Slashdot Mirror


Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA

HughPickens.com writes Jennifer Abel writes at the LA Times that according to a recent survey (PDF), over 80% of Americans says they support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA," roughly the same number that support the mandatory labeling of GMO foods "produced with genetic engineering." Ilya Somin, writing about the survey at the Washington Post, suggested that a mandatory label for foods containing DNA might sound like this: "WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children."

The report echoes a well-known joke/prank wherein people discuss the dangers of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide" also known as hydrogen oxide and hydrogen hydroxide. Search online for information about dihydrogen monoxide, and you'll find a long list of scary-sounding and absolutely true warnings about it: the nuclear power industry uses enormous quantities of it every year. Dihydrogen monoxide is used in the production of many highly toxic pesticides, and chemical weapons banned by the Geneva Conventions. Dihydrogen monoxide is found in all tumors removed from cancer patients, and is guaranteed fatal to humans in large quantities and even small quantities can kill you, if it enters your respiratory system. In 2006, in Louisville, Kentucky, David Karem, executive director of the Waterfront Development Corporation, a public body that operates Waterfront Park, wished to deter bathers from using a large public fountain. "Counting on a lack of understanding about water's chemical makeup," he arranged for signs reading: "DANGER! – WATER CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF HYDROGEN – KEEP OUT" to be posted on the fountain at public expense.

47 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Link to the study by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The original study can be found at http://agecon.okstate.edu/facu... : Another fun bit in the study:

    Another fun excerpt: "Secondly, participants were asked “Did you read any books about food and agriculture in the past year?” Participants were asked to select “Yes”, “No”, or “I don’t know”. Just over 16% of participants stated that they had read a book related to food and agriculture in the past year. About 81% answered “No”, and 3% answered “I don’t know”. Those who answered “Yes” were asked: “What is the title of the most recent book you read about food and agriculture?” The vast majority of responses were of the form “I don’t remember” or “cannot recall”. Fast Food Nation, Food Inc., and Omnivore’s Dilemma were each mentioned about three times. The Farmer’s Almanac and Skinny Bitch were mentioned twice. One respondent mentioned the bible."

    This appears to follow the general pattern that people will lie to interviewers to seem more smart, educated, or intellectual than they are. They don't mention in the study a correlation between those who said yes to reading a book and then couldn't "remember" it when pressed and those who wanted to ban food containing DNA, but I'd be willing put money on their being a correlation.

    1. Re: Link to the study by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Err.. No. It shows that 81% of people do not lie to interviewers, which is a much more positive angle and more true interpretation of said study. Stop being so pessimistic

      Actually, it doesn't show that at all. Depending on the question, many more people will lie. For example, as jobs with health insurance were lost since the turn of the century, many smokers lied when looking for coverage, saying they had quit. In their mind, they could justify it by thinking "I'm trying to quit" or "I've stopped for the last few days, so I'm over the hump" but of course, they were lying to themselves.

      I've seen smokers who have claimed to have been smoke-free for years, then go and light up in front of me 5 minutes later. "Well, I'm stressed so this is an exception." A bit of digging showed they were making "exceptions" 20x a day - but in their mind, those were exceptions and didn't count. Sort of like the calories in chocolate fudge cake don't count on your birthday.

      Addtcts lie all the time - whether they're addicted to drugs, gambling, booze, or whatever ... and studies that rely on self-reporting without any means of verifying are pretty much hosed.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re: Link to the study by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, you claimed it showed 81% of people don't lie to interviewers, and I called BS and provided a counter-argument. There is zero from this study that would make anyone think that 81% of people are honest in interviews. As another example, think of how many people exaggerate, puff up, or outright lie during job interviews.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re: Link to the study by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 4, Funny

      [M]any smokers lied when looking for coverage, saying they had quit.

      Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times. -- Mark Twain

    4. Re:Link to the study by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So yes, the majority of people support the mandatory labelling of 'ALL' food. What exactly is in it. So what is so new about that. So some smart arse sucks in people who don't know what they are talking about thinks they win. So why didn't that same shit for brains ask people simple questions in a foreign language and laugh at their ignorance. Seriously give a few people a little more brains than average and they think they are geniuses.

