Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(ABC 27)   States considering weighing labels on genetically-altered food. Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?   (abc27.com) divider line 161
    More: Interesting, Grocery Manufacturers Association, GMOs, genetically modified food, cash crops  
•       •       •

926 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-01-25 10:54:27 AM  
fark monsanto
 
2014-01-25 11:04:08 AM  
Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.
 
2014-01-25 12:04:04 PM  
How heavy do they think the labels will be?
 
2014-01-25 12:10:57 PM  

grokca: How heavy do they think the labels will be?


They're initiating the process of deciding whether to start to investigate considering weighing the labels.

If the labels have the complete genetic code for each ingredient, those are going to be some heavy labels.
 
2014-01-25 12:13:53 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: grokca: How heavy do they think the labels will be?

They're initiating the process of deciding whether to start to investigate considering weighing the labels.

If the labels have the complete genetic code for each ingredient, those are going to be some heavy labels.


It's not heavy, it's my label.
 
2014-01-25 12:51:58 PM  
Just about everything we eat is genetically modified.

Do you really think that supermarket style tomatoes exist in nature?
 
2014-01-25 01:39:55 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Just about everything we eat is genetically modified.

Do you really think that supermarket style tomatoes exist in nature?


You're probably looking for an argument about whether selective breeding is genetic engineering, but in the usual sense of the phrase, per Wikipedia, there are no genetically modified tomatoes on the market. A lot are being grown for research though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-25 02:12:46 PM  
Pretty much any domesticated plant or animal is genetically modified.  If you live in the US you are already eating GM food, even if you mean modified by something other than artificial selection.
 
2014-01-25 03:12:52 PM  

vpb: Pretty much any domesticated plant or animal is genetically modified.  If you live in the US you are already eating GM food, even if you mean modified by something other than artificial selection.


but but Monsanto! Evil!
 
2014-01-25 03:22:54 PM  
Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.
 
2014-01-25 03:30:04 PM  

Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.


That.
 
2014-01-25 03:35:10 PM  
OMG / GMO

/run, scurry, Monsanto wants to hear from you
 
2014-01-25 03:35:19 PM  
We already do
 
2014-01-25 03:36:00 PM  
I think in Free-Market America that it's anti-business for companies to have to list if their ingredients are GMO. Who's to say what GMO does or doesn't do to people over the long run, so why should it have to be labeled prematurely? In essence you're creating a blacklist of products, and we all know how bad blacklists have been in our history.

Keep your big government nose out of poor farmers pocketbooks. Thanks Obama!
 
2014-01-25 03:36:10 PM  
If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.
 
2014-01-25 03:36:59 PM  
Ruby Red grapefruit are a product of x-ray caused mutations. At least with full on GM you know what changes were made.
 
2014-01-25 03:37:42 PM  
The lovely thing about people who scream and yell about Monsanto can't back up their claims without citations to poorly written, extremely biased sites with URLs like Monsanto Is Going To Kill You Dot Com.

New York Times did a lovely write-up about a Hawaiian politician who actually searched out answers.  It's a great read.

Monsanto hate is two levels away bad-science wise from anti-vaxxers.
 
2014-01-25 03:38:26 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-25 03:38:36 PM  
We're already eating GMOs they don't have to be labeled now, so I'm not sure what's with the question subby. I suppose having them labeled would allow people to make a choice.

Cheerios recently dropped GMOs but only in the original flavor.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/02/cheerios-gmo s- cereals/4295739/
 
2014-01-25 03:39:45 PM  
No GMO for me.
 
2014-01-25 03:39:46 PM  
Of course I eat genetically modified food.  So does everyone who eats food except for the true locovores who grow their own food from known seeds and only trade with others who do the same.
 
2014-01-25 03:39:54 PM  

Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.


People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically.  People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.
 
2014-01-25 03:40:17 PM  
The right wing has AGW denialists, the left wing has GMO denialists.

There is no reasonable evidence that indicates that GMOs are harmful in a biological sense.  Even the horror stories of Monsanto's business practices are pretty over-stated.
 
2014-01-25 03:40:51 PM  
No - I do not eat GMO (honestly) I eat paleo (and the majority of the food I eat is local, organic) - does that make me better than others? no. just answering subby's weird question.
 
2014-01-25 03:43:13 PM  
The science is very solid on the safety of GMOs. The few scare studies that the science-illiterate  paranoids like to quote are either non-existent, or don't support their claims, or are of Wakefield caliber.
Labeling is expensive --not the label per se, but the infrastructure required separate and to keep track of what ingredients may or may not be GMO. All that to pander to dumb chicken-little douchebags.
There's a town in Ontario that has a by-law saying new houses cannot have the number 4 in the address, coz 4 scares the superstitious immigrants of Chinese origin. Putting GMO labels is stupider than that by-law by a factor of 100.
 
2014-01-25 03:43:24 PM  

Ambivalence: That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination.


I dunno, that seems like a prudent failsafe to me. It seems like a really bad idea to introduce a GM for plant into the ecosystem without it having a built in kill switch to keep it from reproducing unchecked, especially since plants swap DNA much more readily than animals. Sure, it makes farmers dependent on Monsanto for new seeds, but after seeing so many issues with invasive species like kudzu getting out of control after being introduced as a beneficial species, I'd rather err on the side of caution and add the terminator genes into GM crops until we have more experience with how they interact with other species and the overall environment.
 
2014-01-25 03:43:35 PM  
Wait till they make a THC producing tomato.
 
2014-01-25 03:45:26 PM  
Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?
 
2014-01-25 03:45:57 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically.  People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.


Psssst.  That's exactly what the GM plants are doing.  Because

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-01-25 03:48:56 PM  
I propose that we force companies to label their non GMO food in 3 inch tall red letters, so I can avoid inferior product.
 
2014-01-25 03:50:00 PM  
It is easy to know if you are eating GMO foods.  If you live in America, the answer is YES.  You can also test it yourself:
http://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/product/gmo-investigator-kit
 
2014-01-25 03:50:48 PM  

Trocadero: If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.


Because for the manufacturers, putting a label "may be GMO" scares off consumers, or may scare off the customers. So they take out any ingredients which may qualify. And consumers get worse/dearer foods as a result.

The Greenies love it bc they don't have to win the rational debate, they only have to win the emotional one
 
2014-01-25 03:53:49 PM  

xanadian: Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

That.


Indeed. Well stated.
 
2014-01-25 03:53:57 PM  
Sure.  I've always wanted two heads.
 
2014-01-25 03:54:46 PM  
It's not the labeling cost per se, it's that the way some of these laws are being written, they give scuzzy tort lawyers a big payday without actually making any difference to food safety.
 
2014-01-25 03:55:55 PM  
GMs taste like crap and they are associated with aging and blue hair.

Some of them are great for swatting flys, however.
 
2014-01-25 03:56:57 PM  

grokca: How heavy do they think the labels will be?


Same as a henweigh ;-)
 
2014-01-25 03:57:30 PM  
The only question I have is, is soylent green GMO?

You know there is a "real" Soylent??
 
2014-01-25 03:58:27 PM  

Kensey: It's not the labeling cost per se, it's that the way some of these laws are being written, they give scuzzy tort lawyers a big payday without actually making any difference to food safety.


As god and the GOP/DFL intended.
A consensus!
 
2014-01-25 03:58:58 PM  
Eatable corn has always been genetically modified.
 
