Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

[Doer]

Quote me. You cannot. You are soft sophie and won't own up. I point it out, word for word. And foolishly you are tap dancing even now.

Is this the second verse, same as the first?

 

[DNAprotection]

Should we start labeling greenhouse grown vegtables and farm grown vegtables as well?

also reported as Custer logic

 

[cannabineer]

Doer, Trousers, Canabineer. Let me ask you a question:

What is your fear here? Let's assume that the feds acquiesce to the demands of people, and force companies to label GMO products. Let's further assume that due to this labeling mandate, people refuse to buy these products and companies like Monsanto go out of business. What is the downside? Will farming cease to exist? Will we no longer have soy, corn, wheat, etc?

If I may reposition "fear" as "distaste" ...
the idea that the majority is always right. I view that with profound distaste.
GM crops/stock are not synonymous with Monsanto, despite that firm's deep involvement with them. To me it's a baby/bathwater problem.

And I salute you for disagreeing politely.

 

[cannabineer]

Addendum to the question "what would be the consequence"

At this time, not much that could be discerned or demonstrated.

If i may indulge in an extended metaphor however ... GM is an enabling technology in its infancy imo.
Like the jet engine in 1943, or the four-stroke internal combustion engine in 1895.
From each historical perspective, there could be no way to really show the effect of stifling either technology.
But imagine a world without cars or airplanes, both of which needed the four-stroke engune.
And imagine a world served by slow prop aircraft, killing the tourism and air transport boom of the last half century.
These things could not be imagined in a world where a steam-driven Zeppelin is the cutting-edge hawtness.

So we really need time to develop GM into the enabling technology i have faith it will become. We have the power to kill it dead now with the labeling requirement, world opinion being what it is. But I suggest we may be killing the next Green Revolution. Greedy companies like Monsanto don't last; they get soft or are otherwise rendered obsolete. But the enabling tech remains and might just free up enough human potential for the next act of glory, be it real access to space or an unprecedented bid for world harmony. To me, THESE are the stakes of the game, and Luddism is invariably the loser's gambit. Jmo.

 

[DNAprotection]

If I may reposition "fear" as "distaste" ...
the idea that the majority is always right. I view that with profound distaste.
GM crops/stock are not synonymous with Monsanto, despite that firm's deep involvement with them. To me it's a baby/bathwater problem.

And I salute you for disagreeing politely.

spots where we agree...would of given a rep star but was denied

 

[st0wandgrow]

Addendum to the question "what would be the consequence"

At this time, not much that could be discerned or demonstrated.

If i may indulge in an extended metaphor however ... GM is an enabling technology in its infancy imo.
Like the jet engine in 1943, or the four-stroke internal combustion engine in 1895.
From each historical perspective, there could be no way to really show the effect of stifling either technology.
But imagine a world without cars or airplanes, both of which needed the four-stroke engune.
And imagine a world served by slow prop aircraft, killing the tourism and air transport boom of the last half century.
These things could not be imagined in a world where a steam-driven Zeppelin is the cutting-edge hawtness.

So we really need time to develop GM into the enabling technology i have faith it will become. We have the power to kill it dead now with the labeling requirement, world opinion being what it is. But I suggest we may be killing the next Green Revolution. Greedy companies like Monsanto don't last; they get soft or are otherwise rendered obsolete. But the enabling tech remains and might just free up enough human potential for the next act of glory, be it real access to space or an unprecedented bid for world harmony. To me, THESE are the stakes of the game, and Luddism is invariably the loser's gambit. Jmo.

There in lays my concern. This technology is in it's infancy.

Despite the studies that have suggested no harmful side effects, I feel that it's too new to really know. Just as it's too new for me to write it off, it's too new to assume that there won't be any unforeseen (by some) negative consequences to this technology. With that in mind, I feel that it's reasonable to label products as having genetically modified ingredients.

I see your point though, and it is a fair one.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Increased pesticide and herbicide use. Less food. More expensive food. More deaths due to hunger in other countries.