      It is pretty damn obvious that people want to know what is being put in their foods and screw all those that want to lie and deceive so they can stick shit in it because it is cheap and then add artificial flavours to hide the taste of that shit.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. It's a little early by MadCow42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For April fools jokes, isn't it?

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    1. Re:It's a little early by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Vampires could get off the hook, though, if you remove the leukocytes from their food.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:It's a little early by mpe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, I assumed it was DNA as in GMO... but it's just DNA... that makes a lot of food!

      Possibly more interesting to know which foods are free of DNA. Which would indicate they either had nothing to do with any living organism, are highly processed or both!

    3. Re:It's a little early by zwede · · Score: 3, Funny

      Possibly more interesting to know which foods are free of DNA.

      Since all their stuff tastes like cardboard my money's on McDonalds.

  3. Remember the good old days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember when news organizations didn't so blatantly try to push agendas? Well, I'm not sure if there ever was such a time but it certainly isn't today.

    1. Re:Remember the good old days? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      I can't remember that far back. It must've been well before the sinking of the USS Maine.

  4. People need advice more than information by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most people don't have the knowledge to assess by themselves if a product fits their expectation. Not only for food, any product needs a thoughtful advice/label from an independent and competent / national team to guide customers. What difference does it make for a customer who reads for the first time "chicken raised outdoors" and "chicken from battery cages"? The answer is here, and it's a big long, but a summary on a sticker would help customers to chose more wisely - and that would dramatically improve competition between very-low quality products sold 0.9 X against a much better product sold X (while the manufacturing cost of a "good" product would be twice the cost of a "bad" product). People tend to chose the cheapest one, by lack of information.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:People need advice more than information by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're *getting* advice. That's the problem. They're getting *bad* advice, and they can't tell the difference.

      How do they judge "much better product"? Is non-GMO "much better", in spite of the fact that extensive research hasn't turned up proof of *any* bad effects, and can provide effective nutritional advantages in many cases?

    2. Re:People need advice more than information by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

      Is non-GMO "much better", in spite of the fact that extensive research hasn't turned up proof of *any* bad effects, and can provide effective nutritional advantages in many cases?

      Indeed. The strongest nutritional advantage seems to be "Monsanto's executives and stockholders are able to eat much finer food now."

  5. Just for fun by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I googled for "GMO Hazards"

    https://www.google.com/search?...

    and out of the top 10 sites not one had actual problems that were caused by GMO foods

    Lot of might and could be, but no actually. No "Killer corn ate my baby "

    So How bout labeling foods that are produced from selective breeding genetically engineered as well ?
     

    1. Re:Just for fun by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      Don't be ignorant Virii are natural vectors for genes to cross species. Are you more comfortable with this happening at random in the wild or when it's watched and monitored in a lab ?

    2. Re:Just for fun by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Virii

      I'm feeling pedantic this morning: The correct English plural of virus is viruses. In Latin the word is a mass noun, which means that the notion of a plural form didn't make any sense. In modern times we've applied a new definition which does allow for sensible pluralization, but historical Latin writings give us no clue about how to pluralize it. The most probable forms, though would be "vira" and "viri", not "virii". In English, though, the word is viruses.

      Viruses are natural vectors for genes to cross species. Are you more comfortable with this happening at random in the wild or when it's watched and monitored in a lab?

      It's ridiculous to assume that the mechanisms of selective breeding, where the changes originate in random mutations -- often accelerated by the use of mutagens -- plus random viral- and bacterial-vectored transgenic splicing, is somehow safer than deliberately-engineered splicing. It's like expecting that a bridge created by a fallen tree is more trustworthy than a manmade construct.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Just for fun by meerling · · Score: 2

      Traditional breeding yields crops with numerous unwanted and unidentified genes while genetic engineering only brings in the targeted genes.
      Genetic engineering does however allow for the genes to come from extremely dissimilar sources though the designs prefer to avoid such extreme options when they can. As to viruses, all bets are off since we already know that viruses shuffle genes from all kinds of species whenever they damn well want to because they are viruses and don't give a damn. It's amazing how much horizontal gene transfer they are finding in nature.
      By the way, in case you weren't aware, they've found a lot of dna in humans that they believe was put there by viruses.

