I was using toxins in the vague pseudoscience sense, heh
Oh, sarcasm, how I can never detect you...
I was using toxins in the vague pseudoscience sense, heh
the fuck?There is a difference between a hybrid that can self sustain and a GMO hybrid which only exists while using immense amounts of chemicals.
At the moment not a single GMO crop could self sustain, because they lack the basic survival methods of crop, some of them are actually not even able to reproduce themselves without a lab.
Of course this is all perfectly fine, that we are killing millions of bees while dropping so much chemicals on the GMO crop, that everybody in the western world has some of it in it’s body system. Pee in a jar send it to a lab and the will find some of the good stuff from your god Monsanto, like Roundup. This is all fine, because we need more crop. At the moment we could feed 12 billion people without GMO, if we would not threw away about a third of our food.
Without the big food industry we could give small farmers enough income to reduce world wide poverty by about 70%, but again GMO with only works on big fields with lots of chemicals is a way better answer. We could feed the planet with small organic farmers easly, but your hamburger would be maybe 50 Cents more expensive and of course that’s not worth it.
And everybody who thinks, this whole system is batshit insane, is anti-science and some kind weirdo. Maybe science is a little more complex. But also, why the free market people not let the free market decide and label the GMO food, if people are so much into it and they have such a perfect reputation, why should they not decide. Because maybe people would not support companies like Monsanto? So let’s rather lie.
Who cares if something is "natural" or not? In the end, the result is that the target DNA is modified. And I hope you aren't suggesting that something is better if it's "natural".Mmm not exactly. I mean, yes and no. Some forms of genetic modification are not considered natural selective breeding and involve techniques not used until recently like recombinant DNA.
This is like how people automatically think organic is better and pesticide free. The natural pesticides used on organic farms can be even worse than the sythensized alternatives.Who cares if something is "natural" or not? In the end, the result is that the target DNA is modified. And I hope you aren't suggesting that something is better if it's "natural".
It's like people using the word "chemicals" like it means anything. A molecule is either harmful or it's not, whether it's found naturally in a plant or animal or synthesized in a lab.
One of the worst left-leaning, anti-science offenses is denying the health benefits of circumcision.
the fuck?
I couldn't even make it through your entire post. I had to stop before I died of laughter. Which you may approve of since I'm a geneticist and am likely part of your problem.
Edit: Oh wait, the ending is the best part! Let the free market decide! By mandating regulations and labels! Hahaha
What the hell are you even saying, according to FAO, World Bank and a whole lot of other organizations pesticide use is much lower with GMO than with traditional farming.So tell me, which GMO crop out there at the moment would grow, self sustain and reproduce, without the use a pestizide and herbicide at the moment.
So lying to the costumer is the solution, you don't have to know, if it is a GMO product or not, because reasons. As a costumer I usually can decide not to buy a product of a certain company, because I don't like them or don't share their politics. But in the case of GMO I am not even allowed to know, because you know, reasons.
I'm confused by what you are suggesting. What's the point of modifying stuff like soy beans to resist insects by using natural insecticide producing genes, if the plants can't grow without insecticides? Why would they be modifying them to have natural pesticides if unmodified versions were growing fine without those genes? The whole point of many GMOs is that they don't have to rely on pesticides, which normal crops inconsistently suffer from pest attacks over their lack of genetically supported resistances.So tell me, which GMO crop out there at the moment would grow, self sustain and reproduce, without the use a pestizide and herbicide at the moment.
So lying to the costumer is the solution, you don't have to know, if it is a GMO product or not, because reasons. As a costumer I usually can decide not to buy a product of a certain company, because I don't like them or don't share their politics. But in the case of GMO I am not even allowed to know, because you know, reasons.
That would be my snapshot reaction. But if you think about it, glowing trees that "leak" into the broader ecosystem would be fucking disastrous for many, many ecologies and species.And trees are big wind-distribution systems. Any sterilization we attempted would eventually go wrong.
yeah, this one is gonna be a problem for a while.