"Increased pesticide and herbicide use."

How so? I think it's just the opposite. Sustainable farming practices encourages the use of organic fertilizers and pesticides. GMO seeds are "Round-Up ready", meaning that farmers can spray the shit out of the plant with pesticides and the plants are the only thing that survive. Insects, both detrimental and beneficial are nuked, along with every other type of plant/weed and the trillions of beneficial microorganisms in the soil.

" Less food. More expensive food."

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know that to be true.


"More deaths due to hunger in other countries."

Again, you don't know that to be true. Are there less deaths due to hunger right now with the use of GMO crops? I would argue that there are many other more relevant factors to why certain countries have a shortage of food.

 

[ChesusRice]

The Nuking of insects bothers me. I remember a lot more of them when I was a kid

 

[Harrekin]

You dumb fucks still don't understand the difference between a herbicide and a pesticide...

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

"Increased pesticide and herbicide use."

How so? I think it's just the opposite. Sustainable farming practices encourages the use of organic fertilizers and pesticides. GMO seeds are "Round-Up ready", meaning that farmers can spray the shit out of the plant with pesticides and the plants are the only thing that survive. Insects, both detrimental and beneficial are nuked, along with every other type of plant/weed and the trillions of beneficial microorganisms in the soil.

" Less food. More expensive food."

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know that to be true.


"More deaths due to hunger in other countries."

Again, you don't know that to be true. Are there less deaths due to hunger right now with the use of GMO crops? I would argue that there are many other more relevant factors to why certain countries have a shortage of food.

You can't feed everyone growing organically.

More people + no GMO crops = less food. Less food means higher prices. Means some people will starve.

We can only feed all we do now because of GMO.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/need-GMOs.html

Check out that study. It's fairly decent and explains it better than I.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Addendum to the question "what would be the consequence"

At this time, not much that could be discerned or demonstrated.

If i may indulge in an extended metaphor however ... GM is an enabling technology in its infancy imo.
Like the jet engine in 1943, or the four-stroke internal combustion engine in 1895.
From each historical perspective, there could be no way to really show the effect of stifling either technology.
But imagine a world without cars or airplanes, both of which needed the four-stroke engune.
And imagine a world served by slow prop aircraft, killing the tourism and air transport boom of the last half century.
These things could not be imagined in a world where a steam-driven Zeppelin is the cutting-edge hawtness.

So we really need time to develop GM into the enabling technology i have faith it will become. We have the power to kill it dead now with the labeling requirement, world opinion being what it is. But I suggest we may be killing the next Green Revolution. Greedy companies like Monsanto don't last; they get soft or are otherwise rendered obsolete. But the enabling tech remains and might just free up enough human potential for the next act of glory, be it real access to space or an unprecedented bid for world harmony. To me, THESE are the stakes of the game, and Luddism is invariably the loser's gambit. Jmo.

I like and agree with what you are saying with one caveat:

GMO has been going on for 30 years now. Not much of an infant anymore.

 

[Doer]

Addendum to the question "what would be the consequence"

At this time, not much that could be discerned or demonstrated.

If i may indulge in an extended metaphor however ... GM is an enabling technology in its infancy imo.
Like the jet engine in 1943, or the four-stroke internal combustion engine in 1895.
From each historical perspective, there could be no way to really show the effect of stifling either technology.
But imagine a world without cars or airplanes, both of which needed the four-stroke engine.
And imagine a world served by slow prop aircraft, killing the tourism and air transport boom of the last half century.
These things could not be imagined in a world where a steam-driven Zeppelin is the cutting-edge hawtness.

So we really need time to develop GM into the enabling technology i have faith it will become. We have the power to kill it dead now with the labeling requirement, world opinion being what it is. But I suggest we may be killing the next Green Revolution. Greedy companies like Monsanto don't last; they get soft or are otherwise rendered obsolete. But the enabling tech remains and might just free up enough human potential for the next act of glory, be it real access to space or an unprecedented bid for world harmony. To me, THESE are the stakes of the game, and Luddism is invariably the loser's gambit. Jmo.

