Is that really an argument against others going vegan?
No, that's their choice. However telling others to (typically in the interest of a PETA style moral crusade) is dumb for the same reason that Scientology is dumb.
Non-sequitur. Whether or not our brains could have evolved the way did without meat (baloney), has nothing to do with whether or not being a vegan now is "stupid from a physiological standpoint."
First of all, there's no scientific reason that one should avoid meat (with the exception of meats cured with nitrites.)
Second of all, it's not baloney. We were hunter-gatherers long before we began planting crops. Before we began planting crops, plants that we consumed just didn't have the energy density that they do today. Not only that but wild plants just don't have the micronutrients needed for our own survival, as our livers aren't capable of producing 8 required amino acids, and most plants don't have enough vitamins B12, A, D Iron, and Zinc, and wild plants especially don't. Most importantly however, is that plants lack creatine, which is why brain development in the early days wouldn't have been possible.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
I know what you're getting at, but it's probably not a good idea to throw the word fascism around at things that aren't, because you dilute the word to mean things that it doesn't, thus its harder to expose real fascists when they come around. (Which by the way, Europe really IS seeing a rise in fascism lately, with countries like Denmark and France seeing upwards of 28% of the vote going towards actual fascists.)
Fascism, which started in Italy and whose name was coined by Benito Mussolini (NOT Hitler, as most people think) means a strong national unity governed by a strong central government where individual identity is thrown out entirely. Mussolini also didn't want racism (he saw it as a diversion; besides, his wife was Jewish and was a major influence in the beginning of the first fascist uprising.) Hitler's fascism incorporated racial purity as part of the whole national identity thing. A lot of other European countries adopted fascism (including Greece and others, who were enemies of both Italy and Germany in WWII) that didn't include either the expansionist ideals of Italy and Germany, or the racial purity aspects of Germany. Another element of fascism is socialism (socialism being the government owns the means of production, NOT welfare, another distinction that people have forgotten over time.)
That said, the US has never had anything truly fascist about it, nor is it likely any time soon. The reason why is because our culture is so focused on individual identity, we don't like the idea of a central government being too powerful, and we also seem to have a big distaste for socialism (again, actual socialism, not welfare.)
Not only is going vegan stupid from a physiological standpoint (the fact is, our brains couldn't have evolved the way they did without meat; the fact that we could get away with eating vegetables came later after we selectively bred them to have a high enough energy density, and no vegan anywhere ever could survive off of truly wild plants) but some people have dietary needs that just can't work on a vegan diet. For example, if you're on dialysis, going vegan is practically a long drawn out suicide.
The last router I'd need would be an actual enterprise grade equivalent gigabit layer 3 switch that is fanless and doesn't cost more than about $200. Because of those last two requirements, I don't think I'll ever find one.
Pretty much anywhere you get cable you can get at least (but probably more than) 100mbps. Considering that cable is almost everywhere, it's not that rare.
Well, if we're going to complain about logical fallacies, listing types of logical fallacies as if it was meaningful is something I'd consider a logical fallacy.
It's not when they've all been used even in this discussion we're having right now.
And yet I disagree. I think it is very important to the discussion of the food industry. But there you go again, "all of its talking points" well, that is one of them.
And here you go contradicting yourself.
If you look above in this thread, you're the one who said "The whole food religion does actually." and ""The whole "local food movement" is what I refer to as the Food Religion."
Let me adjust my sentence: It's part of it. However the main part of that movement is about organic food, which as I've stated, is a fraud. But again, I never brought up the economic argument. You did.
You are prepared to acknowledge that I have stated that I did not mean to mislead you?
Yet you pretty clearly did anyways, which is your fault, not mine.
Anyways this is kind of dumb, you aren't even debating GMO here, making this way off topic. This is also my last reply to this thread, have a nice day.
It was likely survey based. I.e. they found identical twins and asked them if one used and one didn't, and if so, they evaluated them afterwards.
Anyways I'm kind of disappointed that they only looked at IQ, as to me it's a meaningless figure whose only purpose is for "I am more smug than thou art" clubs like Mensa. I'm more curious about other functional measurements both physiologically and sociologically (i.e. how did they vary in terms of career success.) There's some evidence that marijuana can improve both, as well as evidence that it can harm both.
It's divergent, but no, I wouldn't call it off-topic, as the subject is clearly related. And we're allowed to digress if we want, as this site is not restrictively moderated.
