Pretty much everything anyone eats in this day and age is genetically engineered at some level, I don't see how this would help anyone.
So we will spend $1 million to do something with 0 benefits. Great.
Arcade Fire - Sir Richard Bishop, Bill Orcutt - Spoon - Paul McCartney - Steve Gunn - Beserktown Fest - Slint - Sleep - Swans - Owen Pallett - Neutral Milk Hotel - Chris Thile & Edgar Meyer - Bobby Bradford Quartet - Matana Roberts - Wadada Leo Smith, Anthony Braxton - Thurston Moore, Sebadoh - Songs for Unseen Warhol Films - Ben Frost, Tim Hecker, Pete Swanson - Ryoji Ikeda - Slowdive - A Winged Victory for the Sullen - John Zorn Marathon
The text of the actual bill is very wishy-washy with most of the exemptions, and if they wanted a real bill to label genetically engineered food as such, this is not it. The sample ballot contains the full text of every proposed bill: read those rather than the rationales and you can get a clearer sense of how shittily bills are written.
All of those opinions are stated in the article I linked. I'd rather the consumer know what they're buying than not know. Trying to say that the bill itself is confusing (more confusing than just labeling EVERYTHING "All Natural") Is kind of... unsavory.
I agree that the the language of the bill is fucking terrible but what one person reads as "clear and concise" may be totally ambiguous to another.
Since when is more/better information about what you eat bad? D: I actually don't support things like the banning of sugary drinks. I think that's going way too far. But just giving people information.. like... zuh?
Seriously now, Mr. economist, what is the problem with letting people choose for themselves what they want to buy and let those companies sink or swim upon those choices? I thought we were championing a free market system here.
Last edited by Starraven; 10-07-2012 at 10:20 AM.
I like talking to you guys but I'm getting a little nervous. I think I'm going to be quiet now.
Paul Broun is a Republican congressman and a member of House Science Committee.
Even the deer heads are looking at him like he's fucking crazy.
Your confusion amuses me.
Cross breeding is a technique to conduct genetic engineering. It is manipulating genes to produce a desired result. Corn doesn't look remotely like anything that ever occurred in nature. Nor do basset hounds.
The lab-based DNA splicing is a different technique accomplishing the same goal. People like you fear it because people tend to fear the unknown. Throw in a hefty dose of corporate distrust propaganda and you have precisely the sort of weakbrained righteous indignation that hippies love.
Monsanto is killing your babies!
1. Cross-breeding is NOT genetic engineering in any way, shape, or form. Cross-breeding is selective breeding, or artificial selection, or "classic breeding techniques." According to your very loose and layman-like definition of "genetic engineering," dog breeders are genetic engineers... LOL! You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
2. More to the point, this issue of labeling "GMO foods" (Prop 37) does NOT include vegetables that have been cross bred such as the normal corn, tomatoes, etc. you eat. "GMO" foods are specifically created in laboratories using recombinant DNA technology. It is NOT "a different technique accomplishing the same goal." But be honest, how much do you really understand about genetics specifically and biology in general? I teach Biology at the undergraduate level and I AM a Biologist by profession. PM me if you want my credentials.
3. You are correct that the cultivated corn we eat today does not look much like the wild grain it originated from. Broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, kale, and cabbage NEVER existed in nature as such. All of these vegetable were cultivated through selective breeding (artificial selection) from a single species of mustard plant, Brassica oleracea. But again, this has NOTHING to do with Prop 37. You are presenting a straw man's argument against Prop 37. Prop 37 does NOT require fruits, vegetables, or meat products created through cross-breeding techniques to be labeled as "GMO."
4. "People like me fear it." Really? You know me? I'm a "weakbrained righteous hippie?" Hahahaha! First of all, I DON'T support Prop 37. Did I give any indication that I did? I was only trying to set the science in the discussion straight, because it was clearly becoming unhinged and veering off into pure ignorance territory, thanks in part to your contribution. I only stated facts as I know them. You are confusing the issue when you lump selective breeding (e.g., dog breeding) with "GMO." Apples and oranges.