Since we both love the word play and you will usually do me the favor.....

You mean hautness, don't you? Like Haughty?

To even more extend to train travel. Back then, the panic and the Luddite horror at the time was that you could not breath if you were going 40 mph.

And there were some folks using these same emotion tampering techniques that managed to convince a serious number of decision makers that this was the case. And in fact, that like the Organix business, there was a hidden agenda from the opposition.

The horse and buggy Magnates had real reasons to oppose it, so that did. The Organix industry has a real reasons to oppose it and they have a lot dirty tricks and dirty lawyers these days. But, we have our elected and the experts in the Depts (that are sneered at and pooped upon by these dirty lawyers,) and the Congressional staffs.

The loud tyranny of these fakers and charlatans belies the fact that they are a micro-minority.

So, can a train take everyone's breath away? No. Could it take someones? That was never proven. We cannot conduct science by trying to prove something can never happen.

I also want to thank sd0 for promoting good, calm discussion and study of this subject.

 

[Trousers]

yall can keep mis using all teh words you like . .and try to dis credit without substance all you like

i have no doubt GMO will be a label i could care less if they stop GMing food . . . .just like i quit eating at fast food places a long time ago . . i dont boycott them and i dont tell you to . . . .but if they tried to package Mc D's in my local deli as ready made deli food . . .id def have something to say about it . .so cry all you want my moral objective is sound . . yall got nothing when it comes to reasons . . just excuses baseless personal attacks . . .as usual ...if you cant come up with a idea or point attack those who oppose you with slang and deceptive wording . . . like sophistry that keeps being tossed around by mini me and the parrot

to funny you dont even have a grasp of English language you use . . .

Seriously?

You are like a child, avoiding logic and attacking the person instead of the instead of the idea.
You haven't offered anything of substance.

You do not understand the labeling rules the FDA uses nor the repercussions of such a stupid rule.

Then you come along use the "I'm rubber you are glue" argument.

got nothing to say with substance so you ad hominen . . . . .

I'm rubber you're glue?

got nothing to say with substance so you ad hominen . . . . .

my argument stands . .you got nothing as usual

You keep saying that but you haven't argued anything.

labeling so consumers know what they are purchasing . . .. pretty basic . . . .

According to the rules the FDA has set, mandatory labeling for GMO would not work. It is not rational or reasonable.
Keep saying the same crap over and over and it is still crap.

go back to your validation thread and bitch about labels being anti-con . . .thats was funny

Learn how to spell and use ellipses properly, escpecially when you accuse someone of not knowing english very well, lol.

but tbh i love to see you post, your ironic and dubious command of the English language is quite amusing, and then to see parrot magee doing the same was priceless

lol

Learn how to spell.

sophistry . . lol . .whats the saying cant see the forest for the trees. . . . .

You are still saying nothing and attacking people instead of ideas like a child.

my personal opinion of lack of evidence is not evidence(also a fallacy) is absent to the fact that labeling has no intention other then to inform

lol

Is that English?

You are still adding nothing. you want to label vegetables. It is weird.

go ahead an back peddle all you want now . . .and source and cite all the opinion pieces and post i made.

my opinion that labeling for consumers is so WE are able to make a informed decision on what exactly WE are purchasing

You can avoid GMO by buying organic foods. GMO is not an ingredient. Go yell at the government, they will laugh at you too.

your attempt to connect one argument that cannot be proven to another argument that is sound is a fallacy as well

you should change your name to Doer of facades

Puff your chest out some more and keep on avoiding logic.
You are a part of a flock of misinformed sheep. Keep eating your turd sandwich and thinking it is GMO free, organic, free trade.

 

[Trousers]

There in lays my concern. This technology is in it's infancy.