It's only related in the sense that anti-GMO people routinely use it and other issues as part of a red-herring, straw-man, and/or appeal to nature tactic, all three of which are logical fallacies.
You're choosing to say these things. That's yourself taking up a banner. I'm merely pointing out how mixed up you seem to be from my perspective.
I do take up the banner against the Food Religion and all of its talking points. The local economy argument is not related to that however. You brought that up by the way, not me, and as I have said repeatedly, I'm not interested in it. Again, I need to stress, that issue is entirely not related, and as I mentioned before, the local farmers can use GMO seed if they want to. Having said that, please explain exactly why you think it's relevant to GMO food.
You're right, it is a stupid strawman, it's not just one company, nor is it just GMO that is a problem. But then, I'm the one that brought that subject up, and apologized for how my words might have contributed to misleading you to some extent.
Did you miss where I said that?
No, rather I'm speaking in the more broad sense, because it is routinely brought up by anti-GMO people.
Well, from my experience, that is what people are doing, and what people are concerned about, if in a manner that might not be entirely clear to you.
Except that's not what they're doing, strictly speaking. They're typically using that argument in and of itself as a means to call for a ban and/or stigmatize (through labeling) GMO food. It's one thing to attack the industry, but it's another thing to use that as a basis to ban the product itself. Make sense? If you don't think that's the case, then I challenge you to find an anti-GMO activist post on this page that mentions Monsanto or patents or other business or political related issues as one of their talking points while NOT using it against GMO technology itself. Good luck with that.
Except you're really not even cognizant of what my actual viewpoint is, I've been trying to ascertain your views here, not expressing my own, and my viewpoint is that you're being myopic, short-sighted, and not seeing enough of the forest because you're overly focused on the trees, yet painting with a broad brush.
If you personally aren't doing these things, that's fine, but the rest of the anti-GMO movement is. However I can't help but observe that you're bringing this up in a GMO food discussion. Why? (And I'll remind you again: You brought up the issue, not me.)
The problem is that there may not be enough time for that to happen on this planet as its useful life for supporting complex life is mostly over. That is, in 800 million years this planet will not be capable of sustaining multi-cellular life due to eventual loss of carbon dioxide. This will happen whether humans are here or not.
We've got a very stable period from a geology, astronomy (that is, no ongoing nearby nova or other event that makes space totally uninhabitable,) and climate perspective right now, so we may as well take advantage of it. Any future civilization might not have as good of a chance as we have now.
However, people should take a close look at how companies like Monsanto pervert IP laws in order to force farmers to pay them even if they don't use Monsanto's products and to dominate the market.
That's fine with me, but please, when we debate GMO food, make it be about the technology and the crops themselves, not about business entities or politics. It really is a whole other discussion that belongs in the same category as, for example, DMCA takedowns on fair use youtube videos.
As I've pointed out, the whole business of the food industry isn't just limited to the question of GMOs.
That's why I've been calling you myopic.
Last I checked, TFS and TFA were about GMO. Anything else is somewhat off topic. Am I being myopic? Yes, deliberately, and for good reason.
But the question of what supporting your neighbors means is a very important one, and can be considered quite meaningful in an economic sense.
And it's also not a topic that I'm interested in.
So one thing doesn't sell. Guess what? They'll try something else then.
Even though that is the case, (which it is) ever since the patents expired there's already a growing market for generic GMO seed, and not many seem to be picking up Monsanto's new product.
But quit creating this stupid straw man of attacking GMO technology over one company (or even other companies) that utilize it. You may as well argue that because Microsoft has been less than ethical, we should throw out our personal computers and go back to typewriters and handwritten spreadsheets. It's an absurd position to have, and is effectively a viewpoint that anti-GMO groups are presently beholden to.
I will say though, I perhaps should not have used Monsanto as an example, as they are not the only possible actor, it's a whole industry, and there are plenty of others. So that may have confused you, as you may have only looked in one direction. My bad with that, if you did think I believe the only problem is with Monsanto, or if my choice to use their name cut off your thinking.
It's not just you making that brain-dead argument, it's the whole food religion. If you mention GMO, they instantly accuse you of being a Monsanto shill. I don't care one way or another about Monsanto. Hell, I don't even care if you attack the industry, go right to it if it makes you happy. What I am defending is the technology itself, so quit using business entities as a straw man to defend your nonsensical viewpoint.