2014-01-25 04:00:08 PM  

ZipSplat: The right wing has AGW denialists, the left wing has GMO denialists.


This
 
2014-01-25 04:00:23 PM  

snuffy: fark monsanto


I honestly thing a lot of the opposition to GMO's has less to do with with the nature of the food, and more to do with the business methods that go into producing the food.
 
2014-01-25 04:00:40 PM  
I always found it ironic that the same people who rail against religion and call on the virtues of logic and science are the ones that seem to be so skeered of gmo foods.
 
2014-01-25 04:03:24 PM  

domo_kun_sai: Eatable corn has always been genetically modified.


No!
Selectively bred, yes.
GMO is newspeak.
 
2014-01-25 04:03:49 PM  

snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?


puh-tey-toh

tuh-mey-toh


But we all agree,
mon-san-toh   is evil . . . .

Life forms wander to all living lands, and should not be claimed by the owner of the land they wander from.
 
2014-01-25 04:05:08 PM  
Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?


www.horseclicks.com


"Nay."
 
2014-01-25 04:05:53 PM  

Trocadero: If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.


It's a big deal because of public perception, which is not necessarily scientifically-literate.

Imagine if producers of bottled water were compelled to put on a big red label "This product contains dihydrogen monoxide."
 
2014-01-25 04:07:46 PM  

yoyopro: snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?

puh-tey-toh

tuh-mey-toh


But we all agree,
mon-san-toh   is evil . . . .

Life forms wander to all living lands, and should not be claimed by the owner of the land they wander from.


Can we all agree that lying about it is the smoke to a fire?
 
2014-01-25 04:08:14 PM  
It depends.
What are they manipulating?  Foods that are altered to be toxic to bugs, no way I'm eating that.
 
2014-01-25 04:10:25 PM  
Genetically modified foods are probably the only reason humans still have enough food to support the current population. Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution made this possible, and it started with him crossing as many varieties of wheat every which way possible in the ultimate act of "throw enough shiat against the wall, some of it will stick". The advances that have allowed us to read complete DNA  make-ups of plants, and reliably alter their genes is like going from Ford's original production line, to their current one in about one-third time.

Monsanto (and Cargill and Pioneer and Dow...) all suck because of other business practices, like suing farmers whose crops got their "proprietary" DNA strain via cross-contaminated. Or even patent the DNA of a plant and then sue the farmers who have been farming it for years (happens more in South America).
 
2014-01-25 04:10:40 PM  
It's simple

We label all foods as being genetically modified

Then everyone is happy
 
2014-01-25 04:10:43 PM  

snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?


Yup, for all intents and purpose, it's the same thing. Except that the GMO method poses less risk, as only one or two genes are transferred, as opposed to the dozens that you'de get by traditional methods (which, btw, very much include methods like mutagenesis via irradiation or exposure to toxic chemicals.)
 
2014-01-25 04:11:03 PM  
Sorry, I only eat non-genetically modified pussy.

/I know, I'm old school.
 
2014-01-25 04:11:06 PM  

Ambivalence: There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified.


THIS.


blastoh: I honestly thing a lot of the opposition to GMO's has less to do with with the nature of the food, and more to do with the business methods that go into producing the food.


I never really got that impression.  Most of the people I know who have a problem with GMO stuff seem to believe that it is actually bad for you.
 
2014-01-25 04:12:16 PM  

rev. dave: It depends.
What are they manipulating?  Foods that are altered to be toxic to bugs, no way I'm eating that.


Most any plant manufactures pesticides.
 
2014-01-25 04:13:40 PM  

AlanSmithee: snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?

Yup, for all intents and purpose, it's the same thing. Except that the GMO method poses less risk, as only one or two genes are transferred, as opposed to the dozens that you'de get by traditional methods (which, btw, very much include methods like mutagenesis via irradiation or exposure to toxic chemicals.)


And black is the new white.
Do go on, but, I have seen this before, but you never know,,,
 
2014-01-25 04:14:07 PM  
I own a company that distributes free seeds to individuals and organizations. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has asked me to please not include GMO seed in filling their request. My friends who have online catalogs have the same experience.

GMO seeds are not available to the public, they can only be purchased by contract between an authorized seller and a registered buyer. Any seed which is not sown can be returned to seller. It cannot be resold or gifted. That is in the contract. If I were to knowingly accept a donation of modified seed and distribute it I would go to jail, so would the person that gave me the seed.

Many seed catalogs and their urls will have a blurb or a link touting that their seed is not GMO seed, that they don't sell it. This is the same as margarine trumpeting that it is cholesterol free. In both cases it is not possible for the highlighted item to actually be there, Catalogs selling to the public cannot keep GMO seed in their inventory, the public is not allowed to have it. Comparatively, margarine is an over-produced vegetable fat--there is no cholesterol in vegetables. That being said, I have made the Safe Seed Pledge because it is a form of verification of ideology, it's a reference.
 
2014-01-25 04:14:44 PM  

HairyNevus: Monsanto (and Cargill and Pioneer and Dow...) all suck because of other business practices, like suing farmers whose crops got their "proprietary" DNA strain via cross-contaminated. Or even patent the DNA of a plant and then sue the farmers who have been farming it for years (happens more in South America)


Cites, please? The only cases I know of is when the farmer deliberately planted the seeds.
 
2014-01-25 04:15:03 PM  

snocone: yoyopro: snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?

puh-tey-toh

tuh-mey-toh


But we all agree,
mon-san-toh   is evil . . . .

Life forms wander to all living lands, and should not be claimed by the owner of the land they wander from.

Can we all agree that lying about it is the smoke to a fire?


Absolutely agree!
 
2014-01-25 04:16:56 PM  

snocone: And black is the new white


You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?
 
2014-01-25 04:18:13 PM  
It was horrible, genes dying face down in the mud,, rising agian, OMG, doubled!
The Colchicine Wars.
You weren't there, you can't know.
 
2014-01-25 04:19:27 PM  

AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?


I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.
 
2014-01-25 04:22:01 PM  
I won't eat GMO foods because they aggravate my electromagnetic hypersensitivity disorder and my fibromyalgia.
 
2014-01-25 04:22:26 PM  

snocone: yoyopro: snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?

puh-tey-toh

tuh-mey-toh


But we all agree,
mon-san-toh   is evil . . . .

Life forms wander to all living lands, and should not be claimed by the owner of the land they wander from.

Can we all agree that lying about it is the smoke to a fire?


My understanding is that in the famous Monsanto case, the farmer was deliberately trying to gather the GMO plants by applying pesticides, he wasn't being sued for accidentally getting seeds blown onto his property. So the basis for Monsanto being outrageously evil is a myth being spread by people who don't care about the truth as far as I know.
 
2014-01-25 04:22:59 PM  

snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.


I'm floored by your counter-argument. Apopleptic, even.
 
2014-01-25 04:24:32 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: My understanding is that in the famous Monsanto case, the farmer was deliberately trying to gather the GMO plants by applying pesticides, he wasn't being sued for accidentally getting seeds blown onto his property. So the basis for Monsanto being outrageously evil is a myth being spread by people who don't care about the truth as far as I know


Yes, that is correct. Monsanto has never sued (and say they never will) for simple cases of contamination.
 
2014-01-25 04:25:45 PM  

Ambivalence: That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination.


There are no terminator seeds being sold.
 
2014-01-25 04:29:23 PM  
I'm holding out for glow in the dark tomatoes.
 
