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.

(AlterNet)   Want to know why two million people worldwide protested Monsanto yesterday? Here are five reasons. "Froot Loops is 100-percent genetically engineered, and that's a children's cereal. That's irresponsible and unacceptable on so many levels"   (alternet.org) divider line 183
    More: Scary, Froot Loops, Monsanto, heavy industrial, moral responsibility, Agent Orange  
•       •       •

4668 clicks; posted to Business » on 26 May 2013 at 3:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-26 09:26:26 PM  

Repo Man: Just one more.

[i39.tinypic.com image 600x480]


You gotta admit that this picture is kind of awesome.
 
2013-05-26 09:27:24 PM  
Albino lab rats grew tumors?

Must have been the GMO-ness of their feed, and not the fact that albinism is often a marker for all kinds of recessive genetic farked-up-edness that the rats already suffered from.
 
2013-05-26 09:33:56 PM  
I'd rather we went back to the days when over a billion people were starving to death. If you can't grow the wheat God gave us then you deserve to starve!

Jjaro: So 2 million people protesting a reduction in worldwide hunger?


Essentially. But they're morons so that makes their advocacy misguided and not sinister.

zimbach: Benign mammary tumor is a common ailment in rats. I had a pet rat with an even bigger one than that. The photo is meaningless without the research indicating a statistically significant increase in occurrence in the test population over the control.


IIRC, he's referring to a report where GMO food caused tumors in rats. Since then the science has been picked apart.
 
2013-05-26 09:48:51 PM  

Mrbogey: I'd rather we went back to the days when over a billion people were starving to death. If you can't grow the wheat God gave us then you deserve to starve!

Jjaro: So 2 million people protesting a reduction in worldwide hunger?

Essentially. But they're morons so that makes their advocacy misguided and not sinister.

zimbach: Benign mammary tumor is a common ailment in rats. I had a pet rat with an even bigger one than that. The photo is meaningless without the research indicating a statistically significant increase in occurrence in the test population over the control.

IIRC, he's referring to a report where GMO food caused tumors in rats. Since then the science has been picked apart.


I resemble that remark!

/left handed
 
2013-05-26 09:53:26 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I'm a little more concerned about the long-term ingestion of Round-Up by the entire population of the US.


No worries. They'll add some Vitamin C and have it reclassified as a food additive. Problem solved!
 
2013-05-26 09:57:02 PM  

dj_bigbird: Ever had a seedless grape? A banana? A tomato from a grocery store? Any beef from a grocery store? All of that is GMO.


NONE of those are GMO (some tomatoes, maybe).

Selective breeding is NOT GMO.

GMO is getting non-grape DNA into a grape reproductive cell, or non-nanner DNA into nanners, or whatever.  It may produce the desired effect on the crop, but the effect on the crop AS FOOD, and the effect of that food on humans, is neither well known nor well controlled.  Neither is that DNA drifting non-GMO versions of that crop.
 
2013-05-26 10:02:56 PM  

mod3072: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I'm a little more concerned about the long-term ingestion of Round-Up by the entire population of the US.

No worries. They'll add some Vitamin C and have it reclassified as a food additive. Problem solved!


Oh come on!  Round-up is only  C3H8NO5P.

According to xria, all of those chemicals are necessary to sustain Human Life.
 
2013-05-26 10:04:24 PM  

Felgraf: I dislike them for A) Monopolistic reasons
B) Their policies.


That is BY FAR  a fair enough reason to protest them.

I didn't go to the protest, though.  Too goddamn tired.

Round-Up Resistant weeds are, and will continue to, f--k us over.  Of course, Monsanto has a solution to that.

And in the winter, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
 
2013-05-26 10:08:24 PM  

Carth: I don't have a problem with GM food but don't see why they don't label it. Science says it is perfectly safe so let consumers decide. If enough want to pay more money for non-GM foods great.