No it's not, (and I didn't say it was, rather the topic was about gene splicing) but the resulting insulin is consumed by injecting it directly into your blood serum. Other GMO products don't even go that direct into your body (your gastric system breaks food down into its chemical components, making the source far less relevant than a product that is directly placed into your blood serum.)
Most of the comments I've seen about locally grown food is the economic value
There really isn't any other than you just want to support your neighbors, which is a separate discussion and doesn't even relate to GMO food at all (for example, your local farmer could plant GMO seed if he so chooses.)
The rest of your argument is predicated on that off-topic, thus I won't reply to it, except for this:
Oh that naivety is showing. Monsanto will just rush something new into the lineup.
That just goes to show how you're naive. Yes, Monsanto has brought something new, but nobody seems to buy it. In fact, there's a brand new market for generic GMO seed:
Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works.
It's not just Trump that says dumb things like this. This exact argument I've heard repeated on Slashdot before (that US companies should make all production domestic.)
It sounds nice, but it just won't work in reality. It *might* work for somebody like Apple with sky high profit margins, however most companies have much smaller margins. In order for them to be able to compete at all in the global economy (and make no mistake about it, it IS a global economy now, has been for a century) they have to be able to take advantage of the lower costs in other countries. If they don't, then guess what? They'll lose their ass when trying to compete with companies from those countries when trying to sell to foreign customers. (Which by the way, tariffs won't ever help that, because you can't stick a tariff on a foreign customer.)
The point is valid, if you use a computer to for you livelyhood, aka you die if you don't use it and Microsoft is the only supplier you can use, then yes you are a slave to Microsoft.
So what are you saying? We should throw out all of the benefits of personal computers, and go back to manually written spreadsheets and typewriters, because of Microsoft? Because that's effectively what you're arguing should be done about GMO technology, and for the same bad reasoning.
Oh and by the way, did I mention that Monsanto's patents have expired?
I've not noticed you puffing out your opposition to this, are you simply unaware of the local food movement? Is it only the people who want GMO labeling that earn your ire?
The whole food religion does actually. You could, in a sense, say I'm on a crusade. There is all of about zero proven benefit health to things like organic food and even locally grown food. However both of them cost people more money. I think it is immoral to lie about a benefit of your product when it costs more money.
The whole "local food movement" is what I refer to as the Food Religion. I'm opposed to it just as one might be opposed to Scientology.
GMO food, contrary to popular belief, is actually cheaper than even conventionally non-organic food, and has all of the same nutritional benefit, which comes from a reduction in materials used and a reduction of farmland. Furthermore, now that Monsanto's patents have expired, it's going to get even cheaper.
Until the Food Religion is exposed for what it really is (a big fat fraud) then I'll continue to post in places like this.
I don't understand how from a scientific standpoint, anyone can have so much confidence that GMO food has ZERO harmful effects on humans.
If you don't want to take my word for it, then take the word of the World Health Organization, the US Food and Agriculture Organization, the US Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association, who all approve of GMO. Also consider that billions of animals have consumed GMO food over tens and in some cases even hundreds of generations without any negative effects.
I have lobbied no one, spent zero dollar, seen 0 senators.
Lobbying doesn't mean spending money, nor does it mean speaking to actual politicians. It just means trying to enact political (or rather, policy) change. Posting here is enough.
then it should not be up to the companies to decide, whether that information should be hidden
There's a lot of information that isn't on a food label, such as the exact location the crop was grown in. Just because it isn't there doesn't mean it's hidden.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that really an argument against others going vegan?
No, that's their choice. However telling others to (typically in the interest of a PETA style moral crusade) is dumb for the same reason that Scientology is dumb.
Non-sequitur. Whether or not our brains could have evolved the way did without meat (baloney), has nothing to do with whether or not being a vegan now is "stupid from a physiological standpoint."
First of all, there's no scientific reason that one should avoid meat (with the exception of meats cured with nitrites.)
Second of all, it's not baloney. We were hunter-gatherers long before we began planting crops. Before we began planting crops, plants that we consumed just didn't have the energy density that they do today. Not only that but wild plants just don't have the micronutrients needed for our own survival, as our livers aren't capable of producing 8 required amino acids, and most plants don't have enough vitamins B12, A, D Iron, and Zinc, and wild plants especially don't. Most importantly however, is that plants lack creatine, which is why brain development in the early days wouldn't have been possible.