2014-01-25 04:31:11 PM  

AlanSmithee: snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.

I'm floored by your counter-argument. Apopleptic, even.


There are pills for that.
 
2014-01-25 04:31:44 PM  
And meanwhile, the anti-GMO douchetwats are doing their best to block the intro of Golden Rice, which will save millions of children from blindness and death.
http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/

I swear, the anti-GMO fart-brains are worse than the anti-vaxxers.
 
2014-01-25 04:31:52 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I'm holding out for glow in the dark tomatoes.


Glow in the dark MJ would be trippy.
 
2014-01-25 04:33:41 PM  

Sgygus: Sure.  I've always wanted two heads.


I eat and will continue to eat GMOs.
And I'm a male so I already have two heads.
 
2014-01-25 04:34:10 PM  
Free Market.


Give people the information on what they are purchasing and let the Free Market play out.
 
2014-01-25 04:37:37 PM  

shtychkn: Free Market.


Give people the information on what they are purchasing and let the Free Market play out.


Too costly for info that is only of use to smug hippies. I don't want my food bill to increase just to appease knuckleheads.
 
2014-01-25 04:39:02 PM  

AlanSmithee: And meanwhile, the anti-GMO douchetwats are doing their best to block the intro of Golden Rice, which will save millions of children from blindness and death.
http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/

I swear, the anti-GMO fart-brains are worse than the anti-vaxxers.


Golden Rice is a miraculous thing.
 
2014-01-25 04:40:02 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: We're already eating GMOs they don't have to be labeled now, so I'm not sure what's with the question subby. I suppose having them labeled would allow people to make a choice.

Cheerios recently dropped GMOs but only in the original flavor.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/02/cheerios-gmo s- cereals/4295739/


and Whole Foods with their no GMO is just a marketing stunt.

labeling no GMO is a win for the greenies as mentioned above and emotion over science. it's the damn anti vaxers all over again.
 
2014-01-25 04:41:57 PM  

rev. dave: It depends.
What are they manipulating?  Foods that are altered to be toxic to bugs, no way I'm eating that.



Too late. You already have. You've been eating it for years.
Bt-producing corn has been grown commercially since the late '90s, and is grown in over a dozen countries.
 
2014-01-25 04:46:10 PM  
If the language is like the following:

Any ag. product contained within this food, whose seed, or seed parent was genetically altered within a laboratory environment with gene splicing or gene replacement techniques, with exception for non-laboratory cross-polination or selective breeding, it shall be considered genetically altered.

It's not that I don't trust genetically-altered food, I'm probably eating it as I type, it's that there is not nearly enough transparency with what they are doing. Add to it that they should not be allowed to patent food, genetically modified or not, it makes for a negative scenario in every aspect from a consumer perspective. Then there's the whole lawsuit abomination regarding Monsanto...

FYI: I used to do computer support for a group who got funding from Monsanto. Bit disappointed and/or disgusted, that I got paid indirectly, or directly, from Monsanto. I take penance on Sundays...
 
2014-01-25 04:46:13 PM  

snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.



Gamma radiation, x-rays, and mutagenic chemicals have been used to product new strains of edible and ornamental plants since the late 1930s.
 
2014-01-25 04:46:59 PM  

GonzoNihilist: I always found it ironic that the same people who rail against religion and call on the virtues of logic and science are the ones that seem to be so skeered of gmo foods.


Caution /= fear.

Eat as much GMO food as you want...it'll help the agribiz portion of my investment portfolio.

I'll stay in the control group at least another few years and see how that works out for you.
 
2014-01-25 04:47:12 PM  

MrBallou: Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.


I would have to know more about the mind-altering hallucinogen.
 
2014-01-25 04:48:40 PM  

cold_weather_tex: Any ag. product contained within this food, whose seed, or seed parent was genetically altered within a laboratory environment with gene splicing or gene replacement techniques, with exception for non-laboratory cross-polination or selective breeding, it shall be considered genetically altered.



Most hybridization also takes place in a laboratory setting. The controlled environment makes it easier to get the desired result
 
2014-01-25 04:50:56 PM  

PunGent: Caution /= fear.


Caution has been the order of the day for all new foods, with even more stringent requirements for GMOs.
At this point, it's plain old unmerited fear that is motivating the dingbats.
 
2014-01-25 04:51:04 PM  

ZipSplat: The right wing has AGW denialists, the left wing has GMO denialists.


There is no reasonable evidence that indicates that GMOs are harmful in a biological sense.


There was a time that you could say this about Cigarettes, alcohol, and artificial sugars.  Take a wild guess what happened?


Even the horror stories of Monsanto's business practices are pretty over-stated.

Some are, some aren't.  They have a pretty slimy business practice going, but it's not illegal as such.
 
2014-01-25 04:55:09 PM  

Kahabut: There was a time that you could say this about Cigarettes, alcohol, and artificial sugars.  Take a wild guess what happened?


What happened: Scientists studied these and determined that cigarettes and alcohol are bad, though industry tried to spin those studies away.
 
2014-01-25 04:55:47 PM  

AlanSmithee: The science is very solid on the safety of GMOs. The few scare studies that the science-illiterate  paranoids like to quote are either non-existent, or don't support their claims, or are of Wakefield caliber.
Labeling is expensive --not the label per se, but the infrastructure required separate and to keep track of what ingredients may or may not be GMO. All that to pander to dumb chicken-little douchebags.
There's a town in Ontario that has a by-law saying new houses cannot have the number 4 in the address, coz 4 scares the superstitious immigrants of Chinese origin. Putting GMO labels is stupider than that by-law by a factor of 100.


I hope that you are hooked up with Obamacare... Cancer is more tolerable when you can afford the drugs. Google is your friend: nih.gov/gmos, cancer.
 
2014-01-25 04:55:57 PM  

give me doughnuts: snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.


Gamma radiation, x-rays, and mutagenic chemicals have been used to product new strains of edible and ornamental plants since the late 1930s.


Point? Supposed to be examples of selective breeding?
Granted, sticks have been poked into the Dark for a few years.
Forgive me if my lifetime of experience watching the half life of "science fact" become ever shorter advises caution and does not favor lies, misrepresentation, half truthyness, corporate greed, bluster and bully tactics.
 
2014-01-25 05:00:06 PM  
Of course I would eat it. Humans are omnivores. We have a wondrous digestive system. It's like a Mr Fusion for your body. It doesn't really give a shiat if that carrot's dna is slightly different. Literally everything we eat is drastically genetically different from what it was at the dawn of civilization.(well, except for perhaps wild game and wild seafood). Every grain and plant humans cultivate, every livestock species. All selectively bred for traits we prefer for thousands of years.

The flip side to that though is releasing genetically modified strains of plants into the wild, where they could impact the natural ecosystem. That kind of sucks. And selling farmers sterile seeds or whatever to prevent it sucks too, forcing farming to be dependent on Big Seed Companies. Remember when a prudent farmer could save enough seed to plant the next years crops? Do we really need to destroy that in the name of Monsanto profits or whatever? Civilization might need the ability to farm without the benefit of some seed manufacturer at some point.
 
2014-01-25 05:00:19 PM  

HairyNevus: Monsanto (and Cargill and Pioneer and Dow...) all suck because of other business practices, like suing farmers whose crops got their "proprietary" DNA strain via cross-contaminated. Or even patent the DNA of a plant and then sue the farmers who have been farming it for years (happens more in South America).


When and where did this happen?
 
