But let's talk about what's really important...

[Sightseek]

Too bad Prop. 37 failed...

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Too bad Prop. 37 failed...

It was very poorly written, it needs to be re-written and brought back at a later date.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Honu

It was very poorly written, it needs to be re-written and brought back at a later date.

Was that the one about GMO labeling?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Was that the one about GMO labeling?

yes

So, did CA have anything on the ballot about labeling genetically-modified genitals? I'm talking freakshow guys and pierced gals here; unreal.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Too bad Prop. 37 failed...

The big companies like Monsanto spent about $50 million to defeat Prop 37. They know that if people see products labeled as GMO, and there are alternative products that are not genetically modified, people will go with the alternative choice.

The campaign against 37 was a based on a bunch of lies. They outspent the Yes on 37 people by about 10x. In the end, all the lies fooled people into voting "no". I don't know how anyone in their right mind could vote "no". How could it be a bad thing to have products labeled?

One of the phony arguments against 37 was that it would only apply to certain products. In reality, it was going to apply to any products that were relevant and that the state had jurisdiction over. It couldn't be applied to meat because the USDA is the governing body that oversees meat. It couldn't be applied to alcohol because the FAA oversees the labeling on alcohol.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The big companies like Monsanto spent about $50 million to defeat Prop 37. They know that if people see products labeled as GMO, and there are alternative products that are not genetically modified, people will go with the alternative choice.

The campaign against 37 was a based on a bunch of lies. They outspent the Yes on 37 people by about 10x. In the end, all the lies fooled people into voting "no". I don't know how anyone in their right mind could vote "no". How could it be a bad thing to have products labeled?

One of the phony arguments against 37 was that it would only apply to certain products. In reality, it was going to apply to any products that were relevant and that the state had jurisdiction over. It couldn't be applied to meat because the USDA is the governing body that oversees meat. It couldn't be applied to alcohol because the FAA oversees the labeling on alcohol.

Ah but the cows are being fed GMO corn and oats....the whole thing was written by a trial lawyer. It was poorly written by someone I can guarantee wasnt really looking out for people but looking for profit lawsuits. A pizza in a grocery store has to be labled but not the one delivered by the pizza guy made with the same products. Its was BS.....re-write it make it more defined and dont make it a hardship on farmers who make little to no money at all.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Honu

Ah but the cows are being fed GMO corn and oats....the whole thing was written by a trial lawyer. It was poorly written by someone I can guarantee wasnt really looking out for people but looking for profit lawsuits. A pizza in a grocery store has to be labled but not the one delivered by the pizza guy made with the same products. Its was BS.....re-write it make it more defined and dont make it a hardship on farmers who make little to no money at all.

I don't think the law could have covered cows because the state has no jurisdiction over meat, the USDA does.

There was no reason to vote "no". Even if the law only covered one product, I would still vote "yes". Having one product labeled is better than having zero products labeled.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think the law could have covered cows because the state has no jurisdiction over meat, the USDA does.

There was no reason to vote "no". Even if the law only covered one product, I would still vote "yes". Having one product labeled is better than having zero products labeled.

Exactly

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The big companies like Monsanto spent about $50 million to defeat Prop 37. They know that if people see products labeled as GMO, and there are alternative products that are not genetically modified, people will go with the alternative choice.

The campaign against 37 was a based on a bunch of lies. They outspent the Yes on 37 people by about 10x. In the end, all the lies fooled people into voting "no". I don't know how anyone in their right mind could vote "no". How could it be a bad thing to have products labeled?

Maybe it was due to the additional cost of regulating the labeling (estimated at a hundred grand to a million)? To quote you:

These city and state agencies barely have the resources to do their jobs right now. Where are they going to get the resources to satisfy this new law?

I'm teasing you, Rupert, and I am sorry for CA that the prop was defeated. I didn't know much about it, and I read the SF Chronicle piece saying it was too broadly worded, but after looking into the prop more thoroughly I don't see what they were concerned about. It has some pretty broad exceptions, and as ready-to-eat food is excluded, I don't see how small stores would be affected, since it would be the responsibility of the food producer (Big Ag, in most cases) to label the food before it hit shelves, right?

I haven't been persuaded that GMOs are bad for a person, but I think people have the right to as much information about what they buy as possible, so I wish it had been passed. I really like the requirement here in NYC that stores selling ready-to-eat foods now post the calorie counts. It's really affected how I order food when I eat out.

Here's the full text of prop 37, if anyone wants to see it:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...(November_2012)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Maybe it was due to the additional cost of regulating the labeling (estimated at a hundred grand to a million)? To quote you:



I'm teasing you, Rupert, and I am sorry for CA that the prop was defeated. I didn't know much about it, and I read the SF Chronicle piece saying it was too broadly worded, but after looking into the prop more thoroughly I don't see what they were concerned about. It has some pretty broad exceptions, and as ready-to-eat food is excluded, I don't see how small stores would be affected, since it would be the responsibility of the food producer (Big Ag, in most cases) to label the food before it hit shelves, right?