Whitepapers:
http://journals.cambridge.org/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Also essential for muscle growth:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
So there you have it, three well cited sources for why it's bad from a physiological standpoint.
While I'm sure PETA propaganda says otherwise, but PETA is definitely wrong, likewise so are you.
In fact, if you want a wake up call for why vegetarians can't survive on wild plants, look here:
https://www.geneticliteracypro...
I propose they try. What's the worst that could happen if they fail?
Hmm....Good point.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
I know what you're getting at, but it's probably not a good idea to throw the word fascism around at things that aren't, because you dilute the word to mean things that it doesn't, thus its harder to expose real fascists when they come around. (Which by the way, Europe really IS seeing a rise in fascism lately, with countries like Denmark and France seeing upwards of 28% of the vote going towards actual fascists.)
Fascism, which started in Italy and whose name was coined by Benito Mussolini (NOT Hitler, as most people think) means a strong national unity governed by a strong central government where individual identity is thrown out entirely. Mussolini also didn't want racism (he saw it as a diversion; besides, his wife was Jewish and was a major influence in the beginning of the first fascist uprising.) Hitler's fascism incorporated racial purity as part of the whole national identity thing. A lot of other European countries adopted fascism (including Greece and others, who were enemies of both Italy and Germany in WWII) that didn't include either the expansionist ideals of Italy and Germany, or the racial purity aspects of Germany. Another element of fascism is socialism (socialism being the government owns the means of production, NOT welfare, another distinction that people have forgotten over time.)
That said, the US has never had anything truly fascist about it, nor is it likely any time soon. The reason why is because our culture is so focused on individual identity, we don't like the idea of a central government being too powerful, and we also seem to have a big distaste for socialism (again, actual socialism, not welfare.)
Plus not everybody can simply just "go vegan".
Not only is going vegan stupid from a physiological standpoint (the fact is, our brains couldn't have evolved the way they did without meat; the fact that we could get away with eating vegetables came later after we selectively bred them to have a high enough energy density, and no vegan anywhere ever could survive off of truly wild plants) but some people have dietary needs that just can't work on a vegan diet. For example, if you're on dialysis, going vegan is practically a long drawn out suicide.
It's extremely rare to see anything above 40 on DSL though; you have to be lucky enough to live really close to the DSLAM.
I used to live in a somewhat remote area, and was able to get 300mbit on cable for about $80 a month.
The last router I'd need would be an actual enterprise grade equivalent gigabit layer 3 switch that is fanless and doesn't cost more than about $200. Because of those last two requirements, I don't think I'll ever find one.
Pretty much anywhere you get cable you can get at least (but probably more than) 100mbps. Considering that cable is almost everywhere, it's not that rare.
Now if you're stuck with DSL, I'm sorry.
Well, if we're going to complain about logical fallacies, listing types of logical fallacies as if it was meaningful is something I'd consider a logical fallacy.
It's not when they've all been used even in this discussion we're having right now.
And yet I disagree. I think it is very important to the discussion of the food industry. But there you go again, "all of its talking points" well, that is one of them.
And here you go contradicting yourself.
If you look above in this thread, you're the one who said "The whole food religion does actually." and ""The whole "local food movement" is what I refer to as the Food Religion."
Let me adjust my sentence: It's part of it. However the main part of that movement is about organic food, which as I've stated, is a fraud. But again, I never brought up the economic argument. You did.
You are prepared to acknowledge that I have stated that I did not mean to mislead you?
Yet you pretty clearly did anyways, which is your fault, not mine.
Anyways this is kind of dumb, you aren't even debating GMO here, making this way off topic. This is also my last reply to this thread, have a nice day.
It was likely survey based. I.e. they found identical twins and asked them if one used and one didn't, and if so, they evaluated them afterwards.
Anyways I'm kind of disappointed that they only looked at IQ, as to me it's a meaningless figure whose only purpose is for "I am more smug than thou art" clubs like Mensa. I'm more curious about other functional measurements both physiologically and sociologically (i.e. how did they vary in terms of career success.) There's some evidence that marijuana can improve both, as well as evidence that it can harm both.
It's divergent, but no, I wouldn't call it off-topic, as the subject is clearly related. And we're allowed to digress if we want, as this site is not restrictively moderated.
It's only related in the sense that anti-GMO people routinely use it and other issues as part of a red-herring, straw-man, and/or appeal to nature tactic, all three of which are logical fallacies.