2014-01-25 05:08:19 PM  

neongoats: The flip side to that though is releasing genetically modified strains of plants into the wild, where they could impact the natural ecosystem. That kind of sucks. And selling farmers sterile seeds or whatever to prevent it sucks too, forcing farming to be dependent on Big Seed Companies. Remember when a prudent farmer could save enough seed to plant the next years crops? Do we really need to destroy that in the name of Monsanto profits or whatever? Civilization might need the ability to farm without the benefit of some seed manufacturer at some point


We've been throwing genetically modifed plants and animals to the wild for thousands of years.
They don't sell terminator seeds. However, they sell hybrids, (and have for a long time), which also forces the farmer to buy seeds every year. Additionally, it is often the case that it is more cost-effective to buy new seeds instead of collecting a large batch from the present crop.
 
2014-01-25 05:10:52 PM  

snocone: give me doughnuts: snocone: AlanSmithee: snocone: And black is the new white

You really think producing new varieties by dosing the organisms with high radiation or by bathing in harsh chemicals was 'white'?

I think you need an education and time to convert that to wisdom.
With all due respect.


Gamma radiation, x-rays, and mutagenic chemicals have been used to product new strains of edible and ornamental plants since the late 1930s.

Point? Supposed to be examples of selective breeding?
Granted, sticks have been poked into the Dark for a few years.
Forgive me if my lifetime of experience watching the half life of "science fact" become ever shorter advises caution and does not favor lies, misrepresentation, half truthyness, corporate greed, bluster and bully tactics.


Point: Farming the "old fashioned way" has included chemical and radiation-induced GMOs for most of the past century. Hybridization and cross-breeding are methods of altering the genotype of an organism that humans have employed since we invented agriculture.

Genetic engineering is just a less haphazard method of doing the same thing.
 
2014-01-25 05:12:24 PM  

alowishus: HairyNevus: Monsanto (and Cargill and Pioneer and Dow...) all suck because of other business practices, like suing farmers whose crops got their "proprietary" DNA strain via cross-contaminated. Or even patent the DNA of a plant and then sue the farmers who have been farming it for years (happens more in South America).

When and where did this happen?


It happened on the set of the fake moon landing.
 
2014-01-25 05:13:12 PM  

alowishus: HairyNevus: Monsanto (and Cargill and Pioneer and Dow...) all suck because of other business practices, like suing farmers whose crops got their "proprietary" DNA strain via cross-contaminated. Or even patent the DNA of a plant and then sue the farmers who have been farming it for years (happens more in South America).

When and where did this happen?



Even NPR has busted that myth.
 
2014-01-25 05:14:42 PM  
I'm eating GMO food as I'm typing this.

/mmm..., GMO is tasty
//have a bite, foodie
 
2014-01-25 05:15:43 PM  

Gway: Google is your friend: nih.gov/gmos, cancer


I couldn't find anything, except for the pubmed articles, of which only the Wakefieldish studies are anti-GMO.
 
2014-01-25 05:16:39 PM  

netgamer7k: I'm eating GMO food as I'm typing this.

/mmm..., GMO is tasty
//have a bite, foodie


My GMO food has double-gluten!
 
2014-01-25 05:18:23 PM  

Trocadero: If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim.


Because labeling does nothing except allow people to have a knee-jerk reaction against the food.  Knowing a food is or isn't GMO falls under the "true but useless" knowledge - it gives you just enough information to make an emotional reaction but not even close to enough information to make a logical one.

It would be like adding a "contains chemicals" label to every food on the planet.  It's certainly true - all food is made of chemicals - but it tells you absolutely nothing that could be used to make a rational decision.  Not all chemicals are equal, nor are all genetic modifications.  In theory, some modifications could be harmful (for example, intentionally splicing a toxin-producing gene could make a normally non-toxic food dangerous).  Some modifications could be beneficial (for example, knocking out a toxin-producing gene naturally found in the organism, or increasing the nutritional value of the food).  Others could be a total wash from a food quality perspective (for example, allowing the plant to grow in soil not normally conducive to it).
 
2014-01-25 05:19:14 PM  
Unless you eat wild plants and animal exclusively, you're eating generically-altered food since mankind has been genetically altering plants and animals for a good 7,000 years.
 
2014-01-25 05:23:54 PM  

AlanSmithee: Kahabut: There was a time that you could say this about Cigarettes, alcohol, and artificial sugars.  Take a wild guess what happened?

What happened: Scientists studied these and determined that cigarettes and alcohol are bad, though industry tried to spin those studies away.


And to extend the analogy, scientists have repeatedly studied GMO foods and found that- surprise- they have exactly the same effects as normal food! They even found that, because your stomach acid breaks them down into random chemicals anyway, minor tweaks to the DNA of the plant are completely irrelevant!

We already know what the long term effects of eating GMO food are. They're nothing.
 
2014-01-25 05:23:58 PM  

AlanSmithee: shtychkn: Free Market.


Give people the information on what they are purchasing and let the Free Market play out.

Too costly for info that is only of use to smug hippies. I don't want my food bill to increase just to appease knuckleheads.



Simple,

IF producers don't want to show that they don't have GMOs, them make them put the label "Contains GMOs".   Companies that have shown they don't use GMOs can advertise that they don't.

This shouldn't raise the cost except for companies that want to sell to "smug hippies" who care about GMOs.
 
2014-01-25 05:30:12 PM  

shtychkn: Simple,

IF producers don't want to show that they don't have GMOs, them make them put the label "Contains GMOs".   Companies that have shown they don't use GMOs can advertise that they don't.

This shouldn't raise the cost except for companies that want to sell to "smug hippies" who care about GMOs.


The 'organic' label covers that to some extent.
 
2014-01-25 05:31:26 PM  
Why don't the proponents of this realize that is it unconstitutional for states to require this?
 
2014-01-25 05:32:43 PM  

Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.


There is no terminator plants out there.  Why do people insist on spreading this out and out lie?
 
2014-01-25 05:33:02 PM  

shtychkn: This shouldn't raise the cost except for companies that want to sell to "smug hippies" who care about GMOs.


You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers. The grainery doesn't track the biological profile of each harvest, farmers grow what they're going to grow, and dump it all in one big pile. So now you have to develop a system- with significant physical components, and thus construction costs, as well as labor, to track exactly what corn is in every shipment from the farmer. Then you have to figure out exactly what's being put in each rail car to the company making the food. You have to calculate prices differently for different types of corn, so you're adding a new layer of speculation on top of things.

And there are just a billion other costs throughout the system.

A requirement like that does drive up costs, and potentially significantly so, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
 
2014-01-25 05:40:00 PM  
people id your eating Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts  or Cauliflower your already eating genetically altered food as they all started out as the same plant.

Human have been doing this since before written history , the only difference is now we can do it far quicker.
 
2014-01-25 05:45:19 PM  
Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?

Yes, I do eat food.  Even the kind with dihydrogen monoxide in it.
 
2014-01-25 05:49:25 PM  

Snarfangel: MrBallou: Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.

I would have to know more about the mind-altering hallucinogen.


The Psilocybin Potatoe. Kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
 
2014-01-25 05:49:26 PM  

sprgrss: Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

There is no terminator plants out there.  Why do people insist on spreading this out and out lie?


When you have no facts or truth on your side, what choice do you have?
 
2014-01-25 05:49:34 PM  

grimlock1972: people id your eating Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts  or Cauliflower your already eating genetically altered food as they all started out as the same plant.