Ultimately it won't help.  There will be a board deciding what gets labelled as GM, and that board will be populated by folks like Monsanto and the larger producers.

Just like "organic"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worr y- about-big-companies-influence.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Buy local when you can.  Although I know how many local folks use Monsanto products so even then it's tricky.  You do what you can.
 
2013-05-26 10:12:03 PM  

dionysusaur: GMO is getting non-grape DNA into a grape reproductive cell, or non-nanner DNA into nanners, or whatever.


DNA is DNA.  Nature doesn't have any concept of "grape DNA" or "nanner DNA" or whatever; genomes are by definition only documents what has existed before, not what can naturally exist.
 
2013-05-26 10:19:01 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: mod3072: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I'm a little more concerned about the long-term ingestion of Round-Up by the entire population of the US.

No worries. They'll add some Vitamin C and have it reclassified as a food additive. Problem solved!

Oh come on!  Round-up is only  C3H8NO5P.

According to xria, all of those chemicals are necessary to sustain Human Life.


You're not being very scientific there. That wasn't his argument about chemicals.

poot_rootbeer: dionysusaur: GMO is getting non-grape DNA into a grape reproductive cell, or non-nanner DNA into nanners, or whatever.

DNA is DNA.  Nature doesn't have any concept of "grape DNA" or "nanner DNA" or whatever; genomes are by definition only documents what has existed before, not what can naturally exist.


Don't forget, horizontal gene transfer. Lots of genes end up in strange places.
 
2013-05-26 10:29:41 PM  

Skyday: The cake is a lie.


No. The flower for it was, and that chicken who laid the egg was on roids. I think the cake still counts.
 
2013-05-26 10:34:38 PM  

utah dude: this biatch, Tami Canal, DID NOT HAVE TESTICULAR CANCER.


Perhaps your anger is because her lie is reflecting your lie.
 
2013-05-26 10:35:18 PM  
Are we protesting that farker Mendel and his pea plants on Monday?  He got all this GMO shiat started.

/pretty much what everyone else says, Mosanto sucks in terms of business practices, but GMO is key to crop yield
 
2013-05-26 10:36:59 PM  

Mrbogey: According to xria, all of those chemicals are necessary to sustain Human Life.

You're not being very scientific there. That wasn't his argument about chemicals.


s'fine.  He completely missed the point of my argument too.
 
2013-05-26 10:50:57 PM  
mainstreet62:
Unless you have the non-GMO certificates of each ingredient from each ingredient supplier, you can't assume that a product is non-GMO.

You pretty much can when it's oats or wheat. There's only been one GMO oats trial, and that was 15 years ago, and never made it to market. There aren't any GMO wheat strains in use, either.

For that matter, the only ingredient in Froot Loops that can reasonably be called GMO is the corn - and bT (with a bacterial gene that kills pests) and HT (herbicide-tolerant) corn have both been studied incessantly for years, with no notable side effects.

All of the "studies" that showed GMO corn to be toxic have been revealed as fraudulent or deeply flawed so far.
 
2013-05-26 10:56:58 PM  
GMO, vaccine and flouride paranoia tend  the left side of the political spectrum for a reason.  The narrative is that big corporations are conspiring against the public.  Global warming and evolution are on the right because the narrative is intellectuals and government are conspiring against businesses and the religious.

In all cases, the science is overwhelming but the "concerns" fit a political belief.  One you realize that, it becomes easier to examine your own motives and avoid non-scientific belief.
 
2013-05-26 10:58:48 PM  

ArgusRun: GMO, vaccine and flouride paranoia tend  the left side of the political spectrum for a reason.  The narrative is that big corporations are conspiring against the public.  Global warming and evolution are on the right because the narrative is intellectuals and government are conspiring against businesses and the religious.

In all cases, the science is overwhelming but the "concerns" fit a political belief.  One you realize that, it becomes easier to examine your own motives and avoid non-scientific belief.


Thank you.
 
