[Tricks]

martin14 martin14:

Tricks Tricks:

You can disagree all you want, at the end of the day, the vast majority of scientists in both fields support GMOs and support Climate change.

And yet the EU goes all gaga for global tax theft,
and bans everything that might have sniffed a GMO 50 miles away.

That's because the European Commission, like all idiot politicians don't listen to people who know more than them.

Anne Glover was the Chief Scientific Adviser (she's a molecular biologist), said there is no demonstrable negative effects of GMOs on humans, and then the position was abolished because of lobbying from a bunch of activists.

So instead of listening to someone who checks virtually every box a science adviser could have on the subject, they listened to activist groups. These same activist groups completely ignored the 10 years she spent as a council member on the Natural Environment Research Council.

[ScottMayers]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

We'd have an improvement if the population growth of all living things themselves were not exponential and are optimized to those beings that populate MORE in environments that suffer more. GMOs help feed the increased population. If you favor evolution without our manipulation upon it, your genes should pass on to your children who will hopefully adapt to manipulate the environment differently. GMOs are as much 'evolutionary' as are non-GMOs THROUGH our evolved intellect.

Nature doesn't require humanity to persist either. All behaviors are similarly 'natural'. So the arguments against GMO should focus on HOW they are managed or you have to deal with the problem of eliminating the populations to compensate for your preferred ideals of 'organic foods.'

So far the whole “GMOs feed the world” claim is just a marketing line it’s not really true. The GMOs approved for human food chain are not being used to feed impoverished people, they’re being used in first world countries, mostly in processed foods or livestock feed, and they’re replacing rather than adding to the commercial crop.

I don't know about this. I DO know that though I live in Saskatchewan, we have a relatively low quality of bread products in OUR OWN BREAD that reaches the shelf! This suggests that the quality is going elsewhere if we even had it to begin with. [Even the famous, "Wonderbread" corporate bread company product here is NOT the same as the Americans get in equal quality!]

We don't improve our potential to 'feed the world' by growing food in the old-fashioned ways regardless. Those products also only 'feed' the rich and religious minded who can afford them and who are deluded in thinking that those products are somehow 'superior' simply because they are more 'godly' for being somehow more 'natural' or 'organic', themselves simply marketing memes that are misleading.

Either FEED the unlimiting population of the people or allow laws that limit the free powers of individuals to reproduce independent of the respect of the rest. This cannot be done using conventional farming without killing off others by starving them to death for making them unable to afford to compete.

[BeaverFever]

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

$1:

I don't know about this. I DO know that though I live in Saskatchewan, we have a relatively low quality of bread products in OUR OWN BREAD that reaches the shelf! This suggests that the quality is going elsewhere if we even had it to begin with. [Even the famous, "Wonderbread" corporate bread company product here is NOT the same as the Americans get in equal quality!

. First I’ve heard that, but what does that claim have to do with anything?

$1:

We don't improve our potential to 'feed the world' by growing food in the old-fashioned ways regardless. Those products also only 'feed' the rich and religious minded who can afford them and who are deluded in thinking that those products are somehow 'superior' simply because they are more 'godly' for being somehow more 'natural' or 'organic', themselves simply marketing memes that are misleading.

. You make it sound like anything non-GMO is overpriced and only available to wealthy health food nuts. Not so. Also the world doesn’t have a food production problem. We have a food distribution problem. We here in west throw out half the food we produce. The majority of crops grown are for livestock and we overconsume meat. We use our political influence to force developing countries to export their crops for our consumption, while dumping our subsided crops on their markets. And at any rate the market and government dysfunctions in third world countries that prevent food from getting in the hands of the public won’t be magically solved by GMO crops. A corrupt official can steal a truckload of golden rice just as easily as a truckload of normal rice.

$1:

Either FEED the unlimiting population of the people or allow laws that limit the free powers of individuals to reproduce independent of the respect of the rest. This cannot be done using conventional farming without killing off others by starving them to death for making them unable to afford to compete.

not true.

[Sunnyways]

Consumers should be given the choice to buy GMO-food or not. It should be labelled, I can't see how any libertarian can disagree with that.

[herbie]

So Japan and S Korea have stopped buying Canadian wheat because of contamination by Monsanto's crap.
LAWSUIT TIME.
Come on politicians, get off your asses and protect our interests again.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's more of a political argument. Never forget Percy Schmeiser!

Agree with the law or not, he did violate it.