Human have been doing this since before written history , the only difference is now we can do it far quicker.


Yes, we can, but the "we" part is sorta behind in the race to adapt.
H2O  ,  H2SO4 is there "really" a difference? They seem close enough to confuse the public with.
 
2014-01-25 05:49:45 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically.  People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.


Terminator plants still produce pollen. Stray pollen is what people freak out over.
 
2014-01-25 05:51:53 PM  
Unless you're eating food purely from the wild, you are eating genetically altered food.  We have been breeding food sources, be it animal or plant, to be more effective as food sources since looooooong before Gregor Mendel discovered the apparatus of heredity.  Directly altering the genetics is just more hands-on the actual mechanism than ever before.
 
2014-01-25 05:53:40 PM  
The vast majority of our crops are genetically modified organisms and have been for centuries.  That thing with Gregor Mendel and the peas?  Yep that's insidious and unnatural genetic modification.  So yeah it turns out that every one will eat genetically modified organisms.  Now that we've established that the question becomes how much modification is too much.

I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others.
 
2014-01-25 05:56:23 PM  

angry bunny: I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others


The world could use a few zombies, just for kicks.
 
2014-01-25 06:00:04 PM  

AlanSmithee: angry bunny: I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others

The world could use a few zombies, just for kicks.


And, targets.
I never seem to find enough time to get to the range in 26 minutes.
 
2014-01-25 06:02:42 PM  

angry bunny: The vast majority of our crops are genetically modified organisms and have been for centuries.  That thing with Gregor Mendel and the peas?  Yep that's insidious and unnatural genetic modification.  So yeah it turns out that every one will eat genetically modified organisms.  Now that we've established that the question becomes how much modification is too much.

I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others.


Ninja'd you in Gregor Mendel invocation.
 
2014-01-25 06:05:24 PM  

Ambivalence: Doc Daneeka: Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically.  People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.

Terminator plants still produce pollen. Stray pollen is what people freak out over.


Which is just as rational as my dad freaking out about "Death Panels" or "FEMA camps"
 
2014-01-25 06:07:29 PM  

MadCat221: angry bunny: The vast majority of our crops are genetically modified organisms and have been for centuries.  That thing with Gregor Mendel and the peas?  Yep that's insidious and unnatural genetic modification.  So yeah it turns out that every one will eat genetically modified organisms.  Now that we've established that the question becomes how much modification is too much.

I personally draw the line at products that will harm me, the environment, or create zombies or zombie like effects in others.

Ninja'd you in Gregor Mendel invocation.


I have been defeated good sir.  Please remove my head promptly and remember: There can be only one.
 
2014-01-25 06:12:22 PM  

alowishus: Ambivalence: Doc Daneeka: Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically.  People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.

Terminator plants still produce pollen. Stray pollen is what people freak out over.

Which is just as rational as my dad freaking out about "Death Panels" or "FEMA camps"


Just the concept and "possibility" of asexual reproduction has always offended the Fundies.
 
2014-01-25 06:12:25 PM  

Ambivalence: Terminator plants still produce pollen. Stray pollen is what people freak out over.



I get upset over stray pollen.
That shiat makes me sneeze
 
2014-01-25 06:16:24 PM  
Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?

Headline makes one tense.
 
2014-01-25 06:32:57 PM  
There is a difference between selection and transponsons.....So yea I will not eat the latter shiat.  No thank you ADM, Monsanto, et al.....
 
2014-01-25 06:35:27 PM  
GMO wank is one of the more irritating topics to me. There are millions of Americans who just don't care what the stuff they ingest does to them on a cellular level. Then there are those who do care. Obviously foods should be labeled and yes it should be mandatory. People want biodiversity but not if said genes are being altered to be harmful or kill. Who cares if the labels are too complicated for an average person to understand? That's what t3h 1nternet (and dr oz, lol) is for.
 
2014-01-25 06:35:37 PM  

MrBallou: Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.


This. Don't really give a fark much.
 
2014-01-25 06:40:44 PM  

LordOfThePings: Do you eat or will consider eating genetically-altered food?

Headline makes one tense.


saw that
 
2014-01-25 06:41:42 PM  

AlanSmithee: Yes, that is correct. Monsanto has never sued (and say they never will) for simple cases of contamination.


When did they say that? Because I'm not getting that from their statement after they won the big lawsuit. And the court itself said that they didn't address the entire problem of what to do about accidental contamination or hybridization. They only addressed the case of this one farmer.

And then Monsanto made kind of a weasely statement: "The court's ruling today ensures that longstanding principles of patent law apply to breakthrough 21st century technologies that are central to meeting the growing demands of our planet and its people," said David F. Snively, Monsanto's top lawyer. "The ruling also provides assurance to all inventors throughout the public and private sectors that they can and should continue to invest in innovation that feeds people, improves lives, creates jobs, and allows America to keep its competitive edge."

It kind of sounds .like they are reserving the right to sue anyone they damn well please, because patents. And why wouldn't they? If their extremely valuable patented seed escapes, just like it's doing right now, their patent will be worthless. What's the point of having a patent if the shiat is just going to blow and hybridize all over the place?

And they already have the Supreme Court on their side: The Chief Justice quickly broke in to ask Mark Walters (arguing for Bowman): "Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" When Walters suggested that Monsanto could protect itself adequately by contract, the Chief Justice commented, dismissively, that "the patent system is based, I think, on the recognition that contractual protection is inadequate to encourage invention."

Plus Monsanto is a huge corporation and they will fark everybody they can. That's what they do.  But we should trust them because their horrible reputation is only partially deserved.
 
2014-01-25 06:45:29 PM  

Gawdzila: blastoh: I honestly thing a lot of the opposition to GMO's has less to do with with the nature of the food, and more to do with the business methods that go into producing the food.

I never really got that impression.  Most of the people I know who have a problem with GMO stuff seem to believe that it is actually bad for you.


Pretty much that. Hell, Whole Foods has massive misinformation banners about how GMO stuff will harm you.
 
2014-01-25 06:49:23 PM  

Ambivalence: That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination


But I thought bananas were God's chosen food and an atheist nightmare!

/Yes, yes, even the guy who said that disavows it now.
 
2014-01-25 06:56:05 PM  
www.justsaypictures.com
 
2014-01-25 07:10:45 PM  

cryinoutloud: AlanSmithee: Yes, that is correct. Monsanto has never sued (and say they never will) for simple cases of contamination.

When did they say that? Because I'm not getting that from their statement after they won the big lawsuit. And the court itself said that they didn't address the entire problem of what to do about accidental contamination or hybridization. They only addressed the case of this one farmer.


From the Monsanto site:
Can a farmer be sued when a small amount of GM crop seed blows into a neighbor's fields? Do you sue this farmer? Does he or she have to prove he or she is innocent?
It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in farmers' fields as a result of inadvertent means. We have no motivation to conduct business in this manner, nor have we ever attempted to conduct business in this manner -- and we surely would not prevail in the courts if we did.
If a suspected instance of a farmer violating our technology agreements or patent rights is reported to us, we do not automatically assume a farmer has intentionally acted in an unethical or criminal manner. The burden of proof is not on the farmer. Instead, the burden of proof is on Monsanto to investigate the legitimacy of these claims and to resolve the issue as quickly and fairly as possible, which usually does not lead to litigation.
It is patently false that Monsanto sues farmers for the accidental presence of our technology in their crops.
 
