If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Now that Europe and Asia are finally getting over their irrational fear of genetically modified foods, it's time for the U.S. to lose its collective mind   (slate.com) divider line 71
    More: Obvious, gmos, genetically modified food, United States, genetic modifications, Europe, phobias, EU Commission, British media  
•       •       •

2300 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jun 2012 at 1:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-18 10:29:44 AM
How many of our foods have not been altered by humanity? I bet it's not many.
 
2012-06-18 10:57:19 AM
Subby should have said America, so he could have made the headline a joke about 70/80s rock bands...

Something about your having the Wildest Dreams about your Sister Golden Hair named Carrie after eating GM foods...
 
2012-06-18 01:25:50 PM

Slives: Something about your having the Wildest Dreams about your Sister Golden Hair named Carrie after eating GM foods...


While on the Ventura Highway
 
2012-06-18 01:27:29 PM
There are certain terms that make people irrational as soon as they are mentioned. "Genetically modified" and "radiation" are two of those terms.
 
2012-06-18 01:28:59 PM
Yes, labeling GM foods as such is "devolving" and "losing it's its collective mind". The grown-up solution is to make sure people who would like to avoid these products don't have the means to do so, because agribusiness scientists think their reasons are silly.

//don't have a problem with GM foods
//don't have a problem with them being labeled
 
2012-06-18 01:30:47 PM
"Genetically-modified" sounds sexy and cutting edge. "Chemically-treated" is more accurate.
 
2012-06-18 01:30:56 PM
eloquentscience.com
 
2012-06-18 01:31:46 PM
FTA:it's time for the U.S. to lose it's collective mind

I agree. I heard my dad use the term Big Agri-Business in conversation yesterday during our father's day call. If he has latched on to it, the rumble and grumble can't be far behind.
 
kab
2012-06-18 01:33:19 PM
It's ok, Monsanto etc, will continue throwing money at the decision makers, and you'll eventually change your mind. Or simply have no actual option.
 
2012-06-18 01:33:57 PM
I don't know about all of you, but when I have questions about food safety, the first person I turn to is the guy wearing the tomato suit covered in googly eyes.
 
2012-06-18 01:37:08 PM
So how long before the turducken species will be ready for harvest?
 
2012-06-18 01:39:12 PM
Genetically modified food will be our ruin. Not because of some ominous disease or illness it will introduce. But because intellectual property rights and what companies like Monsanto do with them.
 
2012-06-18 01:47:06 PM

Honest Bender: Genetically modified food will be our ruin. Not because of some ominous disease or illness it will introduce. But because intellectual property rights and what companies like Monsanto do with them.


Ultimately, this. The food itself is perfectly safe, but the companies producing them are pulling some major shenanigans in the process of making and/or marketing them. Of course, the means to deal with this don't remotely resemble what most anti-GMO advocates propose, because they're too busy going after the wrong problem entirely.
 
2012-06-18 01:48:46 PM

Honest Bender: Genetically modified food will be our ruin. Not because of some ominous disease or illness it will introduce. But because intellectual property rights and what companies like Monsanto do with them.


It is really more complicated then that. Farmers are already discovering that using both GM and regular hybrids on alternating fields provides a great deal of benefit to the non-GM plants. So it is unlikely that GM will ever completely dominate the market. They will just fall into the special use roll and as a yield improver. Once the labeling issue goes away the farmers can more easily do this since the harvests don't have to be separate.
 
2012-06-18 01:53:35 PM
If you say so, Slate. Europe is a big place, and just because the laws there are loosening doesn't mean the public is any less crazy.

Italian anti-GM group wins destruction of 30-year-old olive tree project
 
2012-06-18 01:58:42 PM

WorldCitizen: How many of our foods have not been altered by humanity? I bet it's its not many.


