Chipotle Becomes the First to label GMO's

[dilloduck]

I got this return e-mail from a mill I (used to) buy from, in answer to my question about the GMO content of their current stock:

>> We do not have GMO free certified corn. I can't even find it. The corn we use has a 50% chance of being GMO corn and to get it certified GMO free (even if I could find it to purchase) would make the corn cost 150% more than we pay now...and corn has gone up 800% in the past 4 years. It's tough to be in the corn business right now...
Sorry I couldn't help with this <<

This is what we always feared -- stocks of some staples (corn, soy, cotton) are already polluted, possibly beyond redemption.

Thanks, Monsanto, for the agricide. Fuckers.

GMO is "pollution"?

"Agricide" is now a word you've made up?

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to to anti-science flat-earth left.

Science has been wrong thousands upon thousands of times yet you mock at those who question it.

 

[krych3k]

Potential harms to human health have been identified by the World Health Organization as including direct health effects (toxicity)...

That's a lie.

...tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity)....

Another lie.

...specific components with toxic properties, the stability of the inserted gene, nutritional impact and any unintended effects that could result from genetic modification.

A lie mixed with a half-truth for the purposes of alarmism. I acknowledged this earlier.

Harm to the environment has already been documented with the development of "superweeds" that are resistant to the herbicides embedded in the GM crops. Several incidents involving contamination of non-GM crops have also occurred, which were further exacerbated by the fact that these GM seeds are not labeled or segregated in the food supply chain.

None of that is related to GMO technology. "Superweeds" can and do develop with or without GM implementation. Anyways, this is tiresome. Get back to me when you can pass a grade nine biology or chemistry exam.

 

[krych3k]

I got this return e-mail from a mill I (used to) buy from, in answer to my question about the GMO content of their current stock:

>> We do not have GMO free certified corn. I can't even find it. The corn we use has a 50% chance of being GMO corn and to get it certified GMO free (even if I could find it to purchase) would make the corn cost 150% more than we pay now...and corn has gone up 800% in the past 4 years. It's tough to be in the corn business right now...
Sorry I couldn't help with this <<

This is what we always feared -- stocks of some staples (corn, soy, cotton) are already polluted, possibly beyond redemption.

Thanks, Monsanto, for the agricide. Fuckers.

GMO is "pollution"?

"Agricide" is now a word you've made up?

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to to anti-science flat-earth left.

Science has been wrong thousands upon thousands of times yet you mock at those who question it.

"Science has been wrong"? Let me guess, you can't define science...

 

[Wake]

Circumstantial ok?

Are GMOs safe?
In 30 other countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs, because they are not considered proven safe. In the U.S. on the other hand, the FDA approved commercial production of GMOs based on studies conducted by the companies who created them and profit from their sale. Many health-conscious shoppers find the lack of rigorous, independent, scientific examination on the impact of consuming GM foods to be cause for concern.

I find this sentiment to be prudent.

Do you need a clinical case study to know that over consumption of calories or underutilisation of those calories leads to weight gain via fat storage? No. When you understand the metabolic process and how GMO techniques simply realign the amino acids in the DNA of foods we eat, you realise that the anti-science flat-earth anti-GMO left has no case in its crusade against GMO foods. Our bodies break down the DNA of foods we eat into the individual amino acids and either reassembles them to build proteins or excretes them if they're not needed.

I would prefer to see unrefutable evidence that our metabolism processes all amino acids in all GMOs safely. Because nothing has been completely and utterly discerned one way or another, there is reason to question the implications of all GMOs we consume. While I understand the varying amino acids that are the building blocks of our bodies, I don't know for certain that all GMOs can be metabolized with absolutely no negative/unnatural effects to the body.

Beyond factual information in the conversation, you also need an audience that comprehends the relevant science about GMO. In this thread, nobody except myself does. That puts you and everyone at a disadvantage in participating in this conversation. It's almost as if we're not speaking the same language.

Oh?

What is your qualification, if I may ask? Are you perhaps a dietician or a geneticist?

And if you do view yourself in such high esteem, why would you grace everyone else with your presence if it's like you're conversing with us in different languages, hm? Odd, isn't it?