2014-01-25 07:29:24 PM  

cold_weather_tex: It's not that I don't trust genetically-altered food, I'm probably eating it as I type, it's that there is not nearly enough transparency with what they are doing.


The problem is that providing information is only useful if people know what to do with it or if it comes in some sort of informative context.  If they don't, or it doesn't, people make assumptions instead.  Assumptions like "Hmm, they're warning me that this food is genetically modified.  That sounds scary, maybe it's bad for me".

The people who support the GMO label stuff know full well that the purpose is to dissuade rather than inform, which is what really bothers me about it.  Not only are they wrong about GMO stuff, but they're trying to get everyone on their side by taking advantage of ignorance and a fear of evil "weird science" instead of actually seeking to persuade with factual information.

As it is said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
 
2014-01-25 07:40:28 PM  
Pretty sure I'd eat human flesh seasoned with heroin if were cheaper than ground beef.


And if such was the case, I'd prefer not to be told.
 
2014-01-25 07:42:17 PM  
Feh.  I voted against a similar silly bill in CA a few years ago.  There is zero evidence that genetically modified foods are any better or worse than other foods.  There is therefore no reason to label them.  It adds cost without doing a bit of good for anybody.  Plus, what would anybody do with that info?  If food makers had to label gm foods then damn near everything on the shelves would be labeled.  I suppose that would work out fine since then all except the most stupid would realize that 90% of what they have been eating is gm and it hasn't harmed them a bit, however, it still would be an added cost for no good reason.
 
2014-01-25 07:50:13 PM  
We're already eating genetically modified "food".  We just don't have the option of knowing so.  If I had the choice I would not.  However, they will likely find ways to get around it even if they ever are required to label.  Like the transfat thing.  They get to label it transfat FREE if it's 1/2 a gram or less per serving.  Not too many things that qualify as a serving as listed on the label.  So you're eating much more.  Plus that and high fructose corn syrup are in just about all processed foods of any type, because they extend shelf life.  if there is hydrogenated, or
interesterified (how's that for a meaningless made up word)  anything oil on the label, it has transfat.    Absolutely if the word hydrogenated appears on the label.  Interesterification (?!?!)  does not produce hydrogenation, but most of the time the initial ingredient is hydrogenated oil.  So they get to use that stupid made up word instead of telling you that you're eating further modified hydrogenated oil.

So you'll get something similar with the GMO "food".  You'll still be eating it, with no idea for 50 - 100 years what effect it will have.    On the bright side, maybe all the stomach and other cancers it causes will reverse all the obesity the HFCS and hydrogenated oils have caused over the past 50-60 years.

 
2014-01-25 07:57:38 PM  

StainedGlassRuby: We're already eating genetically modified "food".  We just don't have the option of knowing so.  If I had the choice I would not.  However, they will likely find ways to get around it even if they ever are required to label.  Like the transfat thing.  They get to label it transfat FREE if it's 1/2 a gram or less per serving.  Not too many things that qualify as a serving as listed on the label.  So you're eating much more.  Plus that and high fructose corn syrup are in just about all processed foods of any type, because they extend shelf life.  if there is hydrogenated, or
interesterified (how's that for a meaningless made up word)  anything oil on the label, it has transfat.    Absolutely if the word hydrogenated appears on the label.  Interesterification (?!?!)  does not produce hydrogenation, but most of the time the initial ingredient is hydrogenated oil.  So they get to use that stupid made up word instead of telling you that you're eating further modified hydrogenated oil.

So you'll get something similar with the GMO "food".  You'll still be eating it, with no idea for 50 - 100 years what effect it will have.    On the bright side, maybe all the stomach and other cancers it causes will reverse all the obesity the HFCS and hydrogenated oils have caused over the past 50-60 years.


THIS (not)
 
2014-01-25 08:03:36 PM  
I already eat GMOs. The only thing that makes me want to stop eating GMOs altogether is that GMO producing companies refuse to stand by their products.

Spending billions of dollars to prevent legislation that would require you to add THREE WHOLE LETTERS to your food label does not make you look like something anybody should trust.
 
2014-01-25 08:08:39 PM  

AlanSmithee: All that to pander to dumb chicken-little douchebags.


What the mindset of the average anti-labeling company might look like regarding their own customers.

/go ahead, keep snapping at the hands keeping you in business
 
2014-01-25 08:09:34 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I already eat GMOs. The only thing that makes me want to stop eating GMOs altogether is that GMO producing companies refuse to stand by their products.

Spending billions of dollars to prevent legislation that would require you to add THREE WHOLE LETTERS to your food label does not make you look like something anybody should trust.


Read the thread before flaunting your ignorance...


cptjeff:

You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers. The grainery doesn't track the biological profile of each harvest, farmers grow what they're going to grow, and dump it all in one big pile. So now you have to develop a system- with significant physical components, and thus construction costs, as well as labor, to track exactly what corn is in every shipment from the farmer. Then you have to figure out exactly what's being put in each rail car to the company making the food. You have to calculate prices differently for different types of corn, so you're adding a new layer of speculation on top of things.

And there are just a billion other costs throughout the system.

A requirement like that does drive up costs, and potentially significantly so, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
 
2014-01-25 08:10:20 PM  

grimlock1972: people id your eating Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts  or Cauliflower your already eating genetically altered food as they all started out as the same plant.

Human have been doing this since before written history , the only difference is now we can do it far quicker.


Same deal with changing the climate. The biosphere has been altering the climate for millions of years. Now, we can do it much faster.
 
2014-01-25 08:12:41 PM  

cptjeff: shtychkn: This shouldn't raise the cost except for companies that want to sell to "smug hippies" who care about GMOs.

You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers. The grainery doesn't track the biological profile of each harvest, farmers grow what they're going to grow, and dump it all in one big pile. So now you have to develop a system- with significant physical components, and thus construction costs, as well as labor, to track exactly what corn is in every shipment from the farmer. Then you have to figure out exactly what's being put in each rail car to the company making the food. You have to calculate prices differently for different types of corn, so you're adding a new layer of speculation on top of things.

And there are just a billion other costs throughout the system.

A requirement like that does drive up costs, and potentially significantly so, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.


Ahh, but you didn't  really read what I posted.

You don't want to track, then label "has GMOs"  no need to track.  Prices stay the same for those that aren't "smug hippies"


You want to label "No GMOs", then track and "smug hippies" pay more for it.
 
2014-01-25 08:16:30 PM  
ITT people don't get the difference between what Mendel observed and scientists splicing fish genes into food.
 
2014-01-25 08:19:17 PM  

MrBallou: Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.


Or veggies that produce their own Roundup at toxic levels.
 
2014-01-25 08:30:46 PM  
I could not care less, we have been eating genetically modified food for hundreds of years. Now we just do it without the trial and error and wasted time.
 
2014-01-25 08:39:20 PM  
I really don't farking care. That being said, people have the right to be silly ninnies, so go ahead and label everything. Label the GMOs, label the specific pesticides used, label the farmer's dick length, I DON'T CARE.
 
2014-01-25 08:55:45 PM  

cryptozoophiliac: grimlock1972: people id your eating Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts  or Cauliflower your already eating genetically altered food as they all started out as the same plant.

Human have been doing this since before written history , the only difference is now we can do it far quicker.

Same deal with changing the climate. The biosphere has been altering the climate for millions of years. Now, we can do it much faster.


No argument from me on that.
 
2014-01-25 08:56:31 PM  
I always love the Monsanto topic because they've been vilified so dramatically for...nothing.

