Labeling genetically modified foods initiative gets on california ballot.

[P7PSP]

Give me your pitch.  Why should I care?

I am not going to bother telling you what you should care about. The reason I care is because I want to know if some synthetic laboratory produced shit is in my food.

A few of your family members (distant or otherwise) were likely made possible with some "synthetic laboratory produced shit".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_pregnancy

There's also the hotly discussed issue of "designer babies" or (more to the point) "Designer HUMANS"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby

It seems worth pointing out, largely imagined and easy enough to test for health issues aside.

Artificial insemination has nothing to do with gene splicing. Neither does surrogacy as it uses artificial insemination in people.

Designer babies? Give me a link to a clinic that actually does it. Give me a link to one case where it has happened. Than show me where that baby is related to my family and was used for food dumbass. Also reread that link under the heading "Biological Risks". After all that was what you are pretending to have a point with here, right? Risks are over rated right?   

The biggest concern of GM food products in my opinion is that such genetic modification may end up having plant/animal life subjected to it producing unnatural proteins

Guess what! Most of the concerns your largely unimformed 1st post brings up can be removed by science. ISN'T THAT GREAT?!

 

Most of the concerns? Why not all of them? One valid concern left to be addressed is still a valid concern. OTOH why even bother having that concern in the 1st place? I prefer to not have BT Corn in my diet in the first place. That is what the Label GMOs project is about. Informed choice. Not artificial insemination. Not surrogate mothers. Not designer babies. Not any other off topic shit that you want to bring up.

Is your mommy not giving you enough attention today? She is probably just busy at the moment. You are still her widdle snookums. 

[midlifeaspie]

Give me your pitch.  Why should I care?

I am not going to bother telling you what you should care about. The reason I care is because I want to know if some synthetic laboratory produced shit is in my food.

A few of your family members (distant or otherwise) were likely made possible with some "synthetic laboratory produced shit".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_pregnancy

There's also the hotly discussed issue of "designer babies" or (more to the point) "Designer HUMANS"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby

It seems worth pointing out, largely imagined and easy enough to test for health issues aside.

Artificial insemination has nothing to do with gene splicing. Neither does surrogacy as it uses artificial insemination in people.

Designer babies? Give me a link to a clinic that actually does it. Give me a link to one case where it has happened. Than show me where that baby is related to my family and was used for food dumbass. Also reread that link under the heading "Biological Risks". After all that was what you are pretending to have a point with here, right? Risks are over rated right?   

The biggest concern of GM food products in my opinion is that such genetic modification may end up having plant/animal life subjected to it producing unnatural proteins

Guess what! Most of the concerns your largely unimformed 1st post brings up can be removed by science. ISN'T THAT GREAT?!

 

Most of the concerns? Why not all of them? One valid concern left to be addressed is still a valid concern. OTOH why even bother having that concern in the 1st place? I prefer to not have BT Corn in my diet in the first place. That is what the Label GMOs project is about. Informed choice. Not artificial insemination. Not surrogate mothers. Not designer babies. Not any other off topic shit that you want to bring up.

Is your mommy not giving you enough attention today? She is probably just busy at the moment. You are still her widdle snookums. 

She started locking the bathroom door 

[Kapkao]

The biggest concern of GM food products in my opinion is that such genetic modification may end up having plant/animal life subjected to it producing unnatural proteins

Guess what! Most of the concerns your largely unimformed 1st post brings up can be removed by science. ISN'T THAT GREAT?!

 

Oh really? Then enlighten us on how you would stop a reproducing genetic modified organism (which may have a genetic flaw of producing a protein harmful to human life) when it cross pollinates with the native population to form hybrids carrying this flaw?

The answer is found in your post: it's merely a possibility, and if it becomes a professional concern (as opposed to the 'concerns' of a private citizen), I'm sure lab tests can be run to discern the threat.

Lemme ask you something: do you know how many FDA regulations govern the things you put in your mouth, and what would happen if 1000s were to die off from cancer caused by, say..
monsanto corn?

What if people were to get renal failure from poptarts, or had liver poisoning from fruit salad? What would be the basic outcome of such a... health scandal?
Their vendors wouldn't be selling many more of those commodities, would they? The outcome would be no different with transgenic foods, only it would feed into the pseudomoralistic opposition of techniphobes like yourself. Kinda makes sense to NOT fuck up one's transgenic engineering of food then, doesn't it?

PPK's petition is at least semirational: he wants to know what's in his food and by most understandings, it's his legal right to do so as far as chemical composition.
You, on the hand, are having an "OMFG Transgenics!!!1" moment, which is bullshit. I rely on transgenic microbes for most of my meds. I haven't demonstrated any symptoms of cancer or poisoning, lately. Neither do 99% of the insulin-dependent diabetics out there.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

My primary concern is the hybridization of flawed GM crops contaminating native ones and reproducing beyond control. I don't see how that's being technophobic, it's not even "pseudo-moralistic" either because this is an actual scientific concern.