2013-05-26 11:15:56 PM  

utah dude: zimbach: Benign mammary tumor is a common ailment in rats. I had a pet rat with an even bigger one than that. The photo is meaningless without the research indicating a statistically significant increase in occurrence in the test population over the control.

[imageshack.us image 600x453]

pseudoscience, coming to a red-state global warming believers near you!


FTFY.
 
2013-05-26 11:22:14 PM  

06Wahoo: utah dude: zimbach: Benign mammary tumor is a common ailment in rats. I had a pet rat with an even bigger one than that. The photo is meaningless without the research indicating a statistically significant increase in occurrence in the test population over the control.

[imageshack.us image 600x453]

pseudoscience, coming to a red-state global warming believers near you!

FTFY.




See ArgusRun's post above.
 
2013-05-26 11:22:54 PM  

Repo Man: foo monkey: rewind2846: HK-MP5-SD: Every cross breeding failure on the way to the desired mutations of these plants had a chance of disaster.  They could have created invasive species, or plants that were toxic.

There's a difference between cross breeding plants or animals, where the non-viable ones die or are sterile) and shoehorning foreign genetic material into organisms that would never normally combine, like the glowing cells from shellfish implanted in mice.

The other issue is that simply cross-breeding organisms more often than not breeds useful and benign results, while manipulation on a purely genetic chemical level is still just an educated guess. We don't have thousands of years worth of experimentation and data for proof like we do with corn, potatoes, horses, dogs, and cows.

The first one still produces near-natural organisms, as natural selection still controls the outcome. The second does not. The second is also patentable, which is why Monsanto and other agricorps decided that the other way was not good for their business model.

Not the same thing.

Add to this that you're now eating the equivalent of the glowing mouse.  There's no legal requirement for food companies to inform you if food contains glowing mouse bits.  Or in this case, corn that's genetically resistant to pesticides, has been exposed to those pesticides, and has a fraction of the nutritional value of real corn.

Jesus Christ, did you just post a link to Infowars non ironically?


lulz.  I didn't notice.  I'm running a fever.  I get a pass.
 
2013-05-26 11:36:53 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: traxan: cman: GMOs are healthy. People are basing science off of their political views. Many of you are no better than the Republicans and their anti science stances.

I'll just leave this here.

[www.motherearthnews.com image 600x993]

And I'll just leave this here as it has as much context as your image:

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 257x196]


Ok here is the context.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzst o. aspx#axzz2UQrYZUzj
 
2013-05-26 11:45:53 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I don't worry about the GMO or herbicide/pesticide stuff, I trust the FDA and USDA not to approve anything that will kill us, but I do take exception with the way Monsanto does business, and how they have bullied the courts into copyrighting the seeds of their plants.

That farmer that was sued for buying and planting bulk soybeans was bullshiat.


Plant patents have been around since the 1930s. Monsanto just is a little too vigorous in defending them. As to Bowman, he tried to do an end run around the patent protection and admitted it. SCOTUS voted 9-0 in Monsanto's favor.

Apparently, there is a brisk business in black market seeds. It's called brown bagging.
 
2013-05-27 12:01:59 AM  

traxan: Ok here is the context.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzst o. aspx#axzz2UQrYZUzj


The article leaves a bit to be desired. The article provides no link to the original study, doesn't name the authors only sáy they are "French", and leaves the details of the results extremely vague. Going further the article itself says the sample size is inadequate for drawing conclusions.

Beyond that, here is an article about the response from the French science academies (assuming this is the same French study- it sounds like it but the Motherearth article is rather vague):

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science-acad em ies-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/
 
2013-05-27 12:11:23 AM  
GMO is fine with me...the Frankenfood stuff is largely scare tactics for the uneducated.

My problems with Monsanto lie in their monopolistic practices, their subsidies, their tax evasion, and their general usurpation of legal protections for normal human beings.
 