    4. Re:Just for fun by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I googled for "GMO Hazards"

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      and out of the top 10 sites not one had actual problems that were caused by GMO foods

      Lot of might and could be, but no actually. No "Killer corn ate my baby "

      So How bout labeling foods that are produced from selective breeding genetically engineered as well ?

      I think the labelling thing is nonsense since I don't think health risks are a big concern but I am a bit more cautious about the long term environmental effects as I suspect we're underestimating the probability of black swan events.

      I think of selective breeding vs GMOs is a bit like traditional medicine vs modern medicine. Traditional medicine generally ranges from slightly beneficial to mildly harmful, you're not going to do yourself much harm, but you're not going to help much either. By contrast modern medicine is devastatingly effective in good ways and bad.

      Right now you'd be a fool to choose traditional medicine over modern medicine, especially if you have a serious health issue, the benefits are too strong and we know how to manage the nasty side effects.

      But at the dawn of modern medicine? You're probably better off dealing with the traditional stuff, a lot of people died because modern medicine was an incredibly powerful tool and people didn't know enough about that tool to use it safely.

      I worry we're at that stage with GMOs and the environment. We don't really understand what it does to the ecosystem when we introduce new traits at that speed and effectiveness. We really can't know until we've done it a while. I'm sure GMO crops are the answer for the future, but I'm worried our capabilities are outstripping our knowledge.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Just for fun by visualight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When Monsanto and their "buy seeds from me till the end of time or we'll end you" business model are both long gone we can talk about GMO. Till then I am 100% against GMO ( because GMO == Monsanto ).

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    6. Re:Just for fun by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Traditional breeding yields crops with numerous unwanted and unidentified genes while genetic engineering only brings in the targeted genes.
      Genetic engineering does however allow for the genes to come from extremely dissimilar sources though the designs prefer to avoid such extreme options when they can. As to viruses, all bets are off since we already know that viruses shuffle genes from all kinds of species whenever they damn well want to because they are viruses and don't give a damn. It's amazing how much horizontal gene transfer they are finding in nature.
      By the way, in case you weren't aware, they've found a lot of dna in humans that they believe was put there by viruses.

      I was aware but as the old saying goes:
      To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.

      The same applies to traditional breeding vs GMOs. Genetic modification is a much more powerful tool than the various sources of random mutation. As such we're going to create new classes of risks that we don't understand yet. We don't exactly have the healthiest environment right now and farms aren't sealed labs, before we inject massive numbers of plants with several novel and powerful traits into an ecosystem we need to understand what the effects of those actions are.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  6. Now that I've cleaned the coffee off the keyboard by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is humor in the same vein as, "Do you want a Hertz donut?"

    Strictly speaking, the phrasing is designed to generate the wrong answer so the respondent can then be mocked.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  7. Damn Meant to include this by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Funny

    From one of the sites

    http://foodrevolution.org/blog...

    I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

    That's nice he ought to let the farmers know they can buy cheaper seeds and still do as well.

    If it seems like I am laughing at these people and the Euros who seem to think it's in their interest to pay more for food, I am.

    1. Re:Damn Meant to include this by caseih · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Being a farmer myself, I find that quote pretty funny. Guess he never bothered to actually visit a farm and fine out. I can't comment on the "safe to eat" part but I can certainly attest that yields are much higher, and pesticide application is much reduced with GMO varieties of corn, canola, and soybeans. However with the increase in yield comes increased disease pressure, so overall, with or without GMO, pesticide use is still on the rise and that concerns me, not so much for food safety, but for sustainability and environmental reasons. It's kind of like hospital antibiotic resistance issues.

