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.
NFA: [i1221.photobucket.com image 696x503]'Monsanto Protection Act'
NFA: Carbon needed for humans to liveHydrogen needed for humans to liveOxygen needed for humans to liveC4H4O2Recognize it?Dioxin!
Mikey1969: Entire companies are banning them, and it's not because of "socialism".
The All-Powerful Atheismo: Know what that is? IT'S PENCIL LEAD. STOP CHEWING ON YOUR PENCIL YOU NUMBSKULL
Lee Jackson Beauregard: Stick four chlorine atoms on that, two on either of the benzene rings. Now you have 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin. That's the nasty stuff.
TexanBoy: I sure hope some of the dissent comes from their big business attitudes when it comes to GMOs.I've heard a few times now, that they like to limit their seeds potential to 1 crop cycle. Instead of letting farmers grow generations of crops, they force the farmer to come back each year and buy more 1 year seeds, forcing the small time farmers out of business, and holding developing nations hostage in that same sense.I'd much rather march and protest about that than the fear of Timmy's froot loops growing arms.
rewind2846: Mr. Shabooboo:So we should go back to eating tiny little ears of corn with tiny little kernels, or wheat with a few scrawnyseeds 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...Genetically modifying = bullsh*t, and don't try to make it otherwise. There is a huge difference between grafting parts of one plant onto another, and waiting to see what happens, and using chemicals to tear the plant's DNA apart so the DNA of some other species can be shoehorned in its place.Regular splicing is still subject to natural selection; if the plant doesn't take or it dies, it wasn't meant to be.Fark with a plant at a true genetic level, and anything could happen. Choosing the ear of corn with the biggest kernels for replanting so you get more corn plants with big kernels is "selective growing". "Selective growing" is not what Monsanto is doing.When a corporation introduces a gene to make a plant not only produce its own insecticide, but THEIR BRAND OF INSECTICIDE (RoundUp), that is not "selective growing".Seriously... do you work for these bastards? Because the line of bullsh*t you just spewed makes one think that somebody's feeding you a paycheck for this...
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.
Mr.Tangent: 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.
Tommy Moo: lawsuits against Monsanto because they bought a box of Cheerios and their kid got chicken pox six days later
Mrbogey: Mikey1969: Entire companies are banning them, and it's not because of "socialism".I'm sure you meant "countries". The problem with this argument is it's a fallacy. Primarily they're banning them due to a vocal and active minority instilling fear in others.The science that it is unsafe is not there. Just like how the anti-vaccine activists have convinced people to not get vaccinated to the point where third world countries have fewer cases of whooping cough.Don't mistake irrational fear for sound reasoning.
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!
Mikey1969: 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!So nobody's starving anymore, thanks to the selfless generosity of Mansanto?
Mrbogey: The science that it is unsafe is not there.
Barricaded Gunman: Mrbogey: The science that it is unsafe is not there.Monsanto seems to be going to a lot of effort to A) prevent their products from being labeled as GM, and B) insulate themselves from future repercussions caused by their GM products. This suggests that the science is, in fact, there. It just isn't being shared with the general public by Monsanto.
steamingpile: 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.What nobody will ever acknowledge is that they buy off both parties equally or close enough to barely be a noticeable difference in the two parties. But those on the left never want to admit their politicians are just as dirty as those they hate.
LowbrowDeluxe: On the one hand, Monsanto are farkers of the first order. On the other hand, GMO-fear mongering is somewhere below EMF allergies on the list of credible issues in the world.So...fark everyone.
Repo Man: The lack of evidence is just proof of the conspiracy.
Barricaded Gunman: Repo Man: The lack of evidence is just proof of the conspiracy.The amount of money Monsanto has spent to avoid having to accurately label their own products is difficult to explain, except in terms of profit maintenance and exposure limitation.I don't think it takes a conspiracy theorist to wonder why this enormous company that grows so much of our food is so hellbent on not letting us know what's in it.
The My Little Pony Killer: Tommy Moo: lawsuits against Monsanto because they bought a box of Cheerios and their kid got chicken pox six days laterCitation, please./no, I'm not holding my breath for either one of the citations I've asked for
DerpHerder: I bet 2 billion people would protest gay marriage does that mean we can ban the gheyz?
Kinek: It's almost like Mandatory labeling of something that ranks somewhere in the public consciousness around DEATH CRYSTALS would put a hamper on your ability to sell your product.
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.
QueenMamaBee: What exactly would be a healthful dose of arsenic?
Barricaded Gunman: Kinek: It's almost like Mandatory labeling of something that ranks somewhere in the public consciousness around DEATH CRYSTALS would put a hamper on your ability to sell your product.Are you saying that like it's a bad thing? That laws governing disclosure requirements on product labels should be written with a focus on corporate profitability instead of informing consumers? Or am I reading you wrong?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 29 2017 12:13:16
Runtime: 0.418 sec (418 ms)