2013-05-27 12:19:06 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You didn't think those things grew naturally, did you?


I thought they were minted. Isn't that why he and his three (nephews?) search for them in the commercials?
 
2013-05-27 12:53:34 AM  
Wonder how many people would starve to death if the world was forced to go organic.
 
2013-05-27 12:56:07 AM  

Tommy Moo: vudutek: Benevolent Misanthrope: AlterNet.  Right.  Okay, let me go touch my clear quartz crystal and work with my chalice well water a bit first.  I wouldn't want to alter the energy of their site by clicking in before I cleansed my aura.

Dislike the messenger, therefore the message is invalid. Makes sense.

The messenger and the message are horseshiat here. GMO feeds billions. Luddite morons who have never taken a science class above middle school protest GMO and pesticides without stopping to think of the famine and pestilence that would literally kill a billion people if not for companies like Monsanto. You can't imagine what a billion corpses looks like. It would fill Manhattan six feet high.

There is no such thing as a toxin. Everything is toxic or healthful, depending on the dose.


Part of the message is horseshiat. I have also nothing against GMO, but Monsanto is still an amazingly evil company in a variety of other ways, as the article shows.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-05-27 12:58:53 AM  
 
2013-05-27 01:05:27 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: mr intrepid: dj_bigbird: Ever had a seedless grape? A banana? A tomato from a grocery store? Any beef from a grocery store? All of that is GMO.

Now, is that selective breeding? Or tinkering in the lab on the cellular level. As was mentioned earlier, indicate which tomatoes are GM, and which are not, and let the market speak.

The only difference between the two are the number of failures before you achieve your desired goal.  Virtually all the food you eat has been genetically modified.  Brussel sprouts, broccoli, kale, cauliflower, and collard greens are all mutated cabbage, they were all created in the last 500 years.  The original "corn" grew a foot tall and had ears less than 2 inches long.  Potatoes were once the size of grapes.  The changes in other food plants are all similarly extreme.  Every cross breeding failure on the way to the desired mutations of these plants had a chance of disaster.  They could have created invasive species, or plants that were toxic.


Or as the indians called it "maize"
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-05-27 01:17:08 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: xria: Lets break it down by the elements:

C: Carbon, needed for humans to live.
H: Hydrogen, needed for humans to live
N: Nitrogen, needed for humans to live
Na: Sodium, needed for humans to live
O: Oxygen, needed for humans to live
S: Sulfur, needed for humans to live

Or lets go the chemical formulas are scary:

C12H17ClN4OS: Thiamine, needed for humans to live
C19H19N7O6: Folic Acid, needed for humans to live
C63H88CoN14O14P: Cyanocobalamin, needed for humans to live

Everything you eat is "scary chemicals that have a chemical formula".

Moron.

Cool!  Let's play that game!

H: Hydrogen, needed for humans to live 
O: Oxygen, needed for humans to live
S: Sulfur, needed for humans to live 

So we're totally safe spraying a little H2SO4 on our breakfast cereal or even having a glass of it, right?
Oh wait, no.  That's Sulfuric Acid.

Well then maybe...

C: Carbon, needed for humans to live.
O: Oxygen, needed for humans to live
Cl:  Hey, it's in ordinary table salt, right?

So we're safe with a little COCl2?

Oh wait, no.  That's Phosgene.

Just because something is made of common chemical elements doesn't mean it's harmless.

Retard.


Oooo oooo I've got one too!


Carbon needed for humans to live
Hydrogen needed for humans to live
Oxygen needed for humans to live

C4H4O2

Recognize it?

Dioxin!
 
2013-05-27 01:32:41 AM  
I think that a company should be able to stand behind what they are contributing to the world, and a huge part of that is shouting it from the rooftops by labeling your products as such and trusting that the marker will love them enough to make you money.

That they are fighting tooth and nail for the right to NOT label their pride and joy says worse things about them than anything anybody else ever could.
 