/pet peeve
 
2012-06-18 01:59:06 PM
Down with the calorie companies!

www.onemetal.com

/pic hot like a japanese sex toy in a thailand brothel
 
2012-06-18 02:01:50 PM
first of all science is a tool of the devil
 
2012-06-18 02:04:23 PM

WorldCitizen: How many of our foods have not been altered by humanity? I bet it's not many.


Maybe not genetically in labs, but rest assured through selective breeding etc. the foods we eat are light years different than the plants they started out as.
 
2012-06-18 02:06:45 PM

hstein3: If you say so, Slate. Europe is a big place, and just because the laws there are loosening doesn't mean the public is any less crazy.

Italian anti-GM group wins destruction of 30-year-old olive tree project


Concern that the cherries will cross polinate with food crops?... am I wrong on the assumption that the fruit is genetically the parrent tree and the seeds are the ones holding the "new" genetic material. So no risk to the general population. There may be issues with wild species but who in their right mind picks wild fruit without some knowledge of the plant/tree?
 
2012-06-18 02:23:26 PM
As long as you are not livestock or Philippine villagers you have nothing to worry about, yet. }:-)>

/do your own damn research ima tired of spoonfeeding know-it-alls.
 
2012-06-18 02:35:39 PM
I think the bigger issue is that Monsanto modifies some seeds, then those seeds get introduced naturally into the environment, and then Monsanto goes off taking everybody to court for "stealing their seeds".
 
2012-06-18 02:36:21 PM
I'm not concerned about eating the food. I'm concerned about what happens to the plants already growing.

Do we let the GM produce pollen to cross with existing varieties, or do we let Monsanto sterilize them forcing farmers to shell out every year because they cannot hold back seed that they grew for the next year? I think it is already illegal to hold back seed for copywrite reasons, but I am not sure.
 
2012-06-18 02:41:11 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Yes, labeling GM foods as such is "devolving" and "losing it's its collective mind". The grown-up solution is to make sure people who would like to avoid these products don't have the means to do so, because agribusiness scientists think their reasons are silly.

//don't have a problem with GM foods
//don't have a problem with them being labeled


The labeling argument might be fine save for three problems.

1) Contamination (not in an unhealthy sense, but in a 'you got your GM crop in my WildType silo.') There's a good reason why the USDA guidelines for an 'Organic' crop is 95% pure. Not 100%. Because it's hard to screen an entire batch for modification.
2) The public is farking stupid. Seriously stupid. They don't understand what Bt is. Or 2,4-D. Or any number of a host of things about what we do to genetically modify plants. Instead we have Anti-GM advocates spouting a bunch of uniformed nonsense and people believe them. Groups will be hesitant about investing in GM research if they think that they won't sell because the collective society doesn't farking understand what's being done (neither do they want to. Anybody I explain to tends to ignore me as a shill. I dislike Monsanto as much as anybody.)
3) Labeling creates a segregating mindset. When interviewing for work, there was funding opportunity. A fair bit of funding, but only for 'ORGANIC' Soy. We'd do the exact same thing to Soy, but using stone age tools and the work was going to take twice as long. (10 years to testing as opposed to 5). We were not allowed to do any of our normal techniques because of this mindset that there is 'Organic' and there is 'GM'.

Labeling, while well intentioned, is not reasonable until the debate either gets informed, or you can prove ACTUAL harm. Feed study level harm. And that one French and italian group got its butt handed to it when they tried to massage statistics into saying there was harm.
 
2012-06-18 02:44:07 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Yes, labeling GM foods as such is "devolving" and "losing it's its collective mind". The grown-up solution is to make sure people who would like to avoid these products don't have the means to do so, because agribusiness scientists think their reasons are silly.

//don't have a problem with GM foods
//don't have a problem with them being labeled


And GM Advocates in general don't have a problem so much with the notion of labeling per se, I support the rights of people to make their own informed decisions, but in the tactics the anti-GMO lobby are using and the language used in the bills. Which are full of misinformation. Michael Eisen had a good post up about this recently and is now doing a GMO Faq series that is quite good.

kab: It's ok, Monsanto etc, will continue throwing money at the decision makers, and you'll eventually change your mind. Or simply have no actual option.