5. You may call me a hippie, I don't really care, but I would like to mention here that I am a decorated U.S. Army combat veteran who, before going back to grad school on the Post-9/11 GI Bill, led combat patrols along the Pakistan border. Again, PM me if you want verification. I can give you all the verification you need of my credentials.
6. Oh, and I'm not confused... YOU are.
Last edited by ramblinon; 10-08-2012 at 08:30 AM.
Of course everyone knows the difference between selective breeding and actual lab DNA. But ultimately the fears that you and your ilk have (that most of you cannot articulate) are affected by both, and Tom's point is that most people don't realize that.
By denying that the ultimate outcome and dangers both activities are pretty much the same you are betraying your own ignorance on the science of the matter. Either that or your hypocrisy.
BTW your tenuous example of dog breeding is ironically (for you, obvious to us) an argument against this idea that you espouse that breeding is somehow less dangerous vs. "engineering". Pure bred dogs have lots of health problems that nature seems to sort out when left to its own devices. But as I said it's a tenuous connection so it's not really applicable.
In fact, lab-based genetic engineering may ultimately be even safer than traditional horticultural methods because scientists can pinpoint the exact genes for traits they're interested in expressing. (i.e. wouldn't it be nice if they could have bred Golden Retrievers for silky coats and good temperments and not made them more prone to cancer). The world population is going to top out at about 10B people and the only way the world's going to get fed is through BOTH economized farming practices and genetic engineering. It's propaganda that you seem to buy into that is going to slow it down and starve people in the interim. I say you're a post away from dredging up internet articles that quote sketchy studies showing cancer links.
(But go on tell us more about how your combat patrols in Pakistan prepared made you an authority on this issue.)
The bill is based on fearmongering and will ultimately cost CA foodgrowers billions and make food more expensive for poorest people.
I wasn't talking about "GMO". It did not show up in any of my posts. It was not the subject matter of my discussion. I was talking about "genetic engineering" in the generic sense. Selective crossbreeding is one technique to create plants and animals in the lab that wouldn't otherwise exist. Lab DNA switches are another. The fact that you insist on labeling only one of these techniques as "engineering" is baffling. Both clearly fit the definition.
Apparently your time in the army did not teach you any common sense.
Everyone does not know the difference between selective breeding and actual lab DNA work, Tom is clearly conflating them.
bottomfeeder didn't bring up dog breeding, Tom did. EDIT: No, he didn't. But he did bring up corn which I think is well on its way.
Also bottomfeeder specifically said they did not support Prop 37 so you're barking up the wrong tree there, too.
Last edited by mountmccabe; 10-08-2012 at 01:24 PM. Reason: My mistake
I am not saying that genetic engineering (direct manipulation of genetic material) is necessarily bad or that artificial selection is always good; just that they are significantly different techniques and thus have different issues.
You have to back up and see the larger picture. You're (wait for it...) missing the point. I don't think Tom is conflating them. He was just being too subtle and bottomfeeder didn't pick up on it. The point that's being made with the is that making all this fuss to label only certain types of genetic engineering, and only for certain types of products, is hypocritical not only because it betrays an ignorance as to what genetic engineering is and why it's it might be bad, but also betrays the fact that it seems there are only certain lobbies that support it. This is all just political. It's not a public health issue.
It's people who insist that these are entirely different concepts, thus allowing people to associate all the negative shit ONLY to DNA splicing, and granting only the positive aspects to selective breeding, that create this perception that GMO is evil and dangerous.
In reality it's usually only the practices of the companies that sell the GMO seeds that are the dangerous.
Last edited by jackstraw94086; 10-08-2012 at 01:48 PM.
Jack, you're using a made up definition and continue to argue against strawmen. Sure, bad people somewhere try to paint artificial selection as great and genetic engineering as all problems but they are not here and that is no reason to push a custom usage that isn't going to fix anything anyway.
What's up fellas?