2013-05-27 01:40:29 AM  

Mrbogey: Jjaro: So 2 million people protesting a reduction in worldwide hunger?

Essentially. But they're morons so that makes their advocacy misguided and not sinister.


How have GMO crops helped to ease hunger problems in third world countries?

I'm not accepting any answers without citations, thanks.
 
2013-05-27 01:44:39 AM  

thecpt: Skyday: The cake is a lie.

No. The flower for it was, and that chicken who laid the egg was on roids. I think the cake still counts.


Did you play Portal?
 
2013-05-27 02:02:26 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: mr intrepid: dj_bigbird: Ever had a seedless grape? A banana? A tomato from a grocery store? Any beef from a grocery store? All of that is GMO.

Now, is that selective breeding? Or tinkering in the lab on the cellular level. As was mentioned earlier, indicate which tomatoes are GM, and which are not, and let the market speak.

The only difference between the two are the number of failures before you achieve your desired goal.  Virtually all the food you eat has been genetically modified.  Brussel sprouts, broccoli, kale, cauliflower, and collard greens are all mutated cabbage, they were all created in the last 500 years.  The original "corn" grew a foot tall and had ears less than 2 inches long.  Potatoes were once the size of grapes.  The changes in other food plants are all similarly extreme.  Every cross breeding failure on the way to the desired mutations of these plants had a chance of disaster.  They could have created invasive species, or plants that were toxic.


That is BS,you don't selective breed a resistance to roundup. That's the kind of GMO we are talking about here, not seedless grapes.
 
2013-05-27 02:15:12 AM  

Skyday: thecpt: Skyday: The cake is a lie.

No. The flower for it was, and that chicken who laid the egg was on roids. I think the cake still counts.

Did you play Portal?


....exploding cakes.

/yeah, I was just puttin a Monsanto spin on it.
 
2013-05-27 02:19:41 AM  
cirby:
All of the "studies" that showed GMO corn to be toxic have been revealed as fraudulent or deeply flawed so far.

The "studies" are the problem. We don't know what the effects will be on humans or the food chain 20, 50 or 100 years from now. Remember that what you eat and drink becomes part of your cells at a genetic level. It becomes YOU. Perhaps one human may have already had his or her sperm or egg cell changed, and passed that mutation down through their children... perhaps not. We may not know for hundreds of years and many generations.

Human cells mutated enough in the last several hundred thousand years to give us multiple shades and textures of skin, hair, hairlessness, height, build, eyes, resistance to sunburn and ability to synthesize vitamin D from sunlight, lactose intolerance and tolerance, food allergies, the list goes on. And all that was through natural selection and adaptation.

We simply do not have the science... all we have are Monsanto and other corporations telling us it's safe.
I for one do not trust any entity whose bottom line, stock price and shareholders are their primary concern. If these foods are as safe as claimed, where are the "contains GMO ingredients" labels on packaging in the US? HFCS is listed, along with all the other ingredients... why not GMOs?
 
2013-05-27 02:29:17 AM  
NFA:
Oooo oooo I've got one too!


Carbon needed for humans to live
Hydrogen needed for humans to live
Oxygen needed for humans to live

C4H4O2

Recognize it?

Dioxin!


I've got one!!!

Carbon: Needed for humans to live

C

Know what that is?  IT'S PENCIL LEAD. STOP CHEWING ON YOUR PENCIL YOU NUMBSKULL
 
2013-05-27 02:33:04 AM  

rewind2846: cirby:
All of the "studies" that showed GMO corn to be toxic have been revealed as fraudulent or deeply flawed so far.

The "studies" are the problem. We don't know what the effects will be on humans or the food chain 20, 50 or 100 years from now. Remember that what you eat and drink becomes part of your cells at a genetic level. It becomes YOU. Perhaps one human may have already had his or her sperm or egg cell changed, and passed that mutation down through their children... perhaps not. We may not know for hundreds of years and many generations.

