When will it be ALL GONE?

[gone-ot]

Q: "When Will It All Be Gone?"

A: "When the last oil well starts making 'slurping' sounds."

[radioranger]

time spent worrying is lost forever, do what you can help your friends , try to help your enemies and enjoy life, so much of enviromentalism is fear and worry , you can't win there game, they are in fact a bit off, as a nice way to put it, example one, flourescent bulbs, sure lets import a few hundred tons a year of mercury in bulbs , then have no system in place or even a deposit on them to get people to recyclye the metal in them . so smart, 99.9 % of people toss them and they get incinerated into the air and then our water, now there is a worry ! not much common sense, i have liberal friends who heat with wood and believe in global warming,, LOL most carbon dirty way there is to heat anything, unless you really heat it up. but that's different, meanwhile asthma rates go up all over, just sayin ! do whats doable,

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

READ IT ALL...

"Experts" claim organic food is no better or safer than food drenched with pesticides. But still, you can choose organic.

You have a right to know. And then, knowing, you have a right to make your choice...

It's no accident. The powers-that-be want it that way...

I would be embarrassed to attach my name to this poorly argued article. No proof of claims were included, and it relied entirely on appeal to emotion. Putting quotes around "experts" is intended to make me disbelieve the credibility of people that aren't even named.

Then it tries to appeal to my sense of entitlement, which is the lowest of roads to travel. I have "the right to know"? Do I have the right to know if crops weren't told words of affirmation and handled with a loving touch? It would be easy for me to claim that crops that aren't brought up in a loving environment end up causing disease to people that eat them, but I would have no basis for credibility without evidence to support that claim.

What we are talking about is causing a known harm to companies by forcing them to comply with a certain type of labeling, all for the sake of some unknown and unseen "badness", to which there is no evidence.

I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not to products displaying a list of everything it does and does not contain. That would be impractical.

Lastly, who are the "powers that be"? This article has all the earmarks of an alarmist conspiracy theory since it suggests we should be alarmed and mad as hell about some unknown bad thing that some unknown bad people have forced upon us.

Originally Posted by niky

You know, that post would have Jonathan Salk spinning in his grave.

That guy, and likely Jonas Salk as well.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I would be embarrassed to attach my name to this poorly argued article. No proof of claims were included, and it relied entirely on appeal to emotion. Putting quotes around "experts" is intended to make me disbelieve the credibility of people that aren't even named.

Then it tries to appeal to my sense of entitlement, which is the lowest of roads to travel. I have "the right to know"? Do I have the right to know if crops weren't told words of affirmation and handled with a loving touch? It would be easy for me to claim that crops that aren't brought up in a loving environment end up causing disease to people that eat them, but I would have no basis for credibility without evidence to support that claim.

What we are talking about is causing a known harm to companies by forcing them to comply with a certain type of labeling, all for the sake of some unknown and unseen "badness", to which there is no evidence.

I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not to products displaying a list of everything it does and does not contain. That would be impractical.

Lastly, who are the "powers that be"? This article has all the earmarks of an alarmist conspiracy theory since it suggests we should be alarmed and mad as hell about some unknown bad thing that some unknown bad people have forced upon us.



That guy, and likely Jonas Salk as well.

I don't disagree with this in it's entirety, but I do feel that it's in our best interests to know what's in our food.

Also, part of our liberty (as a right) is having the ability to make informed decisions as they pertain to our health and life choices, whether or not those "informed" decisions are based on nonsense. That said, since we're not growing our own food, I feel that we're right and well within our natural rights to ask that it be disclosed whether or not our food is someone else's science experiment.

Personally, I'd rather eat natural food. But then again, I generally buy my fresh foods from local farms anyway, and all you have to do is ask.

[sendler]

What is natural food. Just about every variety of food grown on farms has been selectively bread to improve it for decades, if not centuries.

[Arragonis]

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear.

Ahh well.

Back to the MPGs.

[freebeard]

Oh dear oh dear.

Now that right there is funny.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Oh dear oh dear.

I see nothing has changed since the last time I was over there.

[suspectnumber961]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a..._HLTH_20121113


In the end, the public was swayed by the No on Prop 37 campaign, which convinced people that the economic costs were too high and the science didn't make sense. As of November 6, Prop 37 is dead. The deck was stacked against the pro-Prop 37 camp, funded by companies like Nature's Path Foods and Amy's Kitchen, from the start. It just wasn't as well-funded; the No on Prop 37 movement saw pesticide companies like Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience sinking millions of dollars into the campaign. In the last 20 days before the election, No on Prop 37 spent an average of over $1 million each day on an ad blitz, killing the proposition's momentum--it dropped from 67% support in September to 39% support by the election.

Genetic Engineers Explain Why Genetically Modified Food Is Dangerous | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation

The authors include John Fagan, a former genetic engineer who gave back his National Institutes of Health grant money because of safety and ethical concerns (he now runs a GMO testing company); Michael Antoniou, the head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London School of Medicine in London; and Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source.

What are these scientists worried about?

Genetic engineering is not, as proponents claim, an extension of natural plant breeding. While natural breeding takes place only between related kinds of life, genetic engineering happens in a lab, where tissue cultured plant cells undergo a GM gene insertion process that couldn’t happen in nature. This is not in and of itself a bad thing.

One of the problems, say the researchers, is that genetic engineering is imprecise and the results are unpredictable, with mutations changing the nutritional content of food, crop performance, and toxic effects, among other things. Every generation of GMO crops interacts with more organisms, creating more opportunities for unwanted side effects.

GMO technology is becoming more precise, but the authors contend that accidents will always happen and, in any case, plant biotechnologists don’t really know much at all about crop genomes--so inserting genes at a supposedly safe area could still lead to all sorts of side effects.

GMO crops can be toxic in three ways: The genetically modified gene itself (i.e. Bt toxin in insecticidal crops); mutagenic or gene regulatory effects created by the GMO transformation process; and toxic residues created by farming practices (i.e. from the Roundup herbicide used on GMO Roundup Ready crops).

GMO food regulation varies widely by country. In the U.S., the FDA doesn’t have a required GMO food safety assessment process--just a voluntary program for review of GMO foods before they go on the market (not all commercialized GMO food crops have done this).

Independent GMO crop risk research is hard to come by because, as the report explains, "independent research on GM crop risks is not supported financially--and because industry uses its patent-based control of GM crops to restrict independent research. Research that has been suppressed includes assessments of health and environmental safety and agronomic performance of GM crops." A 2010 licensing agreement between Monsanto and USDA scientists should make it easier to conduct research--but the report explains that it’s still restrictive.

The Genetically Modified Food You Eat Every Day | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation

To avoid most GMOs...at this point...avoid these foods...if you can?



About the only way to do this is to avoid most processed foods.

REMEMBER: if you don't care...I'm pretty sure I don't care. We makes our choices and we takes our chances.

...

[niky]

Unless you're eating original, pre-Indian corn (if it even exists), that graph should read 100%

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That guy, and likely Jonas Salk as well.

My bad. Obviously Jonathan is his poorly remembered half-brother who swept floors at night.