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 76
    More: Scary, Froot Loops, Monsanto, heavy industrial, moral responsibility, Agent Orange  
•       •       •

4667 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-26 12:01:56 PM  
10 votes:
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.
2013-05-26 02:15:15 PM  
5 votes:
I'm a little more concerned about the long-term ingestion of Round-Up by the entire population of the US.
2013-05-26 01:09:14 PM  
5 votes:
Ever had a seedless grape? A banana? A tomato from a grocery store? Any beef from a grocery store? All of that is GMO.
2013-05-26 04:26:19 PM  
4 votes:
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.
2013-05-26 01:11:36 PM  
4 votes:
So, where does selective breeding for desirable characteristics fall on the Scale of Evil?  Just wondering.
2013-05-26 05:30:14 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2013-05-26 03:34:10 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2013-05-26 03:26:50 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-05-27 08:01:44 AM  
2 votes:

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

C4H4O2

Recognize it?

Dioxin!


That's the chemical *properly* called "dioxin", and the main threat from it is that it's flammable.  I still wouldn't care to guzzle the stuff, much as I wouldn't care to drink a cup of gasoline.

Now stick a benzene ring on either side, and you get dibenzodioxin.  We're still not there.

Stick four chlorine atoms on that, two on either of the benzene rings.  Now you have 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxinThat's the nasty stuff.
2013-05-27 07:43:14 AM  
2 votes:

NFA: [i1221.photobucket.com image 696x503]


'Monsanto Protection Act'


They didn't. Monsanto can still be sued by injuries, and is still liable. The "Monsanto Protection Act" (not it's real name) simply prevents their products from being taken off the market while litigation is pending. Anti-vaccine/anti-nuke/conspiracy theory Jenny McCarthy-type morons are constantly filing frivolous lawsuits against Monsanto because they bought a box of Cheerios and their kid got chicken pox six days later. If not for this important piece of legislation, all of Monsanto's products would perpetually be off of shelves while in legislative limbo, and the price of food would double, which would be devastating, not to rich white bankers, but to the poor.
2013-05-26 10:56:58 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:35:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:55:08 PM  
2 votes:
The sad thing is that, with guys like Dees against you, you can tar all of your opponents as nut jobs (as others have mentioned, there are legitimate complaints against Monsanto's business practices). I know I stop listening to anything anyone has to say once I hear or read the word "frankenfood".

i44.tinypic.com

i43.tinypic.com
i42.tinypic.com
And yes, this guy is completely on the level. These are things that he really believes. To David Dees, all of the conspiracies are true.
2013-05-26 08:16:27 PM  
2 votes:
Ex-Monsanto executives run the United States Food and Drug Administration, the agency tasked with ensuring food safety for the American public.

screenagekicks.files.wordpress.com
/Yep...
2013-05-26 07:08:26 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-05-26 06:54:55 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-05-26 06:44:20 PM  
2 votes:

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: RogermcAllen: Someone needs to learn the defintion of 100%
Blue 1 - non-GMO

Well, just picking one at random, let's go with Blue 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Blue_FCF

C37H34N2Na2O9S3

Sure.  Sounds delicious.  Of course it isn't "GMO" since there are no genes to modify in a chemical.  But it isn't exactly extracted from flowers, is it.


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.
2013-05-26 05:27:08 PM  
2 votes:

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]


See, the thing with rats and mice is, them getting horrific tumors isn't something that people should base decisions on. I've had many pet rats and pet mice and with few exceptions, they *all* died of tumors of one kind or another. I had a mother mouse and she had nine daughters and within the space of a month or so, all ten mice had tumors and had to be put down.

They simply lived a petted and loved life in a smoke-free home, clean cages all the time, fresh fluffy, non-cedar litter, proper nutrition and vet visits - and they still all got cancer and had to be put down. The girl's father also died of a tumor a month or so after that, and his brother, bucking the odds, died of some kind of respiratory infection before he could get cancer, too.

What was interesting, to me anyway, with this particular family of mice, was that the girl's mother, Twinkletoes*, a pure black mouse, mated with an albino father (we were told he was a girl and so he was Princess Snowflake until we discovered he was a prince by the fact that he got Twinkletoes pregnant), and produced 12 natural brown mouse-colored babies, 9 girls and 3 boys (I sold the boys to the pet shop). Their father was overweight but their mother was a skinny thing, svelte and active. All the girls were overweight like their dad. It took Twinkletoes longer to get her cancer, since she developed her tumor around the same time as her daughters, but was obviously older than them.

