rob

I hope those guys die of AIDS.

FRANKENFOOD!!!!

Imagine if everyone wanted a label that said, "this food was made by jews" I bet the Jewish Anti-defamation League would spend millions of dollars trying to keep you from knowing who made your food. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING????? I mean, if everybody wants it, we should just do it, right? People just want to know who made their food.

[video:youtube]

OMG GENETICALLY-MODIFIED VACCINES CAUSE FRANKEN-AUTISM!

So many lols in this, I don't know where to start.

I believe that most people who don't want to eat GMOs *also* don't want to eat pesticides. I mean, it's hard for me to believe that there are people who are all, "I'm A-OK with toxic pesticides but don't gimme none of that GMO stuff," so I have a hard time understanding who this label will cater too. Assuming pesticides are worse than GMOs, it seems rational to me that anyone who doesn't want to consume GMOs is probably buying organic. Are there really people who are like, "please give me non-organic pesticide-laden food as long as it's not genetically modified" -- and if so, do you think it's a good idea to encourage that kind of misguided scientific illiteracy?

actually many GMO products may require fewer pesticides, depending on what they were modified to do (some plants are modified to become more pest resistant) anyway, some people claim there isn't consensus on climate change, either (there is). Sure, the pro-522 people can dig up some quack scientists to deny consensus the same that FW can drag up some crackpot to deny climate change. But that doesn't make it true. Hell, there are still some "scientists" who claim vaccines cause autism. The presence of a few dissenting voices doesn't mean there is no consensus. But the reality is that in more than 20+ years of genetic modification, not a SINGLE peer-reviewed study has indicated any overt safety concern with GMO products. Every major scientific organization ON THE PLANET has confirmed this. Including the European Commission, which asserts that not only are GMOs safe, but that are as safe as conventional plant breeding technologies (selective breeding, etc). Try a better source for your research: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/29/are-gmos-safe-global-independent-science-organizations-weigh-in/ http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

Dunno -- good question. But regardless, if the burden of proof is high then 522 will not help small producers, who will probably just place a generic "may contain" label on everything rather than spend the money finding out if any of their downstream ingredients they purchase from wholesalers is or isn't "genetically modified"

The FDA does have funny rules about how you can say it, though. For example, you can't say that milk is "Hormone Free" since all milk contains (natural) hormones, so "hormone free" would be technically inaccurate. That's why hormone-free milk always states it in a peculiar way. Also, I see that the FDA recently approved a GMO-Free label for meat and eggs. This is the sort of legislation I'd rather see, personally. More info: http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm059098.htm

Incorrect. "Currently, food manufacturers may indicate through voluntary labeling whether foods have or have not been developed through genetic engineering, provided that such labeling is truthful and not misleading. FDA supports voluntary labeling that provides consumers with this information and has issued draft guidance to industry regarding such labeling." http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm

believe me, Monsanto would LOVE it if they could make their roundup-ready soybeans incapable of reproducing itself. I'm sure they're working on it edit: anyway, why would you want to ban the creation of sterile GMO products? Most people argue that GMO products should be *required* to be sterile...I'm not sure I've heard anyone argue the opposite before edit #2: also, wouldn't this clause outlaw seedless watermelon seeds?

OK, let's make an analogy. You claim that the "good or bad" of GMOs is irrelevant. So, for the sake of argument then, let's say they're completely harmless. That should be easy, right, since you say it's irrelevant. Now, the analogy. Let's take something else completely harmless, like selective breeding. It's also a form of genetic-modification, although more primitive. Would you support a label that says, "this product may be the result of selective-breeding" ? I mean, it's just information, right? Let's also put a label that says, "May contain the color yellow." After all, it's not about "good or bad" but just about plain ol' information, right? Personally, I don't know how you claim with a straight-face that this has nothing to do with the "good/bad" of GMO's, and then claim that Monsanto is "trying to hide what they are feeding us." But, not because it's bad, right? OK, dude. I get it, you dont think GMO's are bad, you just think that Monsanto is trying to hide what they are feeding us for no reason, and think that we should just have "information". But, not because it could be bad. Just because. What kind of information do you think you'll get when you get a label that says, "May contain GMO products, we're not really sure but it's safer and cheaper to just put this label on here." "Caution: this food may contain yellow."

Russians have souls? Now I know you guys are joking

Because people are dumb, and the initiative and labeling make GMO's sound dangerous.

P.S. the fact that Monsanto is against this is not a good reason to vote for it. "They don't want us to know what they're selling us" is a lot of hyperbole. OMG THEY'RE TRYING TO TRICK US ALL!!!! WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???? Telling you it contains GMO tells you almost nothing about what that actually is -- it's no victory. It just sounds scary, so no surprise the big companies are against it. That doesn't mean they're wrong, though.

I hate "negative" labeling. Organic food is "positively" labelled, meaning that if it's organic, it will say so. A negative labeling scheme for organics would state that all non-organic food would be labeled "Non-organic" and the organic food would say nothing. This is retarded, obviously, since nearly every