Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya, apple, potato...those are the species you need to remember.
That's not a complete list now, is it?
Maybe you should scroll back to the top of the page and read the headline again.
Can you give a rational reasoning as to why only one thing, which just so happens to have public controversy, should be singled out?
Yes. Because the people who are paying the bills want it. Now, you may believe that the great unwashed masses shouldn't be allowed to have that information, or aren't smart enough to process that information, or need to be protected from that bit of information, or just can't handle the truth, but that's not your call to make because they are paying for it. They pay every penny of the cost of research, the cost of marketing, the cost of growing, the cost of harvesting, the cost of distribution and every damn thing right up to the cost of the minimum wage cashier in the checkout line at the grocery store. And that, my friend, means they get to know what they demand to know.
Honeycrisp apple, for example, is non-GE, and until a few years ago was under patent by the University of Minnesota, who developed it and used the patent royalties to fund further research (hence why it was patented at all). That they are different in one way does not mean they are not substantially equivalent.
And it's this misuse of the patent system that is one of my biggest gripes. Honeycrisp apples do not make the case against patenting "substantially equivalent" organisms any less compelling.
the only reason to differentiate them via labeling would be to suggest that there is a substantive difference between the two products, which is false.
If there is no "substantive difference" between the two products, then how the hell are they awarded patents on them?
And I've seen absolutely nothing that makes the case that information should be hidden from consumers. You know consumers, right? They're the ones who pay all the bills for GMOs and GMO research.
No "warning label". Just a simple statement of fact. It doesn't even have to have the word, "GMO" on it. Just a little symbol like for Kosher food or Halal.
Consumers are paying the bill. Consumers pay every single penny of the money spent on GMO research. If they want to know where the food they are paying for comes from, they get to know.
The GM people don't want to be pushed into a situation similar to the gluten people - where idiotic superstitious people avoid their product.
So maybe they should spend some of the money they're using on concealing GM foods' provenance on you know, marketing all the wonderful properties of GM foods to consumers?
Isn't that how consumer information is supposed to work?
You know, there may be more to this story than meets the eye. The New York Times loves to monger for war. During the run-up to Iraq, they were some of the biggest cheerleaders for glorious victory over the axis of evil. Also, let's remember that the US gov't has this penchant for psy-ops that include ridicule of enemies, and for using the US media to spread them. During WWII, they tried to spread "Hitler only has one testicle" and during the Cold War, there were practically new rumors about Castro every week. The CIA even tried to him thallium salts, which would make his beard fall out. The thinking being that those stupid Cubans, seeing their leader's naked chin, would then overthrow the communists. Even today, we have "Hitler was gay" rumors floated in the media. It almost seems like our intelligence apparatus likes to spread misinformation even when it's no longer needed. Maybe just to stay in practice.
I'm not saying that people who are stupid enough to believe they are the harbingers of a worldwide caliphate are not also stupid enough to believe in "Red Mercury", but I just caution people that when it comes to warmongering, our government is not above using rumor and falsehood.
Wow, that article certainly is biased. Those poor, honest, people forced to work as slaves in prison camps. I guess the fact that they committed a crime and were caught and convicted means nothing. They should have more rights than the people they killed, raped and murdered did. I also find it ironic that an article about penal slavery actually reports the wages that they are paid. Slaves don't get wages. Except when we tongue in cheek speak of our own slave wages because we think we deserve more pay.
You have a mutable definition of slavery. The actual definition is a little more fixed. It has nothing to do with wages or crimes...It has to do with choice.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a complete list now, is it?
Maybe you should scroll back to the top of the page and read the headline again.
Yes. Because the people who are paying the bills want it. Now, you may believe that the great unwashed masses shouldn't be allowed to have that information, or aren't smart enough to process that information, or need to be protected from that bit of information, or just can't handle the truth, but that's not your call to make because they are paying for it. They pay every penny of the cost of research, the cost of marketing, the cost of growing, the cost of harvesting, the cost of distribution and every damn thing right up to the cost of the minimum wage cashier in the checkout line at the grocery store. And that, my friend, means they get to know what they demand to know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07...
If that were true, then farmers couldn't be sued for using GMO seeds.
And it's this misuse of the patent system that is one of my biggest gripes. Honeycrisp apples do not make the case against patenting "substantially equivalent" organisms any less compelling.
If there is no "substantive difference" between the two products, then how the hell are they awarded patents on them?
Give me an example of a company that will voluntarily label their food as GMO.
I want a self-driving electric car that flies.
So GMOs are just for increased profits for the producer?
OK.
So if I understand you, you're saying that we'll get fusion energy about the same time we all have flying cars and jet packs?
And I've seen absolutely nothing that makes the case that information should be hidden from consumers. You know consumers, right? They're the ones who pay all the bills for GMOs and GMO research.
No "warning label". Just a simple statement of fact. It doesn't even have to have the word, "GMO" on it. Just a little symbol like for Kosher food or Halal.
Consumers are paying the bill. Consumers pay every single penny of the money spent on GMO research. If they want to know where the food they are paying for comes from, they get to know.
So do particularly malignant tumors.
So maybe they should spend some of the money they're using on concealing GM foods' provenance on you know, marketing all the wonderful properties of GM foods to consumers?
Isn't that how consumer information is supposed to work?
That silver mercury was a blast to play with. It tasted like shit, but man it was a fun toy.
What is it with that hair, Donald?
You know, there may be more to this story than meets the eye. The New York Times loves to monger for war. During the run-up to Iraq, they were some of the biggest cheerleaders for glorious victory over the axis of evil. Also, let's remember that the US gov't has this penchant for psy-ops that include ridicule of enemies, and for using the US media to spread them. During WWII, they tried to spread "Hitler only has one testicle" and during the Cold War, there were practically new rumors about Castro every week. The CIA even tried to him thallium salts, which would make his beard fall out. The thinking being that those stupid Cubans, seeing their leader's naked chin, would then overthrow the communists. Even today, we have "Hitler was gay" rumors floated in the media. It almost seems like our intelligence apparatus likes to spread misinformation even when it's no longer needed. Maybe just to stay in practice.
I'm not saying that people who are stupid enough to believe they are the harbingers of a worldwide caliphate are not also stupid enough to believe in "Red Mercury", but I just caution people that when it comes to warmongering, our government is not above using rumor and falsehood.
Remember George Bush's "yellowcake uranium"?
They're looking in the wrong place.
This is what Daesh should actually be looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh, I can't wait until people are controlling their phones with their tongues and ears. Can not wait.
You have a mutable definition of slavery. The actual definition is a little more fixed. It has nothing to do with wages or crimes...It has to do with choice.
Just wait until Daesh outsources their tech support to a Bangalore call center.
"My name is Brad. First, let me say I'm sorry that you're having trouble with our service today. To whom am I speaking?"
Just ask the people in the Israeli settlements.
Ladies and gentlemen, the greatest concept car of all time, the Buick Y-Job:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You don't have to go that far to find "actual slaves". You can find quite a few right there in the state of Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You might ask a slave that question. I'm sure he'd happily clarify the distinction.
And jet fuel can't melt steel beams.