All the rats I've had, especially the females, with two exceptions (one a tooth abcess and one an aneurysm) had to be put down because of tumors. So it's apparent to us that rats and mice if they are coddled and fed well and live long enough .... get cancer! It's like there's a switch that is flipped in them and at a certain age, bang, tumor.

*our little girl named all the mice, that was her contribution, so, yeah, odd names
2013-05-26 04:46:35 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-05-26 04:43:03 PM  
2 votes:

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.


This.

I have relatively low fear of GMOs, but that does not mean I feel that Monsanto's business practices are anything short of repugnant.

Almost all of the food we eat is genetically modified in some way.  This hysteria about GMOs is late to the party by a few thousand years.  On one hand, I feel that corporations should be compensated for their research and development, but I do not feel that this gives them the right to attempt a food supply monopoly.
2013-05-26 04:10:50 PM  
2 votes:

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.


This this this. Monsanto is evil for many reasons, but GMOs are not one of them. GMOs will single-handedly stave off world-wide famine for at least the next 100 years, and solve the pesky problem of phosphates depleting.
2013-05-26 03:41:48 PM  
2 votes:
So what do the anti-GMO protesters recommend as an alternative course of action? We need GMO foods since "natural" variations of plants won't provide sufficient yields to feed the entire populace. More people would starve, the price of food would jump up causing even more people to starve. Unless they want us to slash more forests to farmland.
2013-05-26 02:47:51 PM  
2 votes:
yawn
another GMO article?
when do we get our next global warming, obamagate, cheney is evil, oh nevermind

monsanto is insane, but the government and courts LETTING them is even more dangerous
2013-05-26 01:51:13 PM  
2 votes:
Any parent who would feed their kids garbage like Froot Loops needs to have their head examined.
2013-05-26 12:29:36 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-05-27 03:57:23 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-05-27 03:25:17 PM  
1 votes:
I wish they'd label genetically modifed food in grocery stores so I can make sure all my food is genetically modified.
2013-05-27 09:56:34 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-05-27 06:52:22 AM  
1 votes:
SELECTIVE BREEDING:
straightfromthehorsesmouth2you.files.wordpress.com
plus
www.livinginsidehope.com

gives you =
hoperamsay.com, usually done the natural way.

GENETIC ENGINEERING:
campusbasement.com
plus
images.nationalgeographic.com

gives you=
images.nationalgeographic.com, which cannot be done outside a lab.

That's the difference.
2013-05-27 06:27:59 AM  
1 votes:
Mr. Shabooboo:
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...


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...
2013-05-27 06:15:22 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-27 05:06:35 AM  
1 votes:
I'm OK with the GM stuff. It's Monsanto's legal BS I have issues with.
2013-05-27 05:05:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:27:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:22:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:04:16 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:52:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:33:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:19:41 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:02:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:32:41 AM  
1 votes:
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.
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-05-27 01:17:08 AM  
1 votes:

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!
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-05-27 12:58:53 AM  
1 votes:
2013-05-27 12:11:23 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-05-26 11:45:53 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-26 11:22:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:12:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:02:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:57:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:33:56 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:07:16 PM  
1 votes:

1. Put snakes on plane: Knocking down a ridiculous straw man is just digging your hole deeper.


Ah, Fark.  Where half the people troll and the other half take themselves far too seriously to be taken seriously.
2013-05-26 09:07:10 PM  
1 votes:

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

pseudoscience, coming to a red-state near you!
2013-05-26 08:11:43 PM  
1 votes:

Tommy Moo: 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]

Yes, you will, completely devoid of context.




Well, if you Google that image, you will find site after site breathlessly exclaiming that the rat in that photo was part of a study that "proves" what they have been saying all along (frankenfoods are going to kill you OMG!!!). What you won't find are any of those sites publishing a retraction now that the study in question has been found to be flawed.
2013-05-26 08:00:40 PM  
1 votes:
Regardless of what the Fruit Loops may think about Froot Loops, Monsanto is still bad for humanity for a bunch of very valid reasons.
2013-05-26 07:56:06 PM  
1 votes:

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]


Yes, you will, completely devoid of context.
2013-05-26 07:09:59 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-05-26 07:00:42 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-26 06:29:36 PM  
1 votes:

Dinjiin: Ultimately, I think that GMO plants in the field should be sterile.