What the hell are you even saying, according to FAO, World Bank and a whole lot of other organizations pesticide use is much lower with GMO than with traditional farming.
I want to know if whoever picked my apples is a Saggitarius because i don't trust them.
But the industry and government need to ask why you should know these things and what the public mentality approaching that knowledge is. You don't need to know how the pig was killed because in reality, you know it was killed in a factory for a product you keep asking for. If you must know more, that because of your own preferences and not a public interest in safety. You don't need to demand farmers reveal Monsanto seeds because the crop is safe and in demand. Why would you stick alerting labels on a product for no supported reason when it just makes people like you spout off false info to stop buying it?Traditional framing is not large industrial monocultures. Of course GMO is better in the envoirment of the worst imaginable version of farming. And please, World Bank is about the worst source you could ever pick.
So I should not be able to decide, that the product I buy is supporting Monsanto. I can decide, that I will not buy a Nestle product, because I don't like their policy. But the same thing I not allowed to do, because of reasons for GMO food.
But than again, I should not expect too much from a country with state legislation banning people from even showing, how their meat is produced. Because people knowing about animal abuse is also not their buisness.
But the industry and government need to ask why you should know these things and what the public mentality approaching that knowledge is. You don't need to know how the pig was killed because in reality, you know it was killed in a factory for a product you keep asking for. If you must know more, that because of your own preferences and not a public interest in safety. You don't need to demand farmers reveal Monsanto seeds because the crop is safe and in demand. Why would you stick alerting labels on a product for no supported reason when it just makes people like you spout off false info to stop buying it?
And Nestle is a bad comparison. They don't tell you their suppliers. A farm doesn't have to tell you the origin of their seed when there's no scientific reason to. They deliver the produce and that is their brand. That's as close as they get to the equally mysterious Nestle.
So why should the public not even now, if the pig they were eating is either produced in an clean still industrial evoirment like this
http://www.landwirt.com/ez/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/php7W5X3G.jpg[/IM]
or rather like this
[IMG]http://pigpledge.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/intensive-pigfarming.png[/IM]
and you don't want to see the low end.
or if your chicken is produced like this
[IMG]http://www.tierschutzbund.de/uploads/pics/Masthuehner.jpg[/IM]
or more like this
[IMG]http://www.waz-online.de/var/storage/images/waz-az/gifhorn/gifhorn/uebersicht/huehnerfarm-schornsteine-statt-einer-filteranlage/8359014-1-ger-DE/Huehnerfarm-Schornsteine-statt-einer-Filteranlage_ArtikelQuer.jpg[/IG]
or maybe even like this
[IMG]https://www.polarstern-energie.de/fileadmin/files/blog/121022/huehner_4.jpg[/IM]
So I will not buy a Nestle product, because I don't want to support Nestle. But why should I also not be allowed to not buy a GMO product, because I don't want to support Monsanto or Syngeta. Why would that be a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
The meat is tested frequently and the environment is engineered to put out lots of safe meat. And it rarely has issues considering the amounts produced. So why would you be legally mandated to show how a factory processes livestock? How nice can killing animals be for this level of demand? For any level of demand? It's just subjective and what PETA says is too much, others say is perfectly efficient, but neither is different on the actual shelves for consumers, where the government is trying to label for important product info that actually affects the buyer.
You've given nothing but unsupported claims for why those suppliers should be mandated to label the source companies. If you want to know that Monsanto is behind a product you buy from a farm distributor, you will need to look for one who chooses to disclose that. They have no reason to do so otherwise, and your shots in the dark at what problem you have a right to know of isn't an actual problem for the consumer, who the labeling is mandated for in the first place. If there weren't people saying GMOs are bad without evidence, maybe companies would be far more pleased with the notion of sharing their suppliers, but you are determined to make it into a boycott label and spread false information that creates fear and disrupts sales. And what was the reason? Again, your false info.