Lastly, the addition of sodium isn't relevant to a conversation about GMO processes, and illustrates your lack of comprehension with respect to the relevant subject matter.

While the addition of sodium is not the same as genetically modified food, I was drawing parallels about the unhealthy modifications of food in general. Lastly, it's generally unwise to talk to others in an uncouth way. Do not ever assume one lacks comprehension about any given subject matter.

 

[dilloduck]

GMO is "pollution"?

"Agricide" is now a word you've made up?

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to to anti-science flat-earth left.

Science has been wrong thousands upon thousands of times yet you mock at those who question it.

"Science has been wrong"? Let me guess, you can't define science...

My bad---It's only those who claim to understand it who have been wrong.

 

[krych3k]

I would prefer to see unrefutable evidence that our metabolism processes all amino acids in all GMOs safely. Because nothing has been completely and utterly discerned one way or another, there is reason to question the implications of all GMOs we consume. While I understand the varying amino acids that are the building blocks of our bodies, I don't know for certain that all GMOs can be metabolized with absolutely no negative/unnatural effects to the body.

You don't need evidence if you understand the process. If I tell you that a baseball will fall to the floor if i drop it, I don't need to actually drop it to know what will happen. People like yourself, however, need to have the phenomenon shown to them because they don't understand the relevant science. That's your problem, not mine. Although of course your ignorance leaves you more vulnerable to be sympathetic to moronic anti-science public policies, which do in turn affect me.

Oh?

What is your qualification, if I may ask? Are you perhaps a dietician or a geneticist?

Neither. Do I need to have such credentials in order to understand the relevant science and impact on human nutrition? It's like saying I can't understand certain history unless I'm a historian, or certain laws unless I'm a lawyer. It's a moronic position that assumes that we need experts to manage our lives.

And if you do view yourself in such high esteem, why would you grace everyone else with your presence if it's like you're conversing with us in different languages, hm? Odd, isn't it?

For all you know I hate myself and am filled with self-loathing. Doesn't change the fact that I am familiar with this and you're not, hence your inability to understand that rearranged nucleobases in GMO foods don't have a direct negative impact on human health outside of the vague areas I mentioned earlier. Perhaps you think we're going to insert some sort of genetic material that gets tomatoes growing fangs with poisonous venoms? Jurassic Park type scenarios?

While the addition of sodium is not the same as genetically modified food, I was drawing parallels about the unhealthy modifications of food in general. Lastly, it's generally unwise to talk to others in an uncouth way. Do not ever assume one lacks comprehension about any given subject matter.

The reason you drew the non-existent parallel between the two scenarios is because you don't understand the relevant science. You presuppose (falsely and based on ignorance) that altering the DNA of foods we eat is harmful to human health. Excessive salt intake is known to cause problems, via mechanisms we understand. The same does not apply to rearranged DNA.

 

[dilloduck]

I would prefer to see unrefutable evidence that our metabolism processes all amino acids in all GMOs safely. Because nothing has been completely and utterly discerned one way or another, there is reason to question the implications of all GMOs we consume. While I understand the varying amino acids that are the building blocks of our bodies, I don't know for certain that all GMOs can be metabolized with absolutely no negative/unnatural effects to the body.

You don't need evidence if you understand the process. If I tell you that a baseball will fall to the floor if i drop it, I don't need to actually drop it to know what will happen. People like yourself, however, need to have the phenomenon shown to them because they don't understand the relevant science. That's your problem, not mine. Although of course your ignorance leaves you more vulnerable to be sympathetic to moronic anti-science public policies, which do in turn affect me.

Oh?

What is your qualification, if I may ask? Are you perhaps a dietician or a geneticist?

Neither. Do I need to have such credentials in order to understand the relevant science and impact on human nutrition? It's like saying I can't understand certain history unless I'm a historian, or certain laws unless I'm a lawyer. It's a moronic position that assumes that we need experts to manage our lives.

And if you do view yourself in such high esteem, why would you grace everyone else with your presence if it's like you're conversing with us in different languages, hm? Odd, isn't it?