You're choosing to say these things. That's yourself taking up a banner. I'm merely pointing out how mixed up you seem to be from my perspective.
I do take up the banner against the Food Religion and all of its talking points. The local economy argument is not related to that however. You brought that up by the way, not me, and as I have said repeatedly, I'm not interested in it. Again, I need to stress, that issue is entirely not related, and as I mentioned before, the local farmers can use GMO seed if they want to. Having said that, please explain exactly why you think it's relevant to GMO food.
You're right, it is a stupid strawman, it's not just one company, nor is it just GMO that is a problem. But then, I'm the one that brought that subject up, and apologized for how my words might have contributed to misleading you to some extent.
Did you miss where I said that?
No, rather I'm speaking in the more broad sense, because it is routinely brought up by anti-GMO people.
Well, from my experience, that is what people are doing, and what people are concerned about, if in a manner that might not be entirely clear to you.
Except that's not what they're doing, strictly speaking. They're typically using that argument in and of itself as a means to call for a ban and/or stigmatize (through labeling) GMO food. It's one thing to attack the industry, but it's another thing to use that as a basis to ban the product itself. Make sense? If you don't think that's the case, then I challenge you to find an anti-GMO activist post on this page that mentions Monsanto or patents or other business or political related issues as one of their talking points while NOT using it against GMO technology itself. Good luck with that.
Except you're really not even cognizant of what my actual viewpoint is, I've been trying to ascertain your views here, not expressing my own, and my viewpoint is that you're being myopic, short-sighted, and not seeing enough of the forest because you're overly focused on the trees, yet painting with a broad brush.
If you personally aren't doing these things, that's fine, but the rest of the anti-GMO movement is. However I can't help but observe that you're bringing this up in a GMO food discussion. Why? (And I'll remind you again: You brought up the issue, not me.)
The problem is that there may not be enough time for that to happen on this planet as its useful life for supporting complex life is mostly over. That is, in 800 million years this planet will not be capable of sustaining multi-cellular life due to eventual loss of carbon dioxide. This will happen whether humans are here or not.
We've got a very stable period from a geology, astronomy (that is, no ongoing nearby nova or other event that makes space totally uninhabitable,) and climate perspective right now, so we may as well take advantage of it. Any future civilization might not have as good of a chance as we have now.
However, people should take a close look at how companies like Monsanto pervert IP laws in order to force farmers to pay them even if they don't use Monsanto's products and to dominate the market.
That's fine with me, but please, when we debate GMO food, make it be about the technology and the crops themselves, not about business entities or politics. It really is a whole other discussion that belongs in the same category as, for example, DMCA takedowns on fair use youtube videos.
As I've pointed out, the whole business of the food industry isn't just limited to the question of GMOs.
That's why I've been calling you myopic.
Last I checked, TFS and TFA were about GMO. Anything else is somewhat off topic. Am I being myopic? Yes, deliberately, and for good reason.
But the question of what supporting your neighbors means is a very important one, and can be considered quite meaningful in an economic sense.
And it's also not a topic that I'm interested in.
So one thing doesn't sell. Guess what? They'll try something else then.
Even though that is the case, (which it is) ever since the patents expired there's already a growing market for generic GMO seed, and not many seem to be picking up Monsanto's new product.
http://www.technologyreview.co...
But quit creating this stupid straw man of attacking GMO technology over one company (or even other companies) that utilize it. You may as well argue that because Microsoft has been less than ethical, we should throw out our personal computers and go back to typewriters and handwritten spreadsheets. It's an absurd position to have, and is effectively a viewpoint that anti-GMO groups are presently beholden to.
I will say though, I perhaps should not have used Monsanto as an example, as they are not the only possible actor, it's a whole industry, and there are plenty of others. So that may have confused you, as you may have only looked in one direction. My bad with that, if you did think I believe the only problem is with Monsanto, or if my choice to use their name cut off your thinking.
It's not just you making that brain-dead argument, it's the whole food religion. If you mention GMO, they instantly accuse you of being a Monsanto shill. I don't care one way or another about Monsanto. Hell, I don't even care if you attack the industry, go right to it if it makes you happy. What I am defending is the technology itself, so quit using business entities as a straw man to defend your nonsensical viewpoint.
Interesting, but I can't say I'd lobby against a status quo that matches the present findings of the scientific community.