They don't put these labels on for the same reason they shouldn't put labels that say "This product contains dihydrogen monoxide." It's harmless to the consumer and it's just a fact of the product that will make many turn away in confusion and fear. They'll say they are avoiding stuff like that and ingredients they don't know or can't pronounce. But it would just be water, and people don't get it.
Who cares if something is "natural" or not? In the end, the result is that the target DNA is modified. And I hope you aren't suggesting that something is better if it's "natural".
It's like people using the word "chemicals" like it means anything. A molecule is either harmful or it's not, whether it's found naturally in a plant or animal or synthesized in a lab.
There is a strong reaction against genetically modified plants, yet almost zero opposition to generally modified plants - I.e modified through cross breeding. Yet surely you can introduce undesirable side effects into nature using traditional methods just fine.
I don't really understand the difference in reaction between the two, although I will admit to being wary of GMO. Maybe it's just down to the potential speed and magnitude of change,mcomoared to traditional which may take years to develop a new variety, giving you time to monitor behaviour?
Why should they? What does it matter if they're raised like your first image (which has much fewer pigs making it an odd image to use) over your second image?So why should the public not even now, if the pig they were eating is either produced in an clean still industrial evoirment like this
Why should they? What does it matter if they're raised like your first image (which has much fewer pigs making it an odd image to use) over your second image?
You don't think it's good for consumers to know exactly where their food comes from?
It's an EU law that eggs/meat/dairy products have an unique ID/QR-code that you can use to track everything.
I don't see the downside for consumers.
It's not a good idea if it means consumers who are misinformed or fearful begin to speak against or avoid certain labels that were mandated with no evidence to contradict the conclusive safety studies on them.You don't think it's good for consumers to know exactly where their food comes from?
It's an EU law that eggs/meat/dairy products have an unique ID/QR-code that you can use to track everything.
I don't see the downside for consumers.
What would the benefit be?
It's not a good idea if it means consumers who are misinformed or fearful begin to speak against or avoid certain labels that were mandated with no evidence to contradict the conclusive safety studies on them.
Come on now, you know Gluten Free labeling led hundreds of thousands to adopt it in their diet with the misconception that gluten must be bad. The average consumer is not in need of labels like that which suggest they need to be warned when science shows they don't.
Uh except I just posted about gluten because it is an infamous example of consumers fearing and avoiding an ingredient due to labelingLet's say there is another food scandal, where unsafe meat has been used or some disease could be spread by eating said meat. You know if the product you bought is safe.
Or if you want to buy local and don't want your meat to come from New Zealand, or you have ethical problems when it comes to factory farming.
More labeling is always better, because my interests as a consumer are more important than corporate interests, and I for one am happy that the EU at least partly agrees with me.
Let's say there is another food scandal, where unsafe meat has been used or some disease could be spread by eating said meat. You know if the product you bought is safe.
Or if you want to buy local and don't want your meat to come from New Zealand, or you have ethical problems when it comes to factory farming.
More labeling is always better, because my interests as a consumer are more important than corporate interests, and I for one am happy that the EU at least partly agrees with me.
edit:
I don't think it's the conumers job to blindly trust said corporations/studies when it comes to GMOs. Let me make my own decision, even if it hurts your bottom line.
But the corporations don't get to just toss whatever they want at the market. And over all these decades, there's been testing well beyond the interests and reach of corporations that's done nothing to suggest the corporations misled on safety. Yet you want to see a label that you seem to distrust and fear enough to avoid, and you can easily imagine how many people will have little understanding of the science to know that the labels were demanded by people who didn't look at studies, even though the studies support the safety of the product.Let's say there is another food scandal, where unsafe meat has been used or some disease could be spread by eating said meat. You know if the product you bought is safe.
Or if you want to buy local and don't want your meat to come from New Zealand, or you have ethical problems when it comes to factory farming.