For all you know I hate myself and am filled with self-loathing. Doesn't change the fact that I am familiar with this and you're not, hence your inability to understand that rearranged nucleobases in GMO foods don't have a direct negative impact on human health outside of the vague areas I mentioned earlier. Perhaps you think we're going to insert some sort of genetic material that gets tomatoes growing fangs with poisonous venoms? Jurassic Park type scenarios?

While the addition of sodium is not the same as genetically modified food, I was drawing parallels about the unhealthy modifications of food in general. Lastly, it's generally unwise to talk to others in an uncouth way. Do not ever assume one lacks comprehension about any given subject matter.

The reason you drew the non-existent parallel between the two scenarios is because you don't understand the relevant science. You presuppose (falsely and based on ignorance) that altering the DNA of foods we eat is harmful to human health. Excessive salt intake is known to cause problems, via mechanisms we understand. The same does not apply to rearranged DNA.

but if you drop a baseball in space it won't hit the floor. It's the unintended consequences that always trips up the scientists. Is Monsanto still killing bees ?

 

[Wake]

How old are you, krych3k? You remind me of a younger version of myself. Young and confident, with a twinge of arrogance. It is not a pleasant thing to revisit the past, but interesting all the same.

I would prefer to see unrefutable evidence that our metabolism processes all amino acids in all GMOs safely. Because nothing has been completely and utterly discerned one way or another, there is reason to question the implications of all GMOs we consume. While I understand the varying amino acids that are the building blocks of our bodies, I don't know for certain that all GMOs can be metabolized with absolutely no negative/unnatural effects to the body.

You don't need evidence if you understand the process.

How so? Do you not think that there are those who do indeed understand such things, but would also appreciate the sources of others who profess to know the same? When it comes to the sharing of ideas, while using such knowledge among others, it's wise to source your information if asked for the illumination of some and the cross-reference of others. Indeed, you may need to provide evidence even if you feel you already understand.

If I tell you that a baseball will fall to the floor if i drop it, I don't need to actually drop it to know what will happen.

Indeed. That is common knowledge. discussion of the complexities of genetically modified organsims, my friend, is not. Years ago I made this very same argument to another when I thought the world of my own intelligence... so arrogant I was. It is the fool who professes to know so very much. Better, it is, to know as much as possible as discreetly as possible. Otherwise, you damage your image, and appear to be arrogant and presumptuous. Just the same, being condescending in adult conversation is another thing that helps no one.

People like yourself, however, need to have the phenomenon shown to them because they don't understand the relevant science. That's your problem, not mine.

People... like myself. I'm beginning to understand you more already. Your words drip with youthful, naive condescension. One of the weaknesses I perceive in your character thus far is a knack for making harmful assumptions that destroys credibility and creates enemies. You presume to know me, yet you know me not at all. Condescendingly you speak of the ball dropping as some phenomenon, while assuming people like me don't understand such science. You are behaving like a child. There is no wrong in asking for citations for the sake of reference. For all you know, I could be a geneticist is is curious as to your depth of knowledge considering this issue. No one has been informed as to what my profession is. Yet you make mistakes... the mistake of making assumptions.

Although of course your ignorance leaves you more vulnerable to be sympathetic to moronic anti-science public policies, which do in turn affect me.

More naivete and condescension. If you want to be taken seriously in serious discourse, it would be better for you to drop your unsavory attitude.

Oh?

What is your qualification, if I may ask? Are you perhaps a dietician or a geneticist?

Neither. Do I need to have such credentials in order to understand the relevant science and impact on human nutrition? It's like saying I can't understand certain history unless I'm a historian, or certain laws unless I'm a lawyer. It's a moronic position that assumes that we need experts to manage our lives.

You ask me, considering your arrogance on how everyone else who you're apparently talking with is speaking in another language. Isn't it odd how you portray yourself as some incredibly knowledgeable person who, when asked what his qualifications are, sucks himself back into his little shell and whines about credentials. It is you, krych, who so condescendingly acts as though he is an expert among this field of knowledge, in which everyone else... well, they simply cannot understand because they are so stupid.

So, I'll ask you again, oh mighty and omniscient one: "What are your qualifications that give you the right to be such an impudent ass?"

And if you do view yourself in such high esteem, why would you grace everyone else with your presence if it's like you're conversing with us in different languages, hm? Odd, isn't it?