Regarding your pop tart and fruit salad examples, you do realize that most of the food products harbouring harmful properties at a time are caused by either chemical or bacterial contamination? Like Lead (in some parts of the world due to air pollution, condenses in rain, soaks in soil) and e.coli (due to poor hygiene of handling) respectively for example. Factors that are usually external, localized and traceable. These causes won't reproduce uncontrollably in the wild with little ability to contain it, big difference.

I only represent the hypothetical because it's already happening in real life, but of course with no significant ill effects (cross pollination has occurred and lab test did reveal GM proteins in supposedly native crops. That doesn't inspire confidence of them being under control, because it shows a clear lack of foresight when they genetically engineered that species. Makes you wonder what else they got wrong...

But if I must spell it out to you, I'm mostly against the callous disregard of distributing GM crops in the wild without more fail-safe measures to ensure they cannot reproduce and contaminate native stocks. At least if a problem does emerge it can be easily quarantined. I don't like the fact they're not in control of their own product.

[P7PSP]

My primary concern is the hybridization of flawed GM crops contaminating native ones and reproducing beyond control. I don't see how that's being technophobic, it's not even "pseudo-moralistic" either because this is an actual scientific concern.

Regarding your pop tart and fruit salad examples, you do realize that most of the food products harbouring harmful properties at a time are caused by either chemical or bacterial contamination? Like Lead (in some parts of the world due to air pollution, condenses in rain, soaks in soil) and e.coli (due to poor hygiene of handling) respectively for example. Factors that are usually external, localized and traceable. These causes won't reproduce uncontrollably in the wild with little ability to contain it, big difference.

I only represent the hypothetical because it's already happening in real life, but of course with no significant ill effects (cross pollination has occurred and lab test did reveal GM proteins in supposedly native crops. That doesn't inspire confidence of them being under control, because it shows a clear lack of foresight when they genetically engineered that species. Makes you wonder what else they got wrong...

But if I must spell it out to you, I'm mostly against the callous disregard of distributing GM crops in the wild without more fail-safe measures to ensure they cannot reproduce and contaminate native stocks. At least if a problem does emerge it can be easily quarantined. I don't like the fact they're not in control of their own product.

Actually you guys have had just that sort of problem with cane toads and rabbits, non GMO type,  being introduced over there. Having plants create similar problems would not be good.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Exactly, but at least a pest species is identifiable and competing against other native life, not of the same species. The problem of containment becomes a LOT harder (and believe me containing pest species is already hard enough) when you have a problem species harmful to ecology that is a genetically modified variant of the same one capable of cross-breeding.

Having plants create similar problems would not be good.

But, we do have weed species though, Paterson's curse. http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/Patersons-curse.aspx

When this gets into paddocks it can harm livestock because they doesn't recognize the toxicity of it and eat it. In large enough qualities it will kill them. This is just a natural pest, which is bad enough.

Now you can see why I'm concerned if a GMO plant were to become something similar in terms of pest. This is because some GM crops are modified to produce natural insecticide (like BT for instance, a protein) within them, something Kapkao seems to be ignoring. So what stops the hybrid species resulting from a GM/native cross-pollination from increasing the potency or altering that protein over the course of generations, and within a few decades it becomes a health problem? At least with natural genetic behaviour if the plant evolved such a thing, it would be over a long enough period of time for adaptation. But with GM, it's been given a huge head start.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

And to save you some time Kapkao I'll try to response ahead of time of your future posts (psychic tinfoil hat on now)

- No, but it's a demonstration of a natural pest shows the ramifications of natural plants alone just being introduced to a foreign environment.
- I know it's not strictly relevant but hey you started that style of argument first, or did I? Well shit... Anyway.
- True, the opposite could be happen where the protein weakens but natural selection as well as farming practices would mostly favour better resistance to insects and diseases.
- It can be monitored by labs to make sure the current generation is safe yes, but, how do you stop the pollen spread affecting untested areas?
- Assurances will not cut it, you need scientific evidence to suggest it will not be a problem (or at least prove the probability of such a dangerous scenario is highly unlikely, that would suffice).
- Well finally we may actually agree on something at some point in this discussion. I have considered that if that were the case I wouldn't have any problems with GM at all.
- No, stop with pseudo-intellectual buzzwords, you're not sounding that much smarter. I am disappoint.
- I know but I don't care, people know I do bullshit and use overcomplicated words sometimes for dramatic effect.
- Oh, yet another sarcastic question, hooray, come on you can do better.
- It was sarcastic, because it was loaded and phrased as if your answer is the only correct one, whatever.
- Okay that's not relevant and if so, elaborate.
- Blah, blah, I'm fearmorgering over new technology, I'm a dinosaur even though my concerns are not only justified, but backed with scientific observation.
- No, of course I'm not a biologist or geneticist, neither are you.
- It would ruin this entire argument if we attack each others credentials.
- I did that list for my amusement mostly.
- Yes, I'm an asshole and sometimes immature, does it matter?
- People not taking me seriously for this? But, weren't you the one saying you don't take the internet seriously? So why are we even arguing over this topic?
- Oh... Well fuck.
- I have to thank you though, you rekindled my interest in reading up on GM though.