Human cells mutated enough in the last several hundred thousand years to give us multiple shades and textures of skin, hair, hairlessness, height, build, eyes, resistance to sunburn and ability to synthesize vitamin D from sunlight, lactose intolerance and tolerance, food allergies, the list goes on. And all that was through natural selection and adaptation.

We simply do not have the science... all we have are Monsanto and other corporations telling us it's safe.
I for one do not trust any entity whose bottom line, stock price and shareholders are their primary concern. If these foods are as safe as claimed, where are the "contains GMO ingredients" labels on packaging in the US? HFCS is listed, along with all the other ingredients... why not GMOs?




Do you have any evidence at all that any GMO that is eaten has mutagenic properties? "The bottom line for people worried about GMO ingredients in their food is that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs pose a health risk."
 
2013-05-27 02:36:14 AM  

traxan: cman: GMOs are healthy. People are basing science off of their political views. Many of you are no better than the Republicans and their anti science stances.

I'll just leave this here.

[www.motherearthnews.com image 600x993]


WTF is that!?

(Please post in thread. I'm not asking because I can't use teh googles; I'm asking to have a conversation)
 
2013-05-27 02:44:41 AM  
Froot Loops doesn't even contain any froot!
 
2013-05-27 02:52:48 AM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: traxan: cman: GMOs are healthy. People are basing science off of their political views. Many of you are no better than the Republicans and their anti science stances.

I'll just leave this here.

[www.motherearthnews.com image 600x993]

WTF is that!?

(Please post in thread. I'm not asking because I can't use teh googles; I'm asking to have a conversation)


As I said before, that is benign mammary tumor. It is a common disfiguring ailment among domestic rats. Many domestic rats are genetically predisposed to develop tumors. Posting a photo of a rat with a tumor is meaningless without data and explanation to back up the context.
 
2013-05-27 03:04:16 AM  
Repo Man:
Do you have any evidence at all that any GMO that is eaten has mutagenic properties? "The bottom line for people worried about GMO ingredients in their food is that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs pose a health risk."

I never said I did, or that there was. What I said (read carefully) was "We simply do not have the science... all we have are Monsanto and other corporations telling us it's safe."

That science, positive or negative, will come in time... and we and future generations are the lab rats who will test it. Meanwhile, we still should be given the choice, and that choice can only be made with knowledge. Remember, scientists are STILL using the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (now old people) and their children and grandchildren (of those who could still have children) to gather data on atomic weapons testing in human populations sixty-seven years later. How many generations might pass before GMO-caused mutagens, if they exist, show up? We don't know. That's the issue.

We don't know. All we have is their say so.

Label the food.
 
2013-05-27 04:16:12 AM  
Damn. Now I want Fruit Loops. With plenty of Fruit Loop-flavored milk when I finish the bowl.
 
2013-05-27 04:17:02 AM  

Felgraf: I don't dislike them so much for "ZOMG GENETIC ENGINEERING" reasons (although I admit, I don't actually trust Monsanto themselves to, uh, do the dillgent research to prevent an ecological catastrophe).

I dislike them for A) Monopolistic reasons
B) Their policies.


Exactly THIS^^^.

There are studies showing that Mansanto is directly responsible for 'X', but there are just as many studies showing that someone else is responsible. These things take a lot longer to pin down than Mansanto has spent pumping their chemicals into the seeds, and we have polluted the holy fark out of our planet, so there is time to pause here and make sure before we go charging off on the GMO="Bad" thing at the moment. Same with the bumblebees, I need more time on those. Every time they think they have the bumblebee mystery nailed down, someone else comes out with an equally plausible explanation.