There is a difference between Monsanto and GMO. One can not like Monsanto and their business practices, maybe even some of their specific products, and still support GM agriculture.

Millennium: Honest Bender: Genetically modified food will be our ruin. Not because of some ominous disease or illness it will introduce. But because intellectual property rights and what companies like Monsanto do with them.

Ultimately, this. The food itself is perfectly safe, but the companies producing them are pulling some major shenanigans in the process of making and/or marketing them. Of course, the means to deal with this don't remotely resemble what most anti-GMO advocates propose, because they're too busy going after the wrong problem entirely.


I suspect the recent court-case (Mayo Clinic vs Prometheus Laboratories) decided by the US supreme court will have an impact on things down the road in terms of IP and patent law, hopefully for the better.
 
2012-06-18 02:44:31 PM

snowshovel: I think the bigger issue is that Monsanto modifies some seeds, then those seeds get introduced naturally into the environment, and then Monsanto goes off taking everybody to court for "stealing their seeds".


I won't defend Monsanto willingly, but the seeds magically got swept past their natural distribution range. They were introduced deliberately into those fields. It didn't just happen.
 
2012-06-18 02:52:19 PM
There are so many legitimate issues with GMO seeds. Monsanto's in particular.
Part of the promise of GMO was that we would be able to use LESS pesticides. That is far from the case.
Roundup Ready soy is the vast majority of soy grown in this country. People eat soy to eat healthy, but monsanto modified their soy plant so you could spray roundup on it, killing all the weeds, but keeping the soy alive.
Do you want to eat soy that has been sprayed in RoundUp? I don't even want my neighbors spraying it in their yards.
Not to mention that the lack of biodiversity caused by Monsanto dramatically increases the chance of a plague or pest to wipe out an entire crop instead of a small percentage of it (which is what usually happens).
 
2012-06-18 02:57:43 PM

SuburbanCowboy: There are so many legitimate issues with GMO seeds. Monsanto's in particular.
Part of the promise of GMO was that we would be able to use LESS pesticides. That is far from the case.
Roundup Ready soy is the vast majority of soy grown in this country. People eat soy to eat healthy, but monsanto modified their soy plant so you could spray roundup on it, killing all the weeds, but keeping the soy alive.
Do you want to eat soy that has been sprayed in RoundUp? I don't even want my neighbors spraying it in their yards.
Not to mention that the lack of biodiversity caused by Monsanto dramatically increases the chance of a plague or pest to wipe out an entire crop instead of a small percentage of it (which is what usually happens).


Biodiversity is a problem that all good GM scientists will tell you is important. We keep germplasm collections to make sure there's a big supply of traits to pull from (Germplasm collections are like programmers keeping good program code on hand. Find the trait you want, cut and paste.).

As for your Roundup problem,

Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. It does this by inhibiting the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which catalyzes the reaction of shikimate-3-phosphate (S3P) and phosphoenolpyruvate to form 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (ESP).[15] ESP is subsequently dephosphorylated to chorismate, an essential precursor in plants for the aromatic amino acids: phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan.[16][17] These amino acids are used in protein synthesis and to produce secondary metabolites such as folates, ubiquinones and naphthoquinone. X-ray crystallographic studies of glyphosate and EPSPS show that glyphosate functions by occupying the binding site of the phosphoenolpyruvate, mimicking an intermediate state of the ternary enzyme substrates complex.[18] The shikimate pathway is not present in animals, which instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diet. Glyphosate has also been shown to inhibit other plant enzymes,[19][20] and also has been found to affect animal enzymes.[21]

Pulled from Wikipedia.

Glysophate does not affect you because you are not a plant.
 