I also love when vegans tell me that they're GMO free. (note: the latest number was something like 93-97% of all soy beans are genetically modified, so it's pretty much a certainty that you can't get GMO free soy beans).

There's a movement now, some anti-GMO group, that is offering to allow you to put their label on your product after you've followed a ridiculously long process of identifying where each and every seed you use comes from, even allowing them to perform genetic analysis on them (and yes, you have to pay for all this). Here's the fun part: the group is run by companies that are already advertising that they have no GM products.

Think about that for a moment: imagine a group getting together and spreading the word that using gas from Mexico can cause your car to randomly burst into flames. This group is based in the US, and most likely sells gas that game from Mexico. However, they decide that they'll design a logo that you can put on your gas pump if they can be allowed to analyze your gas (for a fee) and determine none of your gas is from Mexico. However, notice that they're not testing on themselves, just others, and never mind the fact that it's a myth, they'll just keep spreading the word.

Pretty much what's happening!  http://www.nongmoproject.org/
 
2014-01-25 09:47:03 PM  

shtychkn: cptjeff: shtychkn: This shouldn't raise the cost except for companies that want to sell to "smug hippies" who care about GMOs.

You're dead wrong on that. Tracking the ingredients in everything costs money, and a lot of it. A company might buy corn by the ton from the local grainery, which gets corn from 200 different farmers. The grainery doesn't track the biological profile of each harvest, farmers grow what they're going to grow, and dump it all in one big pile. So now you have to develop a system- with significant physical components, and thus construction costs, as well as labor, to track exactly what corn is in every shipment from the farmer. Then you have to figure out exactly what's being put in each rail car to the company making the food. You have to calculate prices differently for different types of corn, so you're adding a new layer of speculation on top of things.

And there are just a billion other costs throughout the system.

A requirement like that does drive up costs, and potentially significantly so, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

Ahh, but you didn't  really read what I posted.

You don't want to track, then label "has GMOs"  no need to track.  Prices stay the same for those that aren't "smug hippies"


You want to label "No GMOs", then track and "smug hippies" pay more for it.


Trouble is, what will likely happen is since so much of the US food supply contains GMOs, distributors won't want to deal with non-GMO certification tracking at all.  It's just extra overhead with no benefit for them.  So they are more likely to turn away products marked "GMO-free" because of the extra burden it imposes on them to maintain records that they were kept that way.  So the hippies just won't be able to get what they want.  As much as I think they're making an issue of nothing on GMOs, I want them to be able to buy all the hippie organic stuff they can afford, because let's not forget that originally "organic" was about not using pesticides and I think it's good to keep that kind of agriculture around.

And again, all this extra cost and hassle is for no demonstrated benefit to the end consumer.
 
2014-01-25 10:35:23 PM  

rev. dave: It depends.
What are they manipulating?  Foods that are altered to be toxic to bugs, no way I'm eating that.


You might want to quit eating organic food then.  The toxins expressed by GMOs are replicating an organic pesticide's output.  People like you crack me up.  BT expressing GMOs generally emit 1 or 2 of the cry proteins that actual BT (an organic pesticide, been around for nearly 100 years) which shiats out about 18 of them, and you think the GMOs are dangerous.  But you'd eat up corn slathered in actual BT which left behind 18 toxic items.

None of which are actually toxic to you, or bees, or fish, or most insects.
 
2014-01-25 10:38:15 PM  

Kensey: Trouble is, what will likely happen is since so much of the US food supply contains GMOs, distributors won't want to deal with non-GMO certification tracking at all.  It's just extra overhead with no benefit for them.  So they are more likely to turn away products marked "GMO-free" because of the extra burden it imposes on them to maintain records that they were kept that way.  So the hippies just won't be able to get what they want.  As much as I think they're making an issue of nothing on GMOs, I want them to be able to buy all the hippie organic stuff they can afford, because let's not forget that originally "organic" was about not using pesticides and I think it's good to keep that kind of agriculture around.

And again, all this extra cost and hassle is for no demonstrated benefit to the end consumer.


Again, if they don't want to deal with the extra tracking, they add "Contains GMOs" to the label and there you go, no more costs.

There are only more costs IF a product wants to be recognized as not containing GMOs.  And that cost is paid for by people who don't want GMOs.
 
2014-01-25 10:40:49 PM  
there so many chemicals and preservatives and weird crap in our food already, i am not even concerned about genetically modified food.  there's pesticides on our vegetables and hormones in our meat, and who knows what else.  unless you're
actually growing all your own food in your backyard, then you should be complaining about all of it, not just genetically altered food
 
2014-01-25 11:42:42 PM  

MrBallou: Snarfangel: MrBallou: Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.

I would have to know more about the mind-altering hallucinogen.

The Psilocybin Potatoe. Kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?


While it is definitely of general interest, I thought the conversation pertained to putting Round Up into the genome of edibles... ... ?
 
2014-01-25 11:44:44 PM  
Unless you buy organic, it's probably GMO. That said; I don't like it in general, but sugar snap peas-couldn't live without 'em.
 
2014-01-26 01:23:44 AM  

shtychkn: Kensey: Trouble is, what will likely happen is since so much of the US food supply contains GMOs, distributors won't want to deal with non-GMO certification tracking at all.  It's just extra overhead with no benefit for them.  So they are more likely to turn away products marked "GMO-free" because of the extra burden it imposes on them to maintain records that they were kept that way.  So the hippies just won't be able to get what they want.  As much as I think they're making an issue of nothing on GMOs, I want them to be able to buy all the hippie organic stuff they can afford, because let's not forget that originally "organic" was about not using pesticides and I think it's good to keep that kind of agriculture around.

And again, all this extra cost and hassle is for no demonstrated benefit to the end consumer.

Again, if they don't want to deal with the extra tracking, they add "Contains GMOs" to the label and there you go, no more costs.

There are only more costs IF a product wants to be recognized as not containing GMOs.  And that cost is paid for by people who don't want GMOs.


So now you set up a situation where a lot of stuff that doesn't actually contain GMOs, is labeled that it does (or may), defeating the "informed consumer" intent of the law -- either because the extra distribution costs make the product unmarketable, or because no distributor exists any more that will try to handle the product in a way that keeps it certifiably GMO-free.  It may even be seen as a deliberate fail by those who oppose GMOs -- "they don't want you to eat real food, so they set up the law so as much as possible is labeled as containing GMOs so people will think that's normal and OK".  Not to mention, why even be a GMO-free producer if your product is going to get labeled "contaminated" by the time it hits a store shelf?

Basically it's a can't-win scenario: either the tracking is infeasibly expensive, won't be accurate, or biases the industry to label a bunch of non-engineered food as containing GMOs.
 
2014-01-26 07:53:59 AM  

AlanSmithee: PunGent: Caution /= fear.

Caution has been the order of the day for all new foods, with even more stringent requirements for GMOs.
At this point, it's plain old unmerited fear that is motivating the dingbats.


Some effects of certain chemical processes don't show up until the children of the people who ingested the chemical reach puberty.  See DES, for example.  Fully approved by the FDA and numerous studies, of course.

Must be safe, right?

Also, google 'regulatory capture.'

Have fun in the test group, though.

Maybe you'll get superpowers!
 
2014-01-26 08:15:11 AM  

Gawdzila: cold_weather_tex: It's not that I don't trust genetically-altered food, I'm probably eating it as I type, it's that there is not nearly enough transparency with what they are doing.