      The blogger also would be interested to know that the majority of food crops we eat (cereals) are not genetically engineered at all; they are bred as we've bred them for thousands of years. The real next stage for cereals is to develop cereals and bacteria cultures that can fix nitrogen. That is going to be a game changer.

      As far as "organic" pesticides go, Chemical companies do work on naturally-derived pesticides all the time, but few of them make it to market because they fail toxicity tests (don't want them to kill birds, animals, etc). It's in their interest to develop good organic pesticides because there's huge public demand for it, and a lot of money to be made. But it's a very hard thing to do.

  8. Related to another recent study by serano · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's also GAME-C (Group for Atomic Material Exposure Control), a group which has launched a campaign to force the pharmaceutical industry to label medicines comprised partially or entirely of atoms.

  9. Breakdown of adult interaction, oral tradition? by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This appears to follow the general pattern that people will lie to interviewers to seem more smart, educated, or intellectual than they are.

    There is some phenomenon at work. School curriculum seems to contain the essentials of literacy and a general sense that a modern world exists to be explored and understood, but for a great many children now and their twenty-something parents, there seem to be great gaps of knowledge... it is as if a great pool of historical and practical trivia such as that which would be imparted by oral tradition as conversation and interaction with elders, has gone 'missing'.

    Perhaps it is not the educational system that has failed us, but a knowledge-transfer process between the generations. I speak not of a direct and simple connection with one's parents and grandparents, but ongoing dialogue with anyone 20+ years older.

    From pre-school through college children are becoming independent at younger ages and are managing to slice out their own separate social lives. We encourage this, shape it even. It is possible for them to maintain contact principally with others their own age right into adulthood. Their parents are typically distracted and engaged with work, and everyone has their own directed entertainment to immerse in at the end of the day. Are sundown get-togethers between generations a thing of the past?

    Until the post-war '50s there was little in the way of a teen-age subculture. Even before graduation there were life choices to make. You would typically be home by sundown, a great deal more interaction with adults and steady pressure for at least one of the younger to adopt the traditions and vocations of parents was real. Who will manage the farm, who will be the first apprentice at the clock shop? Who will join the Marines, who will be the teacher?

    Throughout the Nuclear Age the nuclear family has been in steady decline. Where we had once been paced by the animals and family tradition we were increasingly paced by tides of external stimuli. Diverse political ideology, lifestyle options and the fossil fuel-rich economy encouraged far migration. Today families span more geographical distance on average than at any time in history.

    Modern technology helped this to happen. We are a push-button society and kids push buttons as well as anyone. This extends to push-button entertainment and distraction. Maybe we've spent the last three decades of pushing separate buttons instead of spending long hours talking to one another about the little things and the big things.

    What if this simple, sad message of generational estrangement as voiced by Harry Chapin... could be applied to a whole country?

    Perhaps it's not too late to open those channels again.
    Call your Mom.
    Ask her what DNA is.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Breakdown of adult interaction, oral tradition? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come on. You're blaming people not being able to handle qualitative and quantitative explosions in information (if not knowledge) on the family (or lack thereof)? Yes, family is important. No, family is not (and historically has not been) the general arbiter or source of most information. You're confusing family with society, especially pre literate society.

      How in bog's green earth is any sort of family unit supposed to deal with the current knowledge set? Hell, even a university level professor can barely keep track of what goes on in their own field.

      I think you're conflating a series of basic homilies and perhaps moral constructs (as useful and as important as they are) with knowledge. They are different concepts.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Breakdown of adult interaction, oral tradition? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps it is not the educational system that has failed us, but a knowledge-transfer process between the generations.

      Seems like it's both. If school's job is to prepare you to be a good citizen, then shouldn't it be finding ways to take up the slack? And perhaps to build a better parent? Since that's what kids grow up and become, in part.

      Throughout the Nuclear Age the nuclear family has been in steady decline.

      You can say that again. But maybe it's a good thing. I never got along with my family. Why shouldn't I form a synthetic family with people more like me? It's a proven fact that family won't necessarily stand by you, so no difference there.