I haven't been persuaded that GMOs are bad for a person, but I think people have the right to as much information about what they buy as possible, so I wish it had been passed. I really like the requirement here in NYC that stores selling ready-to-eat foods now post the calorie counts. It's really affected how I order food when I eat out.

Here's the full text of prop 37, if anyone wants to see it:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...(November_2012)

As you said, I think we have the right to know whether the food we are buying has been genetically modified, especially considering that there is some evidence out there that genetically modified food may cause cancer.

"Rats fed a lifelong diet of one of the bestselling strains of genetically modified corn suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, according to a controversial French study published today."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2Beakf0Dj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As you said, I think we have the right to know whether the food we are buying has been genetically modified, especially considering that there is some evidence out there that genetically modified food may cause cancer.

"Rats fed a lifelong diet of one of the bestselling strains of genetically modified corn suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, according to a controversial French study published today."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2Beakf0Dj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hey, Rupert- thanks for the link; I read it. However, I did some additional googling on the study, and it's hugely, hugely flawed, so I don't think one can draw any conclusions from it as it was run by a scientist with an agenda, and the rats used were predisposed to develop tumors anyway. Here's a good piece on the major errors in the study, and how the media was manipulated into releasing it:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Again, I haven't been convinced one way or another about GMOs, but I fully support labeling and letting consumers choose.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hey, Rupert- thanks for the link; I read it. However, I did some additional googling on the study, and it's hugely, hugely flawed, so I don't think one can draw any conclusions from it as it was run by a scientist with an agenda, and the rats used were predisposed to develop tumors anyway. Here's a good piece on the major errors in the study, and how the media was manipulated into releasing it:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Again, I haven't been convinced one way or another about GMOs, but I fully support labeling and letting consumers choose.

I wasn't claiming that there was irrefutable proof that it causes cancer. I was just saying that there was "some evidence" that it may cause cancer. Even if there is no credible proof (at this point) that it causes cancer, I agree with you that genetically modified food should still be labeled so that we can decide whether we want to buy that brand or another brand that has not been genetically modified.

By the way, I'm sure companies like Monsanto are spending millions to bash any study that shows genetically modified food is dangerous. Do you think they would ever admit that their products may be dangerous? I'm sure they will always claim that the study was flawed if they don't like the results of the study.

By the way, the fact that the rats were rats that were predisposed to cancer does not mean the results were not important. There are millions of people that are predisposed to cancer. A person may be predisposed to cancer without even knowing it. I have no idea if I am or not. Neither of my parents ever had cancer but my grandmother did. I would have no way of knowing if I am predisposed to cancer.

[Riot]

Virtually everything we eat is "genetically modified", and has been for centuries. Every animal, every fruit, every crop.

When you take a tomato, and breed it to produce big tomato fruit - that's "genetically modified".

American Indians developing corn? Selection is "genetically modified".

Cows giving 20 gallons of milk a day? Their genes have been "genetically modified" by breeding selection.

I don't understand why people fear "genetically modified" foods - except they don't know what DNA and RNA are, and the terms are scary?

Or they don't understand how eating DNA and RNA from another animal - like a cow - doesn't turn you into a cow? But they think that eating cow DNA will alter their own DNA and cause cancer? While not understanding the concept of denatured proteins, how your own body treats foreign proteins, etc ....

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hey, Rupert- thanks for the link; I read it. However, I did some additional googling on the study, and it's hugely, hugely flawed, so I don't think one can draw any conclusions from it as it was run by a scientist with an agenda, and the rats used were predisposed to develop tumors anyway. Here's a good piece on the major errors in the study, and how the media was manipulated into releasing it:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Again, I haven't been convinced one way or another about GMOs, but I fully support labeling and letting consumers choose.

By the way, you should read the 2nd rebuttal to your article. Here is a piece of it:

Response to author's call
In response to the author's comment regarding not being "pro-GM", I would suggest that perhaps the tenor of her articles don't do her feelings justice. There must be some reason why the majority of readers across time seem to be getting the incorrect impression. Regarding the issue of good journalism, I won't disagree, but it's interesting that the few positive responses to the relentlessly pro-GM sounding articles usually seem to come either from those who express a marked pro-GM bias, themselves, or from those who don't reason particularly well. Personally, I'm going to withhold judgement about the articles being 'fair and insightful' until I see some good supporting evidence.

But my intent is to help, not criticize. The author asked for links to articles that show poor methodologies being used elsewhere. Surely she's aware of the difficulties of proving negatives, but I do have a few examples. One that comes to mind are the remarkable number of field trials of GMO crops that purport to demonstrate their safety, but which fail to follow the 'life cycle' of GM proteins as they leave the plant and enter the gut flora of pollinating insects or the soil biota. Where do those genes go after leaving their initial points of contact, and what influences do they have as they travel through the environment? Nobody really knows, because very few (especially Monsanto et. al.) have asked. However, the most recent research suggests that this gap in inquiry has allowed the gut flora of field insects exposed to GM proteins in situ, to mutate and confer host immunity. That wasn't, according to Monsanto et al., supposed to happen! There was no evidence that it could happen! The reality is that the evidence was waiting to be discovered, but the GM industry never honestly looked for it. It wasn't found until independent researchers thought to inquire. How much more evidence of harm is out there, lying hidden until somebody insightful enough and wealthy enough to ask, can run the correct studies?