I thought they were SUPPOSED to be? Isn't that the entire point of the terminator gene/I-can't-remember-the-farking-word but they're not supposed to produce seeds, so you have to buy your seeds again from Monsanto next year?
2013-05-26 06:27:43 PM  
1 votes:

You're the jerk... jerk: You were upset that the court did not believe Schmeiser's argument that 95% of his crops were accidentally contaminated?


No, I was upset that generic seed sold on the open market was subject to the Monsanto tax.  The burden should be on GMO farmers in keeping their seed out of generic channels.  A farmer should not be forced to pay a premium for testing or for pre-certified GMO-free seed.

I have limited sympathy for Schmeiser.  He decided to play with fire and got burnt.  But the fire shouldn't have been there in the first place.
2013-05-26 06:25:05 PM  
1 votes:

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.


This.
2013-05-26 06:20:34 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-05-26 05:56:40 PM  
1 votes:

dforkus: Is it possible to hate on Monsanto for being an evil, bullying, monopolistic competition, but also believe that a lot of the fears about GMOs are hysterical?


This is the internet.  Nuanced views aren't allowed.
2013-05-26 04:56:21 PM  
1 votes:

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.


piece of crap.  None of those are GMOs
2013-05-26 04:55:13 PM  
1 votes:

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]


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.
2013-05-26 04:27:18 PM  
1 votes:

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
2013-05-26 04:24:06 PM  
1 votes:

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
2013-05-26 03:46:49 PM  
1 votes:
Someone needs to learn the defintion of 100%

Fruit Loops Ingredients:
Sugar, corn flour blend (whole grain yellow corn flour, degerminated yellow corn flour), wheat flour, whole grain oat flour, oat fiber, soluble corn fiber, contains 2% or less of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (coconut, soybean and/or cottonseed), salt, red 40, natural flavor, blue 2, turmeric color, yellow 6, annatto color, blue 1, BHT for freshness.

Sugar -  possibly non-GMO
Wheat flour - non-GMO
Oat flour - non-GMO
Oat fiber - non-GMO
Coconut Oil - non-GMO
Salt - non-GMO
Red 40 - non-GMO
Natural Flavor - non_GMO
Blue 2 - non-GMO
Tumeric - non-GMO
Yellow 6 - non-GMO
Annatto - non-GMO
Blue 1 - non-GMO
BHT - non-GMO
2013-05-26 03:42:55 PM  
1 votes:
Is it possible to hate on Monsanto for being an evil, bullying, monopolistic competition, but also believe that a lot of the fears about GMOs are hysterical?

I'd like to sign up for that camp... I just in a conversation in a party
"GMOs killed 4 people at Taco bell!"
"Huh?, where'd you hear that"
"It's all over the web?
"Like where?"
"Just check out youtube..."
2013-05-26 03:39:57 PM  
1 votes:
Fruit Loops is crap that I won't feed to my kids whether it has GMOs in it or not.
2013-05-26 03:29:57 PM  
1 votes:
They marched right past my apartment yesterday.  All I can say is that its nice that these hipsters who have never spent a single day on a farm can get some exercise.  They looked damned unhealthy.  Perhaps if they ate more GMO food - they wouldn't look as bad.

/they also marched right up to the farmers market yelling at everyone to join the protest because "they already agree with us because they were at a farmers market"
//just ended up pissing off everyone there
2013-05-26 02:23:02 PM  
1 votes:
Their genetic monopoly enables disgusting and immoral business practices, the GMO food itself is not at all the reason why their execs and lawyers should be rounded up and ground into fertilizer. But they are round up resistant.
2013-05-26 01:48:55 PM  
1 votes:
Also, who knew that white-listing fark with ad block would be so gosh-darned entertaining. An ad for chocolate frosted flakes in espanol, and then an ad for a fitbit flex. Hilarious.
2013-05-26 01:40:44 PM  
1 votes:
People are just afraid of genetically modified food because they don't understand it.  The leaders of this movement, however, have a far darker purpose.  To deny you and us SUPER POWERS.  Because they know eventually we'll be able to eat a power-bar and wake up the next morning with heat-vision or invisibility or the ability to stop time or whatever.  And then--how will they be able to control us?

Wake up MAN!
2013-05-26 01:10:17 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Please point out in my post above where I said their message was invalid.

Go ahead.  I'll wait.
2013-05-26 01:01:06 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR, MONSANTO!
2013-05-26 12:05:22 PM  
1 votes:
You didn't think those things grew naturally, did you?
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report