The new big stink

[BikerDude]

GMO's. (Genetically Modified Organism)
Around here it's been in the news that Vermont has passed a law that food containing GMO's must say so on the label. Now the big manufacturers are suing the state of Vermont because they say that it could make a 50 state patchwork of labeling laws. (Of course if they just disclosed it in all 50 states it would be no patchwork).
Whatever.

There's a new movie out about GMOs.
http://www.gmofilm.com/

Here's an interview with the director. Very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQUm5Qg4-5I

[Nervine]

Hope it becomes a world-wide thing. Fuck that GMO shit man. Read an article a while ago about a Danish farmer switching to GMO food for his pigs. Whithin a few months almost all of them got all kinds of nasties, diahrrea, sores, tumors. He switched back to normal food and they healed. Dangerous stuff.

[Red Back Dragon Dude]

i am glad people are finally catching onto this issue , i am pro to the idea of GMOs but not to the way that it is being done currently and ESPECIALLY of company's like monsnto those evil fucks.

Australia's CSIRO on the other hand has done some amazing work with GMOs like what they did with their canola so it certainly can be done properly they allso arent clandestine about it or doing anything that i wold say is dangerous they are monitored and heck even i have seen their greenhouses when i was a kid.

[Nervine]

Nothing beats organic produce imo. Nature is perfect as it is. Man trying to make something that's perfect, better... Don't fuck with nature, it WILL fuck back.

[BikerDude]

Whenever someone resists disclosing info it sends up red flags for me.
And the fact that they resist because they say GMO's aren't harmful make zero sense whatsoever.
If they aren't harmful then why fight food labeling?

A lot of places in Europe already either ban them or require food labels. And the studies done there show health concerns while here in the US where the studies are done by the companies making the GMO's we are told there is no concern. The system has been sold.

[Ynot Dude]

For a farmer to label his product 'organic', he must certify, verify, fill out reams of paper work and pay hard earned dollars. Just to say it's natural. Why should chemical companies who produce food be given a free pass? Oh, yeah, political corruption. What's the going rate for a congressman these days?
But, that's just like, my opinion, dudes.
Always abiding,

[Reverend Al]

GMO's. (Genetically Modified Organism)
Around here it's been in the news that Vermont has passed a law that food containing GMO's must say so on the label. Now the big manufacturers are suing the state of Vermont because they say that it could make a 50 state patchwork of labeling laws. (Of course if they just disclosed it in all 50 states it would be no patchwork)...

In 2012 the issue of labeling foods as containing GMOs was on the ballot here in California.  And yet, in this state filled with self-proclaimed health gurus, fitness addicts, and hypochondriacs, the final vote was "No" by a margin of 2.5% because Monsanto, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestle, General Mills, Kelloggs, and a number of other companies spent more than $45 million on a "Vote No" campaign that stated, "It's a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions--without providing any health or safety benefits," all of which was complete bullshit.   

[BikerDude]

GMO's. (Genetically Modified Organism)
Around here it's been in the news that Vermont has passed a law that food containing GMO's must say so on the label. Now the big manufacturers are suing the state of Vermont because they say that it could make a 50 state patchwork of labeling laws. (Of course if they just disclosed it in all 50 states it would be no patchwork)...

In 2012 the issue of labeling foods as containing GMOs was on the ballot here in California.  And yet, in this state filled with self-proclaimed health gurus, fitness addicts, and hypochondriacs, the final vote was "No" by a margin of 2.5% because Monsanto, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestle, General Mills, Kelloggs, and a number of other companies spent more than $45 million on a "Vote No" campaign that stated, "It's a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions--without providing any health or safety benefits," all of which was complete bullshit.   

Yes the misinformation campaign is huge.
Same with natural gas fracking.
It's like Lennon said..... look at who benefits and...

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

I am with RBD Dude, GMOs are fucking awesome, but not the way corporations are using them currently.

Since the first cooking fire and stone tools, humanity has been modifying the environment with technology to better suit our needs. Do not think this will not apply to our food and even our own DNA. Want to know how humanity will evolve tomorrow? Look at what is in the laboratory today.

What pisses me off is the argument that humans are too stupid to handle labeled GMOs. What we don't like is the business model Monsanto uses, not the science.

[BikerDude]

I am with RBD Dude, GMOs are fucking awesome, but not the way corporations are using them currently.

Since the first cooking fire and stone tools, humanity has been modifying the environment with technology to better suit our needs. Do not think this will not apply to our food and even our own DNA. Want to know how humanity will evolve tomorrow? Look at what is in the laboratory today.

What pisses me off is the argument that humans are too stupid to handle labeled GMOs. What we don't like is the business model Monsanto uses, not the science.

Well I have the belief that Humanities biggest weakness is Hubris.
We should take note of what nature prescribes. People often confuse this stuff with plain old plant breeding. It is very very different.
Combining DNA that could not ever be combined in nature is fraught with unknown perils.
And IMO it is foolish to think that we can foresee all the possible disasters.
Splicing the DNA of a virus into corn so that it has a built in insecticide and then feeding it to people without them even knowing is the height of arrogance.
How about the Tomato that was developed to be frost resistant by combining a flounder's anti freeze gene with the tomato's dna?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato
This is Frankenscience driven by a profit motive and the only people responsible for testing the outcome is the company making it.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Why is it one or the other? Can we not become a truly advanced species, and be cautious about it at the same time?

I am all for test tube bacon, GMOs, artificial intelligence, the singularity, augmentation and anything else they have on Star Trek. Humanity as we understand it has only reached .00000000001% of its potential evolutionary development. What we as a species will be in a hundred years is nothing we can even imagine now. The end game is to become god, complete control of matter and energy.

Any argument against that leaves our existence to the whim of chaos.

That said, proceed with caution, because yeah, we can fuck it up but good if we are not careful, but since when has that not been the case? Evolution demands progress, but it promises nothing.

[BikerDude]

Why is it one or the other? Can we not become a truly advanced species, and be cautious about it at the same time?

I am all for test tube bacon, GMOs, artificial intelligence, the singularity, augmentation and anything else they have on Star Trek. Humanity as we understand it has only reached .00000000001% of its potential evolutionary development. What we as a species will be in a hundred years is nothing we can even imagine now. The end game is to become god, complete control of matter and energy.

Any argument against that leaves our existence to the whim of chaos.

That said, proceed with caution, because yeah, we can fuck it up but good if we are not careful, but since when has that not been the case? Evolution demands progress, but it promises nothing.

It demands progress but I'm more concerned what Evolution rewards.
The point is we aren't being careful and to be honest I don't think we can be careful enough.
We just don't understand the implications and I'm not entirely sure that anyone can know what is going to happen when you introduce something new into the ocean of DNA that constitutes the natural environment.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

It rewards the adaptable. Clinging to old regimes is a ticket to extinction.

I am not saying to throw all in with GMOs, I am saying we need diversity of food production, and we should master all of its forms. Thus we will have a quiver full of arrows to use and be skillful in our march through evolution.

[BikerDude]

It rewards the adaptable. Clinging to old regimes is a ticket to extinction.

I am not saying to throw all in with GMOs, I am saying we need diversity of food production, and we should master all of its forms. Thus we will have a quiver full of arrows to use and be skillful in our march through evolution.

I believe the Darwin awards reward "adventure" in a way.
And I actually am not entirely sure that diversity in food production is such a great thing.
I'd probably say that diversity in birth control might be a better option at this point.

[Ynot Dude]

Just like, my opinion, dudes.
Always abiding.