[Kapkao]

But if I must spell it out to you, I'm mostly against the callous disregard of distributing GM crops in the wild without more fail-safe measures to ensure they cannot reproduce and contaminate native stocks. At least if a problem does emerge it can be easily quarantined. I don't like the fact they're not in control of their own product.

Cross pollination happens anyways. The same with wild animals is happening, too. Your posts here are mostly "angry environmentalist feigns health concerns to promote techniphobia".

And yes, your posts are technophobic. Fuckin' deal with it, already, instead of showering me with intellectually weak and pointless semantics.
 

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

But if I must spell it out to you, I'm mostly against the callous disregard of distributing GM crops in the wild without more fail-safe measures to ensure they cannot reproduce and contaminate native stocks. At least if a problem does emerge it can be easily quarantined. I don't like the fact they're not in control of their own product.

Cross pollination happens anyways. The same with wild animals is happening, too. Your posts here are mostly "angry environmentalist feigns health concerns to promote techniphobia".

And yes, your posts are technophobic. Fuckin' deal with it, already, instead of showering me with intellectually weak and pointless semantics.
 

And your posts are poor attempts of veiled ad-hominid attacks and generalized blanket statements without any real substance to prove any of your arguments. Here I was hoping for something more intellectually simulating, instead I get this dunce level rhetoric. Your loss if people can't take you seriously on any subject you may seriously desire to discuss. But I suppose that's the point, you said you don't take the internet seriously and this clearly demonstrates it.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

So are you going to stop trying to troll me and actually use your brain or are we done here?

[Kapkao]

In the same way that "respect is earned" rather than given unconditionally for billions of people across the planet, nothing you've posted in this thread is worth much thought on my behalf.

You're angry about domesticated organisms breeding with wild ones -at the very least, you should have just said so up front instead of posting about largely fabricated health concerns regarding transgenic organisms.

If you have any actual proof that my health is at risk from eating or living in a nation that produces Monsanto's transgenic corn, I'd have ZERO objections to reading it or about it.

[Kapkao]

As a sidenote;
Yes, Shepard, my posts are going to provocative, incisive and in general reflecting well of someone who does not give a flying fuck how people think or "feel" about a given subject, merely what they can prove.

You pulled quite a few indefensible generic declarations of fact out of your ass and (I suppose) you wanted others here to take them seriously. That I didn't doesn't automatically mean I'm trolling you or that I'm a troll, merely that I will likely take a giant, heaving shit all over your fact-free posts.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

In the same way that "respect is earned" rather than given unconditionally for billions of people across the planet, nothing you've posted in this thread is worth much thought on my behalf.

The feeling is mutual, I can assure you. All you've demonstrated is your ability to write general statements, deflect from the original argument, distort things being said and invoking the "You're a technophobe" argument instead of proving a reasonable counterargument to address the concerns raised. The burden of proof actually lies on you because you were the first to suggest my opinion is uninformed (so naturally if you had anything to use against me, you would have resorted to citations by now instead of these trollish antics). So yeah I'm acknowledging my opinion may not be so informed, as I did say it was my opinion about the ramifications. But you are the one trying to one-up me by insinuation that you know more than me with comments like in your first response. I have yet seen you provide a good counterargument. Not even a "Geneticists could engineer proteins so they're broken down by the time they reach the food shelf" or "They would introduce intentional genes that would make cross-pollination between GMO and native crops impossible or controllable" or even "Labs do frequently test nearby crops for contamination and can contain it within a reasonable time frame".

It's funny because upon my reading into the subject, I've already identified several flaws with my own argument, flaws you would have easily picked apart had you been more informed on the subject.

As a sidenote;
Yes, Shepard, my posts are going to provocative, incisive and in general reflecting well of someone who does not give a flying fuck how people think or "feel" about a given subject, merely what they can prove.

You pulled quite a few indefensible generic declarations of fact out of your ass and (I suppose) you wanted others here to take them seriously. That I didn't doesn't automatically mean I'm trolling you or that I'm a troll, merely that I will likely take a giant, heaving shit all over your fact-free posts.

Yet you stoop to an even lower level than myself. So your point being? You had your chance to really pwn me but blew it.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Oh, and here's something from the World Health Organisation addressing some of my concerns on GMOs, even raising some concerns I've missed:

Q5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.

Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Feasibility and methods for post-marketing monitoring of GM food products, for the continued surveillance of the safety of GM food products, are under discussion.

Q7. What are the issues of concern for the environment?

Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions.

Current investigations focus on: the potentially detrimental effect on beneficial insects or a faster induction of resistant insects; the potential generation of new plant pathogens; the potential detrimental consequences for plant biodiversity and wildlife, and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations; and the movement of herbicide resistance genes to other plants.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

So I was wrong or exaggerating some concerns, but nonetheless, I was far from just pulling them out of my ass.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

But here's something you could have used against me rather quickly:

Q8. Are GM foods safe?

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.

Now if you actually were informed on the subject you would have known how to find resources to disapprove some of my more outlandish statements. I would have questioned this part by nonetheless you would have demonstrated an actual counterargument worthy enough to put me in my place and forced me to actually think about this.