Bad laws should be violated. Routinely.

Look at the we get now because of similar laws. Some guy providing the original restore disks for PCs gets 6 months in jail! Because Microsoft wants it that way!

Copyright used to just be a civil matter, now it's been turned into a crime on par with acts of violence.

[herbie]

Only fools want to "restore" all that OEM crap anyway. Even in the old days when Windows couldn't find it's own ass in the dark I regularly tossed them out.

[Tricks]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Consumers should be given the choice to buy GMO-food or not. It should be labelled, I can't see how any libertarian can disagree with that.

A libertarian doesn't normally support a government forcing companies to label things.

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's more of a political argument. Never forget Percy Schmeiser!

Agree with the law or not, he did violate it.

Bad laws should be violated. Routinely.

Look at the we get now because of similar laws. Some guy providing the original restore disks for PCs gets 6 months in jail! Because Microsoft wants it that way!

Copyright used to just be a civil matter, now it's been turned into a crime on par with acts of violence.

Then write your MP about it. The Supreme Court ruled the way that it did because the guy blatantly stole patented seeds. You can argue seeds shouldn't be patented, and I'm not even sure myself where it falls, but currently it is what it is.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

Then write your MP about it. The Supreme Court ruled the way that it did because the guy blatantly stole patented seeds. You can argue seeds shouldn't be patented, and I'm not even sure myself where it falls, but currently it is what it is.

If people are going to argue that genetically-modified foods are unsafe BUT then also argue that people should have unfettered access to them then isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

[Sunnyways]

Tricks Tricks:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Consumers should be given the choice to buy GMO-food or not. It should be labelled, I can't see how any libertarian can disagree with that.

A libertarian doesn't normally support a government forcing companies to label things.

You can go all the way with that and say no labels on anything - those plutonium perogies are particularly delicious - but what happened in the GM case was a conspiracy between the food industry and government to conceal the nature of a particular constituent in food. The intent was to deprive people of a chance to make an informed choice about what they are eating. We know some people won't want to eat GM food and that should be their right. At the moment that option is denied Canadians.

[Tricks]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Tricks Tricks:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Consumers should be given the choice to buy GMO-food or not. It should be labelled, I can't see how any libertarian can disagree with that.

A libertarian doesn't normally support a government forcing companies to label things.

You can go all the way with that and say no labels on anything - those plutonium perogies are particularly delicious. But what happened in the GM case was a conspiracy between the food industry and government to conceal the nature of a particular constituent in food. The intent was to deprive people of a chance to make an informed choice about what they are eating. We know some people won't want to eat GM food and that should be their right. At the moment that option is denied Canadians.

It's an option born of baseless fear. Should we start labelling everything because activists don't like them? It's not vital to health like ingredients or nutritional information, so we be arbitrarily labelling things for... What? Here's a hint, everything in a grocery store is a GMO unless it has organic pasted across it. And even then, go back far enough, that's a GMO too. If you don't want to eat something that's a GMO, you can do the homework yourself. It'd be a waste of tax payer money and an unnecessary attack on farmers. Since they largely use GMOs.

[ScottMayers]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Consumers should be given the choice to buy GMO-food or not. It should be labelled, I can't see how any libertarian can disagree with that.

Then add to this that no one should call food that aren't GMOs as "organic" or "natural"!

This anti-GMO campaign is about competing "alternative" frauds attempting to dislodge their competition, not to actually get people to understand the truth.

[Sunnyways]

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Consumers should be given the choice to buy GMO-food or not. It should be labelled, I can't see how any libertarian can disagree with that.

Then add to this that no one should call food that aren't GMOs as "organic" or "natural"!

This anti-GMO campaign is about competing "alternative" frauds attempting to dislodge their competition, not to actually get people to understand the truth.

It is about truth in advertising. We have a basic and self-evident right to know what we are eating. How anybody would even dare to dispute that assertion is astonishing and yet the accomplices of the GM industry conspire to keep this going at every level.

I don't need to know if the food is organic etc. I do need to know if it is GM. GM is the one that's modified for crying out loud.

[Thanos]

You have a right to now and to make your purchasing decisions as you see fit. That being said the anti-science campaign of hysterics aimed a GMO products, and ones that have been irradiated with harmless x-rays that kill dangerous bacteria, is one of the more reprehensible things that both the conspiracist right-wing and the holistic organic left-wing has done over the last decade or so.