But unfortunately at this point various megacorporations
You're not going to win any sympathy from me if you talk like you were born in a cyberpunk novel.
No it's not, (and I didn't say it was, rather the topic was about gene splicing) but the resulting insulin is consumed by injecting it directly into your blood serum. Other GMO products don't even go that direct into your body (your gastric system breaks food down into its chemical components, making the source far less relevant than a product that is directly placed into your blood serum.)
Most of the comments I've seen about locally grown food is the economic value
There really isn't any other than you just want to support your neighbors, which is a separate discussion and doesn't even relate to GMO food at all (for example, your local farmer could plant GMO seed if he so chooses.)
The rest of your argument is predicated on that off-topic, thus I won't reply to it, except for this:
Oh that naivety is showing. Monsanto will just rush something new into the lineup.
That just goes to show how you're naive. Yes, Monsanto has brought something new, but nobody seems to buy it. In fact, there's a brand new market for generic GMO seed:
http://www.technologyreview.co...
It already has. In the article I linked, it describes how people are buying generic GMO seed.
Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works.
It's not just Trump that says dumb things like this. This exact argument I've heard repeated on Slashdot before (that US companies should make all production domestic.)
It sounds nice, but it just won't work in reality. It *might* work for somebody like Apple with sky high profit margins, however most companies have much smaller margins. In order for them to be able to compete at all in the global economy (and make no mistake about it, it IS a global economy now, has been for a century) they have to be able to take advantage of the lower costs in other countries. If they don't, then guess what? They'll lose their ass when trying to compete with companies from those countries when trying to sell to foreign customers. (Which by the way, tariffs won't ever help that, because you can't stick a tariff on a foreign customer.)
The point is valid, if you use a computer to for you livelyhood, aka you die if you don't use it and Microsoft is the only supplier you can use, then yes you are a slave to Microsoft.
So what are you saying? We should throw out all of the benefits of personal computers, and go back to manually written spreadsheets and typewriters, because of Microsoft? Because that's effectively what you're arguing should be done about GMO technology, and for the same bad reasoning.
Oh and by the way, did I mention that Monsanto's patents have expired?
http://www.technologyreview.co...
I've not noticed you puffing out your opposition to this, are you simply unaware of the local food movement? Is it only the people who want GMO labeling that earn your ire?
The whole food religion does actually. You could, in a sense, say I'm on a crusade. There is all of about zero proven benefit health to things like organic food and even locally grown food. However both of them cost people more money. I think it is immoral to lie about a benefit of your product when it costs more money.
The whole "local food movement" is what I refer to as the Food Religion. I'm opposed to it just as one might be opposed to Scientology.
GMO food, contrary to popular belief, is actually cheaper than even conventionally non-organic food, and has all of the same nutritional benefit, which comes from a reduction in materials used and a reduction of farmland. Furthermore, now that Monsanto's patents have expired, it's going to get even cheaper.
Until the Food Religion is exposed for what it really is (a big fat fraud) then I'll continue to post in places like this.
I don't understand how from a scientific standpoint, anyone can have so much confidence that GMO food has ZERO harmful effects on humans.
If you don't want to take my word for it, then take the word of the World Health Organization, the US Food and Agriculture Organization, the US Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association, who all approve of GMO. Also consider that billions of animals have consumed GMO food over tens and in some cases even hundreds of generations without any negative effects.
Whitepaper:
https://www.animalsciencepubli...
in it's putting control of the world's food supply into a small number of very powerful corporations
This argument has been dead for about a year now:
http://www.technologyreview.co...
You want credible evidence GMO is bad? Go to home depot and buy a bottle of roundup. Read the warning label.
I'm just going to be brutally honest here: You're an uneducated idiot if you think GMO is all about roundup.
Patiently await evidence all possible strains of GMO ever produced are forever guaranteed to never prove harmful.
And now you've just invoked a massive logical fallacy. Seriously go to school before you come here and try to argue this.
The rest of your post is equally uneducated, and not worth a response.
I have lobbied no one, spent zero dollar, seen 0 senators.
Lobbying doesn't mean spending money, nor does it mean speaking to actual politicians. It just means trying to enact political (or rather, policy) change. Posting here is enough.
then it should not be up to the companies to decide, whether that information should be hidden
There's a lot of information that isn't on a food label, such as the exact location the crop was grown in. Just because it isn't there doesn't mean it's hidden.