For all you know I hate myself and am filled with self-loathing. Doesn't change the fact that I am familiar with this and you're not, hence your inability to understand that rearranged nucleobases in GMO foods don't have a direct negative impact on human health outside of the vague areas I mentioned earlier. Perhaps you think we're going to insert some sort of genetic material that gets tomatoes growing fangs with poisonous venoms? Jurassic Park type scenarios?

Again, you do not know who I am in the slightest. You assume that I am not familiar with this knowledge (which is very naive), while assuming that you are.

I don't believe you understand the people you are conversing with very well. If you drop your childish and cocksure attitude, people who may or may not know this subject material will likely take you more seriously. In a nutshell, don't be a jerk,

While the addition of sodium is not the same as genetically modified food, I was drawing parallels about the unhealthy modifications of food in general. Lastly, it's generally unwise to talk to others in an uncouth way. Do not ever assume one lacks comprehension about any given subject matter.

The reason you drew the non-existent parallel between the two scenarios is because you don't understand the relevant science. You presuppose (falsely and based on ignorance) that altering the DNA of foods we eat is harmful to human health. Excessive salt intake is known to cause problems, via mechanisms we understand. The same does not apply to rearranged DNA.

You are making dangerous asumptions yet again, krych. The reason that I brought up how chicken is also modified is because I think both modified chicken and genetically modified organisms can be harmful to human health. We have no unrefutable evidence that GMOs are completely harmless. Perhaps you have assumed that GMOs are harmless? I suspect that human consumption of GMOs may have harmful effects on the body. You may know that the human body is an incredibly complex thing. Who are you to assert that there is absolutely nothing—nothing—to have doubts about? If you are this omniscient godsend to humanity who can shed light of knowledge upon the masses, then by all means, go and claim your Nobel prize for helping us all.

All I think is that we ought to consider the evidence, without ASSuming things one way or another.

 

[Wake]

No. humanity manipulated what nature provided over ten thousand of years ago via agriculture and the domestication of animals.

That is natural cultivation, not genetic modification through science.

 

[Pogo]

I got this return e-mail from a mill I (used to) buy from, in answer to my question about the GMO content of their current stock:

>> We do not have GMO free certified corn. I can't even find it. The corn we use has a 50% chance of being GMO corn and to get it certified GMO free (even if I could find it to purchase) would make the corn cost 150% more than we pay now...and corn has gone up 800% in the past 4 years. It's tough to be in the corn business right now...
Sorry I couldn't help with this <<

This is what we always feared -- stocks of some staples (corn, soy, cotton) are already polluted, possibly beyond redemption.

Thanks, Monsanto, for the agricide. Fuckers.

GMO is "pollution"?

"Agricide" is now a word you've made up?

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to to anti-science flat-earth left.

There's nothing "left" or "right" about this. If your obviously limited mind can only understand issues framed that way, it's your loss.

Having a gene pool in a staple food that cannot be guaranteed to be natural, yes that's polluted. Having a choice of this grain that is all natural and that grain that is a GMO is one stage -- having no choice because the latter has infected all of the former is quite another. But feel free to explain why I can't have that choice.

And yes, I made up "agricide". If it's too complex for you to understand, we're done. If it's not, feel free to explain why a company bent on monopolizing the world food supply should have the right to destroy Nature.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't why someone would assume with no evidence that lab food is safe. It's baffling that some would actually promote NOT KNOWING and NOT QUESTIONING putting test tube food in your body. I mean dam, it's your body and you SUPPORT not knowing aka promoting ignorance.

 

[whitehall]

The corporation (is that a bad word?) has outlets in Canada, the U.K and France. The timing seems about right for playing the odds. Fine with me but don't confuse capitalist know-how with socialist dogma.

 

[Wake]

I don't why someone would assume with no evidence that lab food is safe. It's baffling that some would actually promote NOT KNOWING and NOT QUESTIONING putting test tube food in your body. I mean dam, it's your body and you SUPPORT not knowing aka promoting ignorance.

I agree, and people should learn more about the foods they eat. Did you know that the common food coloring Red #4 is made of crushed insect parts. Many additives are considered safe by some, but we don't know for sure.