2012-06-18 03:08:24 PM

Kinek: Labeling, while well intentioned, is not reasonable until the debate either gets informed, or you can prove ACTUAL harm


It's not like the GM advocates lack the funding or the initiative to combat misinformation. "The other side is dumb and might not want to buy it" is not a good argument against labeling IMO. Think about what you're advocating. "We don't care if you don't want it, we're going to feed it to you without telling you, stupid". If you think this is going to help a rational discourse about GM crops, you're high.
 
2012-06-18 03:10:06 PM

Ashtrey: I'm not concerned about eating the food. I'm concerned about what happens to the plants already growing.

Do we let the GM produce pollen to cross with existing varieties, or do we let Monsanto sterilize them forcing farmers to shell out every year because they cannot hold back seed that they grew for the next year? I think it is already illegal to hold back seed for copywrite reasons, but I am not sure.


The seed holding back is a little more complicated of an issue anyway. At least with corn and other crops where only the F1 generation hybrids are stable farmer's have bought new seed every year anyway. Forcing it isn't good I agree, but I would personally support the plants being sterile as a safety measure as long as something was worked out for small scale farmers (which are not the norm these days) and third-world producers.
 
2012-06-18 03:16:11 PM

entropic_existence: Ashtrey: I'm not concerned about eating the food. I'm concerned about what happens to the plants already growing.

Do we let the GM produce pollen to cross with existing varieties, or do we let Monsanto sterilize them forcing farmers to shell out every year because they cannot hold back seed that they grew for the next year? I think it is already illegal to hold back seed for copywrite reasons, but I am not sure.

The seed holding back is a little more complicated of an issue anyway. At least with corn and other crops where only the F1 generation hybrids are stable farmer's have bought new seed every year anyway. Forcing it isn't good I agree, but I would personally support the plants being sterile as a safety measure as long as something was worked out for small scale farmers (which are not the norm these days) and third-world producers.


This is really a damned if you do, damned if you don't argument. There's been some work into making GM tobacco only able to reproduce with itself otherwise it aborts if it mixes with wild type, but it's still in infancy.
 
2012-06-18 03:16:22 PM

SuburbanCowboy: There are so many legitimate issues with GMO seeds. Monsanto's in particular.
Part of the promise of GMO was that we would be able to use LESS pesticides. That is far from the case.
Roundup Ready soy is the vast majority of soy grown in this country. People eat soy to eat healthy, but monsanto modified their soy plant so you could spray roundup on it, killing all the weeds, but keeping the soy alive.
Do you want to eat soy that has been sprayed in RoundUp? I don't even want my neighbors spraying it in their yards.
Not to mention that the lack of biodiversity caused by Monsanto dramatically increases the chance of a plague or pest to wipe out an entire crop instead of a small percentage of it (which is what usually happens).


Farmer's have apparently been using more pesticide, but they don't have to. They COULD be using less. But yes, Monsanto doesn't care to correct that because it's more profit for them.

The Biodiversity of crops is actually a separate issue and was around long before GM agriculture hit the market.
 
2012-06-18 03:18:27 PM

Kinek: This is really a damned if you do, damned if you don't argument. There's been some work into making GM tobacco only able to reproduce with itself otherwise it aborts if it mixes with wild type, but it's still in infancy.


Yeah, and people complained about the proposed Terminator technology as well. Sure Monsanto wanted to do it because it would potentially increase their profit by eliminating seed retention entirely, but it was a valid approach to cross-pollination and contamination issues.
 
2012-06-18 03:24:10 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Kinek: Labeling, while well intentioned, is not reasonable until the debate either gets informed, or you can prove ACTUAL harm

It's not like the GM advocates lack the funding or the initiative to combat misinformation. "The other side is dumb and might not want to buy it" is not a good argument against labeling IMO. Think about what you're advocating. "We don't care if you don't want it, we're going to feed it to you without telling you, stupid". If you think this is going to help a rational discourse about GM crops, you're high.


And whenever GM advocates present a study that says 'Look, nothing happens when we feed a rat 33% GM Soy' everybody who needs to be convinced on the Anti side goes 'THE CORPORATIONS MAAAAAN, they're hiding the REAL results from you.' People don't trust the corporations. For good reason.

