EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3310
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On March 15 2016 04:08 Plansix wrote: Any genetically modified food should be labeled. I have nothing against it and will eat it, but that information should be available. It doesn't need to be front and center, but it should be some place on the package. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information. All food humans eat is genetically modified, at least since the 1950s (thats 1950 BC) | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I find a lot of the people who mock folks that want gluten free food likely have no food allergies or issues eating, so its not a problem they concern themselves with. On March 15 2016 04:48 Krikkitone wrote: All food humans eat is genetically modified, at least since the 1950s (thats 1950 BC) Don't care. Tell me what version of tomato I got, including original brand. I can handle the rest. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 15 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote: Someone’s desire for GMOs to be labeled could be due to very practical concerns, including allergies and an inability to digest some GMOs. Not every request is some left wing hippy trying to eat only pure food. These are not lethal allergies, but its no fun to buy food that makes you feel like shit. People deserve information about what is in their food, if for the sole purpose so they can make informed buying decisions on what they eat. That is why they are labeled, so people can know what is in them. Allergies can kill people, just sayin' | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote: Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. On March 15 2016 05:01 oneofthem wrote: GE crops are tested like drugs. pretty highly unlikely for an allergen gene to accidentally slip through into the organism and then slip past detection. it's not really a serious worry. Are you saying that no person in the US will be allergic to the GMO? 100% free of allergens for 100% of people in the US? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:53 farvacola wrote: This notion that SCIENCE and SCIENCE alone can provide us with an answer to a problem like energy production is hilariously stupid. If you come to the table with oneofthem goggles on and assume that someone with an anti-nuclear or anti-fracking perspective is inherently ignorant of science, good luck leaving that table having accomplished anything. Here's a hint Mohdoo; arguments against the encouragement of nuclear energy doesn't rely exclusively on issues of safety, they instead usually turn on issues of waste, and if you don't think the latter deserves at least some lip-service, well, go visit Yucca Mountain  edit: puerk gets it. Modern reactors do not product waste as we know it because it was be converted back to fuel. The "actual" waste produced ends up being similar to other "green" forms of energy. Your post highlights my point, you don't understand what's out there. If you don't understand the specifics that influence the production of conversion of nuclear waste, you aren't making an informed decision. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote: Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. Do you have any confirmed cases of someone being allergic to a GMO variant but not to the "natural" variant? I can't recall a single credible case report. EDIT: Are you also going to argue that we should label what generation of avocado the avocado you get is? I.e. 200.th generation of intrabred Hass avocado? After all, who knoes? Maybe someone is going to be allergic to avocados from generation 249, but completely fine with generation 248! | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote: Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. Are you saying that no person in the US will be allergic to the GMO? 100% free of allergens for 100% of people in the US? 100% in all future universes is not a reasonable standard of risk. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On March 15 2016 05:09 Ghostcom wrote: Do you have any confirmed cases of someone being allergic to a GMO variant but not to the "natural" variant? I can't recall a single credible case report. No such case can exist because the two are identical. That being said, it is not likely a genetically modified food will be identical to another food. Genetic modification lets us decide which genes are expressed, how much, and when. This can be done over the course of a very long time with breeding, but that can take a long time. So scientists just choose which genes they want and go from there. It's totally possible to genetically modify an organism such that someone becomes allergic to the new kind. That's not a very good idea though. But you could modify an organism to have a higher production of the specific thing (dandruff in the case of dogs for example) such that someone is more allergic. But if you run PCR on a "GMO" and "non-GMO" food, and the PCR results are identical, no one will be allergic to one and not the other. On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote: Are you saying that no person in the US will be allergic to the GMO? 100% free of allergens for 100% of people in the US? Are you familiar with PCR? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On March 15 2016 05:14 Mohdoo wrote: No such case can exist because the two are identical. That being said, it is not likely a genetically modified food will be identical to another food. Genetic modification lets us decide which genes are expressed, how much, and when. This can be done over the course of a very long time with breeding, but that can take a long time. So scientists just choose which genes they want and go from there. It's totally possible to genetically modify an organism such that someone becomes allergic to the new kind. That's not a very good idea though. But you could modify an organism to have a higher production of the specific thing (dandruff in the case of dogs for example) such that someone is more allergic. But if you run PCR on a "GMO" and "non-GMO" food, and the PCR results are identical, no one will be allergic to one and not the other. Thanks for making my point. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Donald Trump has expanded his lead over Marco Rubio in the Florida senator’s home state, a Monmouth University poll out Monday shows. Trump’s support has surged to 44 percent among likely Republican voters, a 6-point leap from last week. Meanwhile, Rubio’s support has slightly fallen to 27 percent. Ted Cruz and John Kasich round out the poll at 17 percent and 9 percent, respectively. More than one-in-three voters said they have already cast votes in the state’s winner-take-all primary. Another third said they have already decided who they will vote for, while 20 percent have a strong preference toward a candidate. An overwhelming percentage of voters were unfazed by Trump’s handling of a canceled rally in Chicago on Friday. Sixty-six percent said Trump’s response had no impact on their voting choices, and 22 percent were said they were more likely to back Trump now. Other recent polls also suggest Trump will leave Florida on Tuesday with a commanding victory over Rubio. A win in Florida would put the New York billionaire 99 delegates closer to the 1,237 and likely end Rubio’s campaign. Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 15 2016 05:09 Ghostcom wrote: Do you have any confirmed cases of someone being allergic to a GMO variant but not to the "natural" variant? I can't recall a single credible case report. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/allergic-to-science-proteins-and-allergens-in-our-genetically-engineered-food/ Scientific America did a some research and found it was a risk. Maybe not a serious risk that warrants panic or avoid the tech. But if I was prone to allergies already, I would want to know what I was eating. So the real question: Is it safe enough to deny the people buying the food this information? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 15 2016 05:13 oneofthem wrote: 100% in all future universes is not a reasonable standard of risk. So if you can't remove risk, why are you advocating for the label not being on the food? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote: So if you can't remove risk, why are you advocating for the label not being on the food? uh because the same or higher level risk exists in other foods. labeling is just not informative about the risk level. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
My point was that they won't be identical because you have no reason to make a shitty natural organism. We modify for a reason: It is good to modify. It is not common for people to attempt to do through breeding what people are able to do with modern modification techniques. It would be impossibly difficult. The science of genetic modification has come a seriously long way. We just couldn't do with breeding what we are only recently capable of doing with genetic modification. On March 15 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote: So the real question: Is it safe enough to deny the people buying the food this information? This thread has shown what happens when people without educations try to make decision on subjects they know nothing about. People who don't understand nuclear physics make comments on nuclear energy. They don't understand what physical processes are taking place when something becomes "radioactive" and they don't understand how that can turn into fuel or can be otherwise fundamentally changed by what modern Americans come to think of as "nuclear waste". Similarly, people see an acronym next to a food and assume it must have chemicals in it. Since, you know, chemicals are also acronyms. So people assume it is some whacky toxic cost-cutting exercise by big businesses. In reality, this GMO may actually reduce production of toxic components natural to an animal or plant. Or it may do a million other things, but no matter what, it ain't got no chemicals. The uneducated should not be making decisions on a scale as grand as energy production or food production. The stakes are too high to let a dentist scratch his head about nuclear energy and then conclude "but what about radiation?" | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
| ||
| ||