More labeling is always better, because my interests as a consumer are more important than corporate interests, and I for one am happy that the EU at least partly agrees with me.
edit:
I don't think it's the conumers job to blindly trust said corporations/studies when it comes to GMOs. Let me make my own decision, even if it hurts your bottom line.
Uh except I just posted about gluten because it is an infamous example of consumers fearing and avoiding an ingredient due to labeling
So if you put GMO free, people will avoid GMOs, but then you would ask why and the answer would be something derivative of "just because" and "natural" and overall contrary to the best information known for the sake of fearing and instead following people's unsupported warnings. The best info is good in some cases, but then people just seem to abandon it when it comes to food and say science is no longer a trustworthy practice. Diet Coke is made by capitalist Devils, etc.
What about ground meat? It's really interesting that the EU does this.
Gluten free as far as I know is not a mandated label, it's just a marketing strategy to sell stuff. And don't people with celiac have the right to now if something is safe to eat? Same for lactose intolerant people. I don't see the problem here.
If the options are extensive(maybe even excessive) labeling and possible obfuscation, I don't think the choice is too hard to make.
Is it wrong to say that I couldn't care how animals are raised for human consumption?
I mainly don't want there to be issues like there was reading The Jungle and hearing about public health violations and unsanitary methods in meatpacking.
If there was conclusive evidence to say that raising animals one way vs another would result in a better cut of meat, I'd be all for supporting legislation that protected meat quality standards, but as for catching feelings over animals, any animals in fact, I do not. I'd prefer efficient methods that do not compromise food quality.
Is it wrong to say that I couldn't care how animals are raised for human consumption?
I mainly don't want there to be issues like there was reading The Jungle and hearing about public health violations and unsanitary methods in meatpacking.
If there was conclusive evidence to say that raising animals one way vs another would result in a better cut of meat, I'd be all for supporting legislation that protected meat quality standards, but as for catching feelings over animals, any animals in fact, I do not. I'd prefer efficient methods that do not compromise food quality.
Well at least you're honest about being massively selfish and greedy and think that animal abuse is acceptable. I wish more people were as honest as that so I could avoid them.
Well at least you're honest about being massively selfish and greedy and think that animal abuse is acceptable. I wish more people were as honest as that so I could avoid them.
Right, I don't think people are suggesting that there aren't benefits to gluten free labels, just that they have clear negative consequences too. Changing how things are labeled might drastically effect people's behavior.
We'd probably see very different outcomes from these three situations:
1) A big red label on the front which says "Warning: contains gluten"
2) A small label on the back of the box which says "contains gluten"
3) A QRC code on the back of a box which, when looked at online, contains a variety of information, including whether the product has gluten
In theory, all of these labels provide the same information for a consumer. In reality, we've found that people respond very differently to all of these, even if technically they represent the same thing.
What about information overload? Credit Cards in the US are an example of this: people were signing up for bad credit cards in the US not because there was too little information, but because there was so much that people couldn't figure out what mattered and what didn't. Recent legislation forced credit card companies to simplify and remove information so that people could better understand what mattered and what didn't.
You have to make sure you aren't providing too much information, as well. The human brain has a finite capacity.
Good. I don't want to bother with people who hold animals above humans. Or give animals more rights that humans.
I actually agree with your first point, every label has to be the same size and it should be legislated. It can't be that producers of GMO/gluten free food exploit the lack of knowledge on certain topics for their own benefit with cigarette like warning labels.
Information overload is a thing, but you can stop that if every label means something and is legistlated in meaning and size.
That's one of the reasons the EU banned health-claims that are not 100% certain. One infamous example is Danone's Actimel(or DanActive) that claimed it supports the immune system.
And honestly I'm not getting the comparison between credit and groceries.
I don't agree: all labels should not be the same size. Some information is more important than other information and that should be conveyed through label size and positioning.