      Call your Mom.

      My mom has been focused firmly on herself since before I was born, and talking to her makes me feel like crap every time. Why don't you call my mom, if you think she needs a phone call so much?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Breakdown of adult interaction, oral tradition? by h8sg8s · · Score: 2

      Interesting observation. My sample size is 5 children, and though it's not statistically significant, it does offer some insights. My children who came of age before ubiquitous connectivity are better conversationalists and are more connected with "tribal knowledge" of the spoken and relational kinds, whereas my youngest are totally connected to the Internet teat and are more disconnected from familial and "tribal" inputs. It will be interesting to see what they and millions of their peers do to the political and social institutions of the US. If you're not a little scared by that prospect, you're not paying attention.

      --
      Organization? You must be joking..
  10. Ronco DNA extractor by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    I need to start marketing the Ronco DNA Extractor. Safely and quickly remove any residual DNA to make smart, healthy family meals.

  11. Jesus, we're fucked. by thermowax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This showed up in The Washington Post a week ago... and I'm still aghast.

    Slashdot has classified this as a "humour" story, but I find it simply frightening. There's always going to be a certain quantity of dullards on the left end of the curve, but... 80%?! 80% of Americans are unfamiliar with one of, if not *the* most fundamental concepts of biology? This isn't "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trickery, DNA is DNA and it's functionality is taught in high school- usually repeatedly.

    However, the thing that really, really scares me and keeps me awake at night is that *these fuckers vote*.

    1. Re:Jesus, we're fucked. by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      what should terrify you is that these fuckers breed.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:Jesus, we're fucked. by Longjmp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      80%?! 80% of Americans are unfamiliar with one of, if not *the* most fundamental concepts of biology?

      Recently I explained to a friend why you shouldn't freeze some fruit, because the water will break the cells and the fruit will become mushy.
      Her reply: "What are cells?"
      After a few moments of baffled silence, I tried to explain how cells are the base "Lego bricks" for all life.
      Next she asked "So if you eat cells, it's good for you?"

      --
      There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
    3. Re:Jesus, we're fucked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know exactly what it means, but depending on the context I could see answering yes to a question like this by accident. Load up a questionnaire with a ton of stuff about untested chemicals, GMOs designed in a lab, etc, and then slip that one in near the end. Your brain doesn't read it as simply "DNA" but instead connects it with all the stuff it just heard.

      Sort of like when someone asks you ten "yes" short questions as quickly as possible and then slips in one that should obviously be "no" but you're on autopilot at that point and answer "yes" anyway.

    4. Re:Jesus, we're fucked. by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot has classified this as a "humour" story, but I find it simply frightening. There's always going to be a certain quantity of dullards on the left end of the curve, but... 80%?! 80% of Americans are unfamiliar with one of, if not *the* most fundamental concepts of biology? This isn't "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trickery, DNA is DNA and it's functionality is taught in high school- usually repeatedly.

      I don't think it's that bad. I think this is "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trickery, only a slightly subtler form.

      The dihydrogen monoxide trickery is using an unfamiliar name for a familiar substance. Unless you've taken some chemisty and know how to parse "dihydrogen monoxide" as "a molecule consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms", you don't realize it's water and the selective quotes, presented in a context that implies that the speaker/writer is a reasonably-intelligent person who genuinely believes there is a risk, obviously causes listeners to assume that it's dangerous.

      A really essential part of the joke/scam is the fact that the speaker/writer appears to be intelligent and sincere. It's a social engineering scam, relying on the fact that most people are intelligent and sincere (the slashdot elitist tendency to assume general stupidity notwithstanding) and that therefore absent some sort of contraindications people tend to believe other people, because that's what makes society work.

      In this case, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the 80% who were confused actually know perfectly well what DNA is, and fully understand that most of our food contains it because most of our food is made from living organisms. And they understand that children get their DNA from their parents, including their mother.