Their business tactics, on the other hand are EASY to prove. This bullshiat with patenting seeds and then suing people for using the seeds their own plants produce naturally bullshiat is just that: bullshiat. Same thing with this whole part of getting laws passed that protects them completely if their food IS determined to be poison later on, and people start dying. They can't be sued or penalized in ANY way, all thanks to lobbyists... People like to talk about how lawyers and politicians are evil. They have NOTHING on lobbyists. Every one of those farking shiat stains needs to be burned at the stake. And then hiding the farking thing in a piece of absolutely essential legislation?That shiat has needed to be illegal for years, it's past time we fixed that. There is no legitimate reason for it. We don't need the line item veto to fix it, we need to make so that they don't slip the garbage i in the FIRST place.

This thing about them trying to buy up water supplies? God I hope that's false. If not, it's terrifying. A company like this having a stranglehold on the world's food AND water?I don't want to live in that reality.

Mansanto is becoming the WalMart of the agriculture business either way...
 
2013-05-27 04:22:45 AM  

dj_bigbird: Ever had a seedless grape? A banana? A tomato from a grocery store? Any beef from a grocery store? All of that is GMO.


No, genetic modification and selective breeding are two entirely different things. One takes naturally occurring plants and breeds out undesirable traits while breeding FOR desirable ones. The other breaks it down to the genetic level and starts farking with the cellular material, including introducing chemicals into food that was previously safe to eat. They are also monopolizing the agricultural industry so that even IF their food is found to be unsafe, not only will we not be able to buy seed anywhere else, but they wil not be held responsible in any way, including lawsuits and government sanctions. They could kill a million people next year and not suffer one bit.

Entire companies are banning them, and it's not because of "socialism".
 
2013-05-27 04:27:26 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: So, where does selective breeding for desirable characteristics fall on the Scale of Evil?  Just wondering.


Nowhere at all. Selective breeding doesn't alter the genetic composition of the base item with the exception of breeding out undesirable traits. Genetic modification includes introducing chemicals that would never occur in these crops naturally. Good or bad, these things are NOT related in any way. Also, selective breeding doesn't give a single company a potential monopoly on the planet's food crops eventually.
 
2013-05-27 05:05:28 AM  

rewind2846: What these folks are really pissed about (as am I) is not just the fact that these foods are genetically engineered. What the issue is happens to be twofold:
1. Monsanto and other agricorps own too much of everything. When there are two few players controlling too much of the world's food supply, this can only be a bad thing.
2. Here in the united states, these agricorps have lobbied to keep "genetically modified" labeling off food packaging, with Monsanto spending $6 million in 2012 (down from $8.8 million in 2008 - another election year) to make sure it stays that way.

I don't mind the "genetically modified" food, as long as it's labeled as such. Let me decide if I want to eat it. If it's fast food, I know it's GM, and can simply decide to go somewhere else... but at the grocery store that labeling should be mandatory. Of course the agricorps don't want this, as they are afraid the idiot american public will not buy their sh*t anymore... it's all about profit you know.

List what's in the food, let me decide. You can put ground up rat sh*t in it, I don't care... as long as the phrase "ground up rat sh*t" is on the package.


So we should go back to eating tiny little ears of corn with tiny little kernels, or wheat with a few scrawny
seeds that is hard to harvest? People have been "genetically modifying" (Read; selectively growing)
foods for thousands of years. This whole ZOMGODZ GMO thing is BS...


 Now Monsanto, is a scumbag company. As far as I'm concerned their management could DIAF.
Especially the aggressive law talking guys that chase down farmers over seeds or potential mixed
pollinated crops. Those people should be taken and staked out in a field and drive over by combines.
How they can sleep at night, I don't know.
 
2013-05-27 05:06:35 AM  
I'm OK with the GM stuff. It's Monsanto's legal BS I have issues with.
 
2013-05-27 06:15:22 AM  

traxan: cman: GMOs are healthy. People are basing science off of their political views. Many of you are no better than the Republicans and their anti science stances.

I'll just leave this here.


It's a picture of a rat with what looks like a tumor and no context. Please provide more information.
 
Displayed 50 of 183 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report