Can you explain why that would solve the problem? If there are hundreds of labels that all "mean something," then surely that would produce information overload?
It's an excellent example of information overload. Providing information to a consumer seems like an inherently good thing; credit card applications show that it is not. It is often beneficial to give the consumer less information to avoid confusion.
Well, humans are animals.
Do other animals have more rights than humans?
I think generally people just want animals that are bred for slaughter to be treated with some semblance of dignity.
But, hey, as long as you get to stuff your face, who cares about that?
Otherwise, I find it to be a waste of resources & in humane if animals are being treated like pets, raised in that manner, then led to slaughter.
Are you suggesting that it's inhumane to treat livestock humanely? If so, your username seems appropriate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/how-animal-welfare-leads-to-better-meat-a-lesson-from-spain/244127/
He explained that research being conducted in Australia and New Zealand is showing that when stress is minimized in animals, the meat has a lower pH and is consistently more delicate than in animals that experience stress during transport, handling, and slaughter. In other words, when it comes to making a high-quality, rarefied product like jamon Ibérico, a little tenderness goes a long way.
I wondered out loud whether these studies might provide an economic incentive for animal welfare on factory farms. I later realized that industrial meat producers are already well aware that stress has adverse affects on meat. There are even names for the consequences of abuse, like Pale Soft Exudative (PSE). It's so common in fact that the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization talks extensively about PSE in its "Guidelines for Humane Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Livestock." When the animals are subjected to manhandling, fighting in the pens, and bad stunning techniques, the fright and stress causes a rapid breakdown of muscle glycogen. This lightens the color of the meat and turns it acidic and tasteless, making it difficult to sell, so it is usually discarded.
According to research by Kansas State University, PSE causes the U.S. pork industry losses of $275 million annually. If not motivated by morals, industrial pig farmers could avoid profit loss by allowing animals to rest before they are slaughtered, giving them enough space and some water. Unfortunately, most meat today is ground beyond recognition and consumers can't taste the difference, so the cost of creating stress-free environments for animals doesn't pay off.
The Jungle said:[T]he meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw onethere were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit. There was no place for the men to wash their hands before they ate their dinner, and so they made a practice of washing them in the water that was to be ladled into the sausage. There were the butt-ends of smoked meat, and the scraps of corned beef, and all the odds and ends of the waste of the plants, that would be dumped into old barrels in the cellar and left there. Under the system of rigid economy which the packers enforced, there were some jobs that it only paid to do once in a long time, and among these was the cleaning out of the waste barrels. Every spring they did it; and in the barrels would be dirt and rust and old nails and stale waterand cartload after cartload of it would be taken up and dumped into the hoppers with fresh meat, and sent out to the publics breakfast.
.. [quote from The Jungle] ..
My question is are meatpacking standards and large scale industrial farming as bad as this:
Otherwise, I find it to be a waste of resources & in humane if animals are being treated like pets, raised in that manner, then led to slaughter.
(I will admit to joining this thread late, apologies if I've derailed)
While industrial faming in the US leaves quite a bit to be desired, the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was passed in part as a response to the publication of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act
By regulation, FSIS has defined domesticated birds as chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and guinea fowl. Ratites were added in 2001.[1] The primary goals of the law are to prevent adulterated or misbranded poultry and products from being sold as food, and to ensure that poultry and poultry products are slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions. These requirements also apply to products produced and sold within states as well as to imports, which must be inspected under equivalent foreign standards (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.).
There is a difference between treating them like pets or with some dignity. Killing ducks for food with pitchforks is not just unsanitary, it is also cruel and shows how some people working in this industry lack basic human characteristics.
And yes, it makes a difference how you slaughter the lifestock, for example not driving them for thounds of miles before that and reducing the stress level as much as possiblem, Some people even insist, that the meat taste way better because of this, less stress hormones make the meat better.
Ah, The Jungle. Intended as a book to show the awful treatment of workers in industry but all people really cared about was their own food.