So the only GM advocates you have left are the USDA GM researchers, University scientists, and public consortium people. And all of those people are struggling with funding because the public has decided GM foods are evil. This lack of public funding has led them to solicit funding from Pioneer, Syngenta, Monsanto in order to keep their lights on. This again leads to the argument as above. The USDA has seen no harm in GMs. FDA? None. Even the EPA is okay with most of the stuff. Anything that does have a problem gets pulled and it's actually really easy to detect problems. There's already regulation. It already works.

But as far as the public is concerned, you might as well be printing 'CONTAINS DEATH CRYSTALS' on the packaging. Again, prove harm before you ask for labeling on this stuff. If it's bad, shouldn't it be easy to prove it?
 
2012-06-18 04:00:40 PM

Kinek: ...and also has been found to affect animal enzymes.[21]

Pulled from Wikipedia.

Glysophate does not affect you because you are not a plant.


I've got no dog in this race, but c'mon.
 
2012-06-18 04:06:50 PM

ProfessorOhki: Kinek: ...and also has been found to affect animal enzymes.[21]

Pulled from Wikipedia.

Glysophate does not affect you because you are not a plant.

I've got no dog in this race, but c'mon.


My bad.

Here.

Glyphosate is rated least dangerous in comparison to other herbicides and pesticides, such as those from the organochlorine family.[38] Roundup has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.[39] It does not bioaccumulate, and breaks down rapidly in the environment.[40]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers glyphosate to be relatively low in toxicity, and to not have carcinogenic effects.[41] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields, and with residue levels remaining at their maximum levels, and concluded no adverse effects would exist under these conditions[41] In 2007, the EPA selected glyphosate for further screening for endocrinal disruptor effects, not because of suspected effects, but because glyphosate is a widely used herbicide (the EPA has stated selection for screening does not itself imply risk).
 
2012-06-18 04:08:29 PM

ProfessorOhki: Kinek: ...and also has been found to affect animal enzymes.[21]

Pulled from Wikipedia.

Glysophate does not affect you because you are not a plant.

I've got no dog in this race, but c'mon.


I read Shikimic pathway affector and jumped to conclusions (Complete with the mat.)
 
2012-06-18 04:11:12 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Kinek: Labeling, while well intentioned, is not reasonable until the debate either gets informed, or you can prove ACTUAL harm

It's not like the GM advocates lack the funding or the initiative to combat misinformation. "The other side is dumb and might not want to buy it" is not a good argument against labeling IMO. Think about what you're advocating. "We don't care if you don't want it, we're going to feed it to you without telling you, stupid". If you think this is going to help a rational discourse about GM crops, you're high.


The problem is any information that contradicts the Anti-GM crowd's beliefs is immediately dismissed as corporate propaganda. Look at many of the comments after that article. Comments like, "How much did Monsanto pay you to write this article?" How do you combat that? I've been in online discussions where I have shown people the actual science that disproves their belief and it's like talking to a brick wall. I actually had one woman, after I showed her the science tell me, "Well, that's just your opinion."

I believe that Monsanto is the boogeyman for the real agenda of wanting to ban GM foods. It's as if the anti-GM people think that if you stop Monsanto, you stop the technology.
 
2012-06-18 04:21:35 PM
I do not have a problem with selective pollinating of plants to improve characteristics that make the plant suitable for an agrarian society.

What I do have a problem with is some egghead splicing DNA from animals in to plant DNA to make something more resistant or cheaper.

The former only works within the plasticity of the rules of nature. The latter is an abomination.

And before you tell me that the FDA/USDA/EPA have my back and its safe...I say you clearly do not pay attention. For instance, there are over 100K deaths annually due to adverse effects of FDA approved drugs. Link

/label them and let Jeebus sort it out.
 