      But the way this is presented strongly implies that the topic of discussion is some other DNA, which is not supposed to be in the food and can have some sort of deleterious effect, and that warning labels might be useful. Further, the similarity of the ratio with those who support labeling of GMO foods indicates that the presentation may have caused the respondents to conflate the question with one about GMO. Some of them might even have assumed that the survey was in error and intended to ask about GMO foods and answered in the affirmative while shaking their heads about the cluelessness of the survey author. The apparent intelligence and sincerity of the speaker motivates people to believe there's a real issue, rather than this being a joke or a trick.

      So I suspect that the 80/20 split here is less an artifact of education levels than it is an artifact of the distribution of different personality types. To what degree are you skeptical of scientific-sounding claims that are presented to you as factual? And how willing are you to lend your support to crusades pushed by apparently well-intentioned people, particularly when they appear to have little, if any, downside? The suggestion that the action to be taken is just labeling makes this a relatively low-impact campaign, even if successful, so the cost to society is low, and the cost to the survey respondent is nearly zero. In that sort of situation, many people will agree merely to be agreeable, regardless of their opinion on the issue.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  12. Re:For real fun! by ihtoit · · Score: 2

    banana bread. Contains bananas which are yellow when very ripe (for some definition of "yellow", they're actually about as banana-like as gourds - the modern yellow bent banana didn't actually exist before 1840, it's an entirely artificial cultivar). Bananas of course, being high in potassium which is slightly radioactive.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  13. McDonald's... by nicodoggie · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...can finally advertise as 100% DNA free!

  14. American Clay Pidgeon by hduff · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since college, I have been encouraging people to help save the American Clay Pidgeon, colorfully-marked creatures "fragile as eggs" that a slaughtered every day and left to rot in fields at the hands of wildly enthusiastic gunners.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  15. Re:Warning Slashdot Contains by matbury · · Score: 2

    Do you think congress should vote on it?

  16. Re:Warning Slashdot Contains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh no. I think that trillions in research should be spent on this.

  17. Danger 10,000 ohms! by caseih · · Score: 4, Funny

    The story about the water fountain sign reminds me of the sign at the Foucault pendulum at the uni where I studied. They had problems with people touching the pendulum, stopping it, etc. So they put up a sign that said, "Danger, do not touch! 10,000 ohms." Haven't had problems with people messing with it in many years!

  18. Ozane by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

    Nobody uses these names, but technically the IUPAC systematic name for ammonia is "azane", and water is "ozane". (Google says they're a Star Refrigeration subsidiary in the US and an exterminator business in New Jersey.)

    I'm imagining Slashdot stories like "Fracking Fluid Contains Significant Amounts of Ozane", "Ozane Responsible For Rising Sea Levels", "Guantanamo Prisoners Tortured Using Ozane", "Oncoming Ozane Crisis Threatens Civilization", "Weak Beer Found To Contain Excess Amounts of Ozane", "Linus Torvalds: Ozane Has No Role In Linux", "Ozane Layer Disappearing Along East Coast", "Tesla Motors Introducing Ozane-Based Fuel Cells", etc.

  19. Well, I'd like to know! by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    I have gout, caused by excess uric acid in the bloodstream. Uric acid is formed from the purines we eat. Purines come from the DNA in cells of plants and animals. It would be nice if food products listed the amount of purine.

    I know that lowering my intake of purines won't completely cure gout, but it would be nice to lower the risk of flareups.

  20. Different than the H2O thing tho by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    Because it's easy to misinterpret the question ..

    Do you want to label foods with DNA as

    Do you want to label foods with foreign DNA added from other plants, insects and animals (or even entirely created).

    Yes... I'd like to know if you added peanut genes to my tomato. It may taste fine- but it would be nice to know.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  21. There are more disturbing implications here by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2

    Do you realize that these idiots are allowed to vote? I know it's all the rage right now to blame politicians for everything, but why don't we take a good, hard look at the people who put them into office.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  22. Sarah, is that you? by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 2

    Which books did you read? Oh, all of them.