No it isn't. Genetic engineering has been going on since before the dawn of written history.
The type of GMO that terrifies you has been around since 1983.
GMO crops have been studied since then. Why haven't we found a problem yet?

Despite the studies that have suggested no harmful side effects, I feel that it's too new to really know.

You feel that?
That is not a logical argument.
It has been around for over 30 years.
When is it going to be long enough for you to feel, lol, better about it?

How many more studies do you need?

Just as it's too new for me to write it off, it's too new to assume that there won't be any unforeseen (by some) negative consequences to this technology.

30 years is too new for you?
600+ studies not enough for you?

With that in mind, I feel that it's reasonable to label products as having genetically modified ingredients.

I disagree, it is not reasonable, rational or plausible.

 

[Doer]

I like and agree with what you are saying with one caveat:

GMO has been going on for 30 years now. Not much of an infant anymore.

It has been going on for millions of years without our help. Now we direct these same virus instead of only depending on other GM techniques, like making Mules.

The infancy Bear means I think is not GM food. GMing everything directly instead of wait on hit and miss virus that can kill the entire host species as well as modding them.

We have been GMed from beginning. And now we are doing it purposely within the Method, and we are building on all those experiences with DDT and Thalidomide, etc. We don't wait for random viral change we make it happen. You know for a fact this Maize will develop it's own resistance to these insects and these will develop resistance to that. And that is nature. We are nature and Luddite is a fantasy WE will never allow.

And WE won't let panic out in Label about this harmlessness. It is the same as irradiated food. And the Luddites have the same objections though it cuts salmonella poisoning to Zero. They still have the same non-science about it. It is belief and moral objective and is therefore useless.

What we are doing here is methodical science so we don't go back. WE don't keep re-inventing the wheel.

Science only has one purpose. Don't make the same mistakes again and again. Pass down actual knowledge and grow the understanding of how to do that.

 

[Trousers]

You can't feed everyone growing organically.

More people + no GMO crops = less food. Less food means higher prices. Means some people will starve.

We can only feed all we do now because of GMO.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/need-GMOs.html

Check out that study. It's fairly decent and explains it better than I.

Good read. It is funny how people hate logical answers in the face of disturbing their paradigm.

 

[cannabineer]

I like and agree with what you are saying with one caveat:

GMO has been going on for 30 years now. Not much of an infant anymore.

I concede that point. However i have the somewhat unformed and subjective feeling that since genetic engineering is much more complex in concept and execution than those other enabling technologies i mentioned, I consider it justifiable to ascribe to it ... a longer development/milestone timeline than is appropriate to the previous examples of heavy-industry techs.

<add> Doer, what i mean is enzyme-driven in vitro gene splicing (and reintroducing the chosen DNA sequences to target germ lines by direct manipulation) as opposed to selective breeding.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

dont argue here without a strong fallacy . . . .

modern or neo influences on technology has nothing on what is or was considered known . . .. . . . world is flat . .. . .and so on
science never changes . . .

lack of evidence is evidence . .. . say the fallacious duo . . .

 

[cannabineer]

dont argue here without a strong fallacy . . . .

modern or neo influences on technology has nothing on what is or was considered known . . .. . . . world is flat . .. . .and so on
science never changes . . .

lack of evidence is evidence . .. . say the fallacious due . . .

Did I run afoul of this? Could I ask you to elaborate?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Did I run afoul of this? Could I ask you to elaborate?

read back on trout and long DOnE's quest to discredit at any cost even to their own argument . . all on the cuffs of the word sophistry

im convinced (and if that was their intentoin . .checkmate) they both own stock in bio firms . .



Possible GMO labels on products are not ok, because labels infer warning or risk-trouters/DOnERS

and this is thier srguemnt . . .GM foods will exist . . .i would like to knwo which is what

thier sophistry is pathetic and parroted so . . its funny to see Doer/trouters still in here trying to claim some sort of status . . other then liar for cause