2012-06-18 04:48:20 PM

cybernia: tallguywithglasseson: Kinek: Labeling, while well intentioned, is not reasonable until the debate either gets informed, or you can prove ACTUAL harm

It's not like the GM advocates lack the funding or the initiative to combat misinformation. "The other side is dumb and might not want to buy it" is not a good argument against labeling IMO. Think about what you're advocating. "We don't care if you don't want it, we're going to feed it to you without telling you, stupid". If you think this is going to help a rational discourse about GM crops, you're high.

The problem is any information that contradicts the Anti-GM crowd's beliefs is immediately dismissed as corporate propaganda. Look at many of the comments after that article. Comments like, "How much did Monsanto pay you to write this article?" How do you combat that? I've been in online discussions where I have shown people the actual science that disproves their belief and it's like talking to a brick wall. I actually had one woman, after I showed her the science tell me, "Well, that's just your opinion."

I believe that Monsanto is the boogeyman for the real agenda of wanting to ban GM foods. It's as if the anti-GM people think that if you stop Monsanto, you stop the technology.


I'm sure that's true, but there's things about the way they do business to be frowned upon. I think GM can be a pretty solid approach, but I (and I assume some others) dislike them specifically because of the negative attention they draw to the technology. It's more bitterness about a "this is why we can't have nice things" type scenario.
 
2012-06-18 04:58:12 PM
I find much of the anti-GM sentiment to be just as irrational and unfounded as the anti-vaccine people.
 
2012-06-18 06:54:12 PM

asurferosa: I do not have a problem with selective pollinating of plants to improve characteristics that make the plant suitable for an agrarian society.

What I do have a problem with is some egghead splicing DNA from animals in to plant DNA to make something more resistant or cheaper.

The former only works within the plasticity of the rules of nature. The latter is an abomination.

And before you tell me that the FDA/USDA/EPA have my back and its safe...I say you clearly do not pay attention. For instance, there are over 100K deaths annually due to adverse effects of FDA approved drugs. Link

/label them and let Jeebus sort it out.


Only this link has nothing to due with the deaths on part of the FDA, but rather practitioners failing to adhere to the adverse side effects and prescribe medicine that is know to cause death under certain situations. The whole point of the that link is to get medical practitioners to read up on the adverse drug reactions before prescribing. In fact, I would argue that there are tens of millions of people whose lives are saved or lengthened every year from FDA approved drugs.

And to those who think life would be better without the FDA/USDA/EPA, one only has to look back to 100 or so years ago to the industrial revolution, when soot pouring from factory chimneys covered suburban streets, snake oil was being sold on every corner, and meat was far from clean.
 
2012-06-18 07:02:32 PM
Personally I think GM is pretty damn safe. That being said they should label it as consumers have the right to know what is in their food. Don't like Monsanto fine, don't buy their products. Don't want GM food, I don't have a problem with it. You SHOULD have the choice. Hence our conservative crazies screaming FREE MARKET. If consumers don't have a problem with it, then their product will make lots of money. If they do, well it won't
 
2012-06-18 07:04:30 PM
More recently, the May issue of Oprah's magazine O ran an article wondering how GM foods "affect your health" and using discredited science to warn of risks. O also published a sidebar on "5 ways to lessen your exposure to GMOs."

Why is it always the conservatives who hate science?
 
2012-06-18 08:16:18 PM
Label these things properly so I know to avoid them like the plague...
 
2012-06-18 08:24:09 PM

Kinek: tallguywithglasseson: Kinek: Labeling, while well intentioned, is not reasonable until the debate either gets informed, or you can prove ACTUAL harm

It's not like the GM advocates lack the funding or the initiative to combat misinformation. "The other side is dumb and might not want to buy it" is not a good argument against labeling IMO. Think about what you're advocating. "We don't care if you don't want it, we're going to feed it to you without telling you, stupid". If you think this is going to help a rational discourse about GM crops, you're high.

