rob

What most people don't know is that glyphosate is one of the most popular agricultural herbicides in use, even on non-resistant crops. Those non-GMO rasberries? Yep, *slathered* in pre-harvest roundup. Those non-GMO apples? Yep, those too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation Yum, right? Farmers like GMOs because they typically require fewer applications of pesticides, which means they save money. Farmers don't like products that require them to spend extra money on spraying. Duh, right? It's not like farmers are looking for products which require them to spend more money on spraying, which (btw) is expensive.

using fewer pesticides thanks to GMO's

Thank the goddess for wholefoods

It's not how fast you are, it's how many laps you can do. No one likes a slog.

The way I see it, genetic engineering is like a powerful wrench. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter what kind of wrench you use, it matters what bolts you tighten. Nobody can say "all GMOs are safe" anymore than they can say "all non-GMOs are safe. " Remember, selective breeding can also turn safe products into unsafe products, which has happened -- for example, the toxic potato they accidentally made in the 50's -- they bred a potato that made perfect chips, but had high levels of the chemical that makes green potatoes toxic. Oops. Modern GE can also make bad things, but the process itself isn't any different than what happens with selective breeding -- it's just more specific. A food isn't anymore dangerous just because of how it's genetics were manipulated, what matters is what genetics were manipulated. You could theoretically make a roundup-resistant soybean via selectie breeding -- evolution develops herbicide resistance in nearly all crops. It would just take a lot longer to do it the "old way" -- but the resulting genetic creation would be the same. That's how I see it anyway. cheers, and don't forget to vote.

Don't forget to take your crampons off before glissading

Don't worry kimmi, not everyone is good at science

didn't you watch his youtube video? It's all in there.

I wonder how long it would be before the cameras were stolen? It would be kind of a fun experiment.

That poor law was cut apart and modified by so many people, it's pretty disingenuous to make it sound like Obama and his friends just wrote it down and passed it. Don't you remember? *some* people have been able to keep their old policies -- even if they're non-conformant. It's too bad yours didn't fit within the (too) narrow qualifications to be grandfathered in or whatever, and I understand your frustration, but suddenly accusing the president of maliciously , knowingly and intentionally deceiving people is a claim I've never even made about GW (who'm I honestly believe thought he was doing the right thing.)

This whole "Obama is a malicious liar" shtick is about as annoying as Michael Moore. Way to be, FW, way to be. Did you see this article? He really nailed the ANGER just right. DO you also believe Obama is "plotting the destruction of America"?

lol Tell me about it! Why not? The WA exchange is not having problems.

United Healthcare is dropping tons of people, it looks like they're no longer interested in being in the individual insurance business -- I suspect it's because they can no longer cherry pick healthy people and charge them high premiums. And unfortunately, the ACA exceptions that are supposed to allow non-ACA compliant policies to be grandfathered are narrowly written. It's too bad for you personally, but I suspect that shaking the insurance industry out a bit will have some one-offs like this. In other states, they are giving people 18 months notice though, so it's weird they only gave you a month. It sounds like you might be better off without them -- luckily, I found insurance on the WA exchange to be quite affordable, have you been able to replace your policy with another (better) company yet?

Modern socket wrenches can produce far more torque than traditional open wrenches. We should label every product that was created using a socket wrench so that people can make an informed decision about whether they trust this unproven technology.

Uh...so....we should plan our adventures around YOUR group...after you announce that a herd is on its way. How about....NOT BRINGING A HERD AND THEN EXPECTING EVERYONE TO WORK AROUND YOU?????? Thank you, Sir Club-Master, for considering your gracious permission to allow others to climb...ON ROUTES MONOPOLIZED BY HOURS OF FUMBLING, OR DOMINATED BY SPORADICALLY UTILIZED TOP-ROPES. Lol do you even climb at smith, or is this thread just an irresistible chance for you to bitch and whine?

Doctors hate this ONE WEIRD TRICK invented by a mom!

Insurance companies hate this trick

it's an epidemic.

did you find this link in a banner ad? Livestrong!!! I wonder what the recent obsession to lists is, anyway? "6 reasons to never do such and such" or "7 things to never say to a woman" -- it's very en vogue right now. right next to the "Insurance companies hate this" and "one weird trick invented by a mom" I even saw that a billionaire is warning americans to prepare for financial ruin. Look how pensive he is.

this website is awesome

It's not that "GMO's are safe," it's that GMO technology isn't inherently more dangerous than any other breeding technology -- it's what you do with it. Sure, if you wanted to, you could make bad shit with genetic engineering. You could also do that with selective breeding. But, we don't require warning labels for items modified via conventional breeding techniques, nor should we for more advanced genetic techniques. Instead, we should regulate the modification of food items (regardless of what technique used) in order to actually protect consumers, rather than provide them with a useless label that tells them nothing (warning: this food was created using a technique. Cheers!) I am not a genetic scientist. I will defer to the consensus of trained scientists and let the scientific process play out. Can you provide me even a single peer-reviewed article that indicates that, all other things equal, genetically-engineered products are inherently any more dangerous than conventionally-bred products? I can present you with thousands of studies that back up a strong consensus regarding the safety of the technique, whereas all you seem to have is the opinion of a handful of fringe scientists who can't cite scholarly articles but can only use words like "uncertainty" instead -- in order to breed fear and doubt among the scientific illiterate. This dog was created purely via selective-breeding.

Conventional, "organic" selective-breeding techniques once produced a poisonous potato.

Here are 1,783 studies: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/