patents need to be more restricted in scope than they currently are and more time-limited. Like how drug patents are 5-10 years before generics can be made for instance. And you can only patent the specific strain you created.

I don't really see the "obvious economic reasons" you're assuming here (unless it's the tired canard that no one will innovate, ever, without patents), but I'll agree that your plan is reasonable and would be a definite step in the right direction.

I'd much rather see government funded/non-profit research to develop better food dominating the market, because agribusiness is only really concerned with innovating cheaper food. And I'd rather have tomatoes 4 months a year that actually taste good, than the disgusting, watery, flavorless abominations that supermarkets sell year-round. We also need to get away from the fresh=better idea. Good vegetables canned (for winter eating) taste better than the "fresh" mass-produced crap you get from 1000 miles away.

Z-clipped: The food culture surrounding fish, and the perception of quality specifically, is extremely arbitrary and oscillates wildly from generation to generation.

Exactly. When was the last time you saw Orange Roughy for sale?

James F. Campbell: Yeah, it's just hypothetical, and I can't find any solid numbers at the moment on just how reliant we are on monocultures, but I am willing to bet that over 50% of the food consumed in the United States originates from a monoculture.

Before 2001, I would see news items about various fungi sweeping through various regions, and locally about how a fungus was working its way north that killed soybeans. Farmers around here tend to rotate soybeans and feed corn. Local news tends these days to be about people helping special kids ride horses, and about how the Obamanation might try to take their guns along with their jobs.

The food situation scares the hell out of me, more than Osama ever did. Even if we do have intelligent people working to change our foodsources to make them more resistant to disease, drought, etc., nature still has its ways.

I can't really comment on Monsanto. I know someone who's involved in the process of making the "Frankenfoods," and she thinks people are idiots for being against it. I still have misgivings about taking genetic material from living things that would never interbreed, mix them, plant them outdoors, then see what happens. Oh, and then treat that genetic intellectual property the same way we treat piracy. Yeah, there's no way, say, a flock of birds could come along, eat GM corn, crap out enough of a kernel to have it grow, then have that corn interbreed naturally with other corn. Nope, couldn't happen, must be theft.

Z-clipped: Thorak: James F. Campbell: And it's not the case at all that GMO crops are regularly monoculture. Nope, not at all. Not the case at all that a large part our food supply is made up of GMO monocultures, leaving us dangerously susceptible to blight, climate change, or other factors. Nope.

No more than it ever has been, really. Farmers have been sharing seed crop and the life for the same tens of millenia you got called out on. You've always got some just making the stuff that's popular and widespread, and a few others playing genetic games to try and improve on the basic stock. Sure, when there's a blight that hits the main strain, it's disastrous, but GMO crops are no more vulnerable than our crops have ever been, and are arguably stronger since they can be tweaked to be more resistant to said blights. We now have the capacity to see an entire crop lost to a blight, and see the GMO-modified variant resistant to said blight available on the market shortly thereafter. It won't save the crop that was hit, but it'll save the population from widespread famine.

There's always been monocultures. If anything, GMO allows for GREATER variation, not less.

GMO allows for greater variation, but the free market failure that companies like Monsanto are perpetrating does not. Farmers are being sued out of existence, essentially for the crime of farming non-GMO crops one field over. Eventually, there will be no one left who can afford not to be part of the monoculture.

GMOs are not inherently evil, but the way large corporations are manipulating the laws and the market is very, very bad for all of us. Genetic strains should NOT be patentable. Period.

I agree with what Z-clipped said very, very strongly. It's not necessarily that GMOs are evil or good, per se (although tossing a product out there without testing it because testing is just too impractical because it takes too long to derive anything meaningful is a tad dodgy in my book) it's this ... what people have been referring to as a "monoculture" and how Monsanto goes about its business practices that are the problem.

Patenting food? It's borderline insane villainy, like the bad guy from Total Recall that forced people to buy air. Patenting shoes or microchips is one thing, but patenting a thing required for life is just asking for criminal and corrupt abuses.

[gently restrains Indubitably with soft kitty tail]

There is a proper place in the media for warnings of hazards.