Unfortunately, the absence of evidence was taken as the evidence of absence. This seems to hallen a lot with Monsanto. It's too bad that economic and political interests often push this mental sleight-of-hand onto unsuspecting members of the public and the press. When one substitutes logical fallacy for logic, and bolsters one's world view with selective evidence, the mistaking of all sorts of absurdities for truth becomes easy.

An issue related to "absence of evidence" is the sheer politics of publishing scientific reviews critical of Monsanto's work. Surely the author knows that scientific research and publishing are highly political endeavors, despite the official dogma that science is free and independent of such un-scientific concerns. Independent? Hogwash. The practical reality is that science is almost as political an endeavor as - well, as politics itself. And those pushing GM are currently the same ones holding the clout, and always have been right back to the beginning of this game.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, you should read the 2nd rebuttal to your article. Here is a piece of it:

Response to author's call
In response to the author's comment regarding not being "pro-GM", I would suggest that perhaps the tenor of her articles don't do her feelings justice. There must be some reason why the majority of readers across time seem to be getting the incorrect impression. Regarding the issue of good journalism, I won't disagree, but it's interesting that the few positive responses to the relentlessly pro-GM sounding articles usually seem to come either from those who express a marked pro-GM bias, themselves, or from those who don't reason particularly well. Personally, I'm going to withhold judgement about the articles being 'fair and insightful' until I see some good supporting evidence.

But my intent is to help, not criticize. The author asked for links to articles that show poor methodologies being used elsewhere. Surely she's aware of the difficulties of proving negatives, but I do have a few examples. One that comes to mind are the remarkable number of field trials of GMO crops that purport to demonstrate their safety, but which fail to follow the 'life cycle' of GM proteins as they leave the plant and enter the gut flora of pollinating insects or the soil biota. Where do those genes go after leaving their initial points of contact, and what influences do they have as they travel through the environment? Nobody really knows, because very few (especially Monsanto et. al.) have asked. However, the most recent research suggests that this gap in inquiry has allowed the gut flora of field insects exposed to GM proteins in situ, to mutate and confer host immunity. That wasn't, according to Monsanto et al., supposed to happen! There was no evidence that it could happen! The reality is that the evidence was waiting to be discovered, but the GM industry never honestly looked for it. It wasn't found until independent researchers thought to inquire. How much more evidence of harm is out there, lying hidden until somebody insightful enough and wealthy enough to ask, can run the correct studies?

Unfortunately, the absence of evidence was taken as the evidence of absence. This seems to hallen a lot with Monsanto. It's too bad that economic and political interests often push this mental sleight-of-hand onto unsuspecting members of the public and the press. When one substitutes logical fallacy for logic, and bolsters one's world view with selective evidence, the mistaking of all sorts of absurdities for truth becomes easy.

An issue related to "absence of evidence" is the sheer politics of publishing scientific reviews critical of Monsanto's work. Surely the author knows that scientific research and publishing are highly political endeavors, despite the official dogma that science is free and independent of such un-scientific concerns. Independent? Hogwash. The practical reality is that science is almost as political an endeavor as - well, as politics itself. And those pushing GM are currently the same ones holding the clout, and always have been right back to the beginning of this game.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Before I forget- thanks for opening up this line of discussion, Rupert. I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on it. And to think it came from a joke about the porn industry!

The letter writer is absolutely right that scientific study is influenced by all sorts of external factors, and again, I'm not challenging that research into GMOs may not eventually turn up clear evidence that they are harmful; just that I haven't seen it yet. I see the concerns the letter writer has about the criticisms of the study, but they don't hold up to me as strongly as the flaws in it.

A big problem I do have with the response is the complaint about the difficulties of proving negatives, as I think it shows a bit of scientific illiteracy on the part of the letter writer. I'm simplifying a bit, and someone like Riot who has actually participated in medical studies may be able to explain better, but as I understand from my statistician brother, and a very long science CD for which I did the audio narration, good studies begin with a null hypothesis- that is, the assumption at the beginning of the study is that what is being studied will turn out not to be true, i.e., "GMO foods do not increase cancer risk." That way, evidence that ends up contradicting the null hypothesis must be pretty clear, and not the result of interpreting it to fit an agenda. An extreme example of this would be that study done about estrogen replacement therapy some years back, where the mounting evidence that in fact, it did contribute to breast cancer risk became so overwhelming that they stopped the study for fear of the women's health. In that case, the null hypothesis was disproved pretty clearly.

So, in a way, science is always trying to prove the negative. Or rather, it is always assuming the negative to be true, and looking for evidence to challenge that claim. I just don't think this particular study made a good challenge to the claim, due to the flaws in methodology.

But I certainly don't challenge the claim that scientific inquiry is as influenced by Big Business and political expediency as everything else is! I think the only real weapon we have against it is to try to be as scientifically literate as we can be, so that we can better apply critical thinking skills to what the media feeds us.