The problem is that providing information is only useful if people know what to do with it or if it comes in some sort of informative context.  If they don't, or it doesn't, people make assumptions instead.  Assumptions like "Hmm, they're warning me that this food is genetically modified.  That sounds scary, maybe it's bad for me".

The people who support the GMO label stuff know full well that the purpose is to dissuade rather than inform, which is what really bothers me about it.  Not only are they wrong about GMO stuff, but they're trying to get everyone on their side by taking advantage of ignorance and a fear of evil "weird science" instead of actually seeking to persuade with factual information.

As it is said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Yeah, how dare someone with a nut allergy learn that his soy products have Brazil nut genes in them.

Or someone with a shellfish allergy learn his tomatoes have clam genes in them.

God knows what they'd do with that information.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal
 
2014-01-26 08:26:29 AM  

Gway: MrBallou: Snarfangel: MrBallou: Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.

I would have to know more about the mind-altering hallucinogen.

The Psilocybin Potatoe. Kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

While it is definitely of general interest, I thought the conversation pertained to putting Round Up into the genome of edibles... ... ?


Yes, it does. My facetious comment was meant to suggest that the labels should have real information about the chemical content, not just that it's a "GMO".
 
2014-01-26 11:51:59 AM  

PunGent: Some effects of certain chemical processes don't show up until the children of the people who ingested the chemical reach puberty.  See DES, for example.  Fully approved by the FDA and numerous studies, of course.

Must be safe, right?


Your objection applies much, much  more to the traditional ways of creating new breeds. As I (and others) have pointed out several times in the thread, the old ways include radiation and mutagenic chemical baths --thus introducing a much greater batch of novel chemicals than GMO , yet you dim bulbs just object to the latter for no good reason other than you saw  a scary meme or watched a paranoid conspiracy movie.
 
2014-01-26 01:26:41 PM  

PunGent: Yeah, how dare someone with a nut allergy learn that his soy products have Brazil nut genes in them.

Or someone with a shellfish allergy learn his tomatoes have clam genes in them.

God knows what they'd do with that information.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal


Except they wouldn't learn any of those things even WITH the label.  The proposed labels don't contain anywhere near that depth of information, they just would add "genetically modified" before the ingredient name.  That would tell you nothing of use at all.  You wouldn't know if the food had been modified by adding phytoene synthase and carotene desaturase to fortify it with extra vitamin A, or Ara h1 to kill people with peanut allergies.

Also, in general we can identify the specific proteins (and thus the specific genes) that cause severe allergies, and nobody is going to genetically engineer those into another organism - that would ruin their company.  More likely, in fact, would be genetic modification to remove / replace allergen-producing genes with similar functioning genes from other species that don't trigger allergic reactions.
 
2014-01-26 01:42:26 PM  

Kensey: So now you set up a situation where a lot of stuff that doesn't actually contain GMOs, is labeled that it does (or may), defeating the "informed consumer" intent of the law -- either because the extra distribution costs make the product unmarketable, or because no distributor exists any more that will try to handle the product in a way that keeps it certifiably GMO-free.  It may even be seen as a deliberate fail by those who oppose GMOs -- "they don't want you to eat real food, so they set up the law so as much as possible is labeled as containing GMOs so people will think that's normal and OK".  Not to mention, why even be a GMO-free producer if your product is going to get labeled "contaminated" by the time it hits a store shelf?

Basically it's a can't-win scenario: either the tracking is infeasibly expensive, won't be accurate, or biases the industry to label a bunch of non-engineered food as containing GMOs



You can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "its too hard to track, GMOs are in EVERYTHING" then turn around and say, "you cant make me label I have GMOs when their is a sliver of a chance I might not!"

So yeah, if you don't prove you don't have GMOs, chance are you do.  Especially give all your arguments you've made against how hard it would be to track GMOs you made earlier.  This lets the customer know the pervasiveness of GMOs.

And for the few companies that go through the effort to ensure that they have no GMOs, they get to label "no GMOs".
 
2014-01-26 02:05:38 PM  
Just like the GOP, no good reason, just "NO!"
smoke/fire
active misinformation campaign/something hidden
deliberate full retard/Fark shill talking derp

What, you fools think you are invisible?
Just like the Walmartian blocking three isles at once, you are taking up space, and WE SEE YOU!
 
2014-01-26 07:20:27 PM  
These are the same food manufacturers who have no qualms about putting "Cholesterol Free!!!" on foods that never had cholesterol in them in the first place.  Cholesterol Free Squash!  Cholesterol Free Potatoes!!!  Don't buy those other guys' products because OURS have zero cholesterol in them- and they're afraid to admit just how much cholesterol is in THEIR products.

Food producers love putting labels on their food, as long as:
a) They don't have to spend any money to comply with whatever it is they're claiming
b) The labels make people buy more of their food and/or
c) They think they can charge more for their food when the labels are on it.
 
2014-01-27 12:38:32 AM  

shtychkn: Kensey: So now you set up a situation where a lot of stuff that doesn't actually contain GMOs, is labeled that it does (or may), defeating the "informed consumer" intent of the law -- either because the extra distribution costs make the product unmarketable, or because no distributor exists any more that will try to handle the product in a way that keeps it certifiably GMO-free.  It may even be seen as a deliberate fail by those who oppose GMOs -- "they don't want you to eat real food, so they set up the law so as much as possible is labeled as containing GMOs so people will think that's normal and OK".  Not to mention, why even be a GMO-free producer if your product is going to get labeled "contaminated" by the time it hits a store shelf?

Basically it's a can't-win scenario: either the tracking is infeasibly expensive, won't be accurate, or biases the industry to label a bunch of non-engineered food as containing GMOs


You can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "its too hard to track, GMOs are in EVERYTHING" then turn around and say, "you cant make me label I have GMOs when their is a sliver of a chance I might not!"

So yeah, if you don't prove you don't have GMOs, chance are you do.  Especially give all your arguments you've made against how hard it would be to track GMOs you made earlier.  This lets the customer know the pervasiveness of GMOs.

And for the few companies that go through the effort to ensure that they have no GMOs, they get to label "no GMOs".


What you're missing is that under, for example, Prop. 37, more than just the producer would be liable for the label integrity.  Everybody who touched any component of the product between production and consumption would have had to maintain records demonstrating the "chain of purity".  Obviously the producer cares, and so does the end retailer, a little, but the distributors have the most opportunity to fark up the chain and the least incentive not to do so.

So the farmer growing say, avocados (to pick a food completely at random), may sell them as GMO-free -- and they are, when he puts them up for sale.  But then the major distributors decide they don't make enough money off that market segment to deal with setting up separate shipping and handling facilities and even then taking the risk that a simple farkup along the line will leave them exposed to a big damage verdict.  So GMO-Free Farms suddenly has nobody willing to buy their GMO-free avocados as GMO-free at a premium price.  What they can do is sell them to the distributor as ordinary avocados -- so now why bother even going to the trouble if the end consumer they're doing it for (somebody who wants non-GMO food) is actually going to avoid their product because the middlemen can't be bothered?

Note that this doesn't mean labeling is doomed to fail, it just means you have to set the bar for compliance a bit low -- which is precisely what the anti-biotech forces don't want.  They want to force everybody to have completely separate plants for handling non-GMO food, not realizing that this will push GMO-free food even further to the margins of the food marketplace instead of putting it center stage.
 
Displayed 161 of 161 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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