There is NO place for hysteria or deliberate misinformation carefully
designed to create panic, instead of correct education.

The mass media has the potential of being the greatest educational mechanism in world history.

I hate watching it be grossly misused.

I remember the Alar/Washington apples hysteria from some years ago. Watching how it was done made me quite furious. It was needless.

Patenting life forms and genomes should never have been permitted in the first place.

Design? Yes. Experiment under very tightly controlled conditions? Fine.
Discover what works in transgenics, and what does NOT work.

Man must explore.

Sue farmers into the ground because you deliberately refused to warn them or instruct them to institute breeze gaps in the fields so the accidental drift of GMO pollens would be reduced? Stupid. Venal. Self defeating.

Monsanto galumphs idiotically onward and gains a sh*treputation.
There's a symbolic tar pit in its future, I wager.

Eat local is a good thing.

There's a sector of international commerce called Fair Trade.
This is also a good thing.

Balance. Walk the middle road.

See the good in things as well as the negatives, percieve with clear vision.

Avoid fear.

;3

Z-clipped: I have mostly agreed with you in this thread, but I have to draw the line here. It's not the Slimehead/Toothfish/Rat Tail/Pilchard's fault it was given an unappetizing name 100 years ago. They're delicious, and there's nothing wrong with giving them a new name fi it means people will buy them. The food culture surrounding fish, and the perception of quality specifically, is extremely arbitrary and oscillates wildly from generation to generation. Fin fish are not a sustainable resource for mass consumption, so anything that diffuses the market attraction to a single type of fish benefits everyone (except the assholes trying to get rich quick at the expense of the rest of us).

Yeah my bad. Really I was thinking of the cases where they use a misleading name instead of a new name that is just more appealing. But I think for most of those cases it wasn't so much sustainability people had in mind but making a profit off of by-catches that had shiatty unappealing names. So the cases where they give it a new common name that makes it seem like it is closely related to some fin fish and merely another variety, etc. I think that is deliberately misleading.

But yes we should be promoting eating more sustainable fish always. Maybe that means renaming, just don't be deliberately misleading about it.

Z-clipped: I don't really see the "obvious economic reasons" you're assuming here (unless it's the tired canard that no one will innovate, ever, without patents), but I'll agree that your plan is reasonable and would be a definite step in the right direction.

Its not totally a tired canard, overused and slightly hyperbolic maybe but patents do allow innovators to recoup R&D costs, which are expensive. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars or more to develop a new GM crop, similar to pharmaceuticals. I think there needs to be major reforms in patent law, don't get me wrong (the recent Mayo Clinic case was a good step by the US Supreme Court) but getting rid of them entirely for whole sectors is a bad idea.


I'd much rather see government funded/non-profit research to develop better food dominating the market, because agribusiness is only really concerned with innovating cheaper food. And I'd rather have tomatoes 4 months a year that actually taste good, than the disgusting, watery, flavorless abominations that supermarkets sell year-round. We also need to get away from the fresh=better idea. Good vegetables canned (for winter eating) taste better than the "fresh" mass-produced crap you get from 1000 miles away.


There is quite a bit of government-funded and non-profit research in crop science and GM crop development. Bio-Casava, Golden Rice, the resistant Papaya that saved them from being wiped out, those all were or are being developed in University labs. There definitely needs to be more of it because their focus is on making things beneficial for people and the environment.

PlatypusPuke: Patenting food? It's borderline insane villainy, like the bad guy from Total Recall that forced people to buy air. Patenting shoes or microchips is one thing, but patenting a thing required for life is just asking for criminal and corrupt abuses.

Only if you could patent corn itself (you can't) along with any and all derivations or something. There needs to be tighter guidelines in place, and they should expire after a certain number of years like pharmaceuticals but otherwise it is pretty similar. It IS a much more involved process than traditional breeding. Doing away with GM crop patents entirely is probably a bit to extreme but there is room for significant reform.

PlatypusPuke: (although tossing a product out there without testing it because testing is just too impractical because it takes too long to derive anything meaningful is a tad dodgy in my book)

No GM crop has hit market untested.