And whenever GM advocates present a study that says 'Look, nothing happens when we feed a rat 33% GM Soy' everybody who needs to be convinced on the Anti side goes 'THE CORPORATIONS MAAAAAN, they're hiding the REAL results from you.' People don't trust the corporations. For good reason.

So the only GM advocates you have left are the USDA GM researchers, University scientists, and public consortium people. And all of those people are struggling with funding because the public has decided GM foods are evil. This lack of public funding has led them to solicit funding from Pioneer, Syngenta, Monsanto in order to keep their lights on. This again leads to the argument as above. The USDA has seen no harm in GMs. FDA? None. Even the EPA is okay with most of the stuff. Anything that does have a problem gets pulled and it's actually really easy to detect problems. There's already regulation. It already works.

But as far as the public is concerned, you might as well be printing 'CONTAINS DEATH CRYSTALS' on the packaging. Again, prove harm before you ask for labeling on this stuff. If it's bad, shouldn't it be easy to prove it?


WTF! Proove harm before asking for lableing?

Why dont you prove harm before asking for country of origin?

I could go on, but I think you get my point. I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Label it, let me make my decision, and STFU.
 
2012-06-18 08:30:50 PM
there is an inconvenient problem being swept under the rug. Honey bee hive collapse.

There was a group of scientists investigating the problem. They discovered the pollen from GM corn was carried into the hive by the bees along with normal pollen and stored in the hive. In the hive are these little baby bees called larva, and what does GM corn have spliced into the dna? BT... Bacillus thuringiensis, it attacks larva, any kind of larva, even cute fuzzy buzzy baby bee larva... And when the baby bees die, the hive dies!

Guess what happened! The GM corn makers bought the little research company, so they could 'study' it themselves!

I have not heard any more about the 'problem'... Must be, it went away! So europe is going to accept GM foods now? Groovy baby! Reminds me when DDT was the wonder pesticide!
 
2012-06-18 09:12:30 PM

bullsballs: there is an inconvenient problem being swept under the rug. Honey bee hive collapse.

There was a group of scientists investigating the problem. They discovered the pollen from GM corn was carried into the hive by the bees along with normal pollen and stored in the hive. In the hive are these little baby bees called larva, and what does GM corn have spliced into the dna? BT... Bacillus thuringiensis, it attacks larva, any kind of larva, even cute fuzzy buzzy baby bee larva... And when the baby bees die, the hive dies!

Guess what happened! The GM corn makers bought the little research company, so they could 'study' it themselves!

I have not heard any more about the 'problem'... Must be, it went away! So europe is going to accept GM foods now? Groovy baby! Reminds me when DDT was the wonder pesticide!


Ah, Bt is not one stop shopping. There are different kinds for different insects and it's not toxic to bees. I guess the scientists you mention weren't these guys:
Link
 
2012-06-18 10:47:42 PM
If the measure passes, California will become the first state in the union to require labels on GM foods.


OMG labelling and letting the public decide, how abominable.

It's sad how corporate-controlled we are that labelling wasn't mandatory 15 years ago.
 
2012-06-19 01:43:28 AM
It reminds me of the whole "Pure Sue-Bee Honey" trademark. It's not 100% honey, it's 100% "Pure Sue-Bee Honey", which means up to 49% corn syrup. Which is fine - I have nothing against diluting honey with corn syrup to make it cheaper. My problem is in registering a trademark like "Pure Sue-Bee Honey" and using that to deceive the populace. Similarly, refusal to label GM food is, to me, a tacit acknowledgement that you are afraid people will not buy your product if you label it GM. If true, the correct solution is to openly tout the benefits of your product - not to lobby for favorable laws which make it easier to deceive your customers. One approach shows that you are a trustworthy company acting in good faith. The other approach shows that you place profit over honesty and do not mind intentionally deceiving your customers. If you have no problem deceiving me with your label, what else will you feel no compunction against lying about? Again, I have nothing against GM food, per se, only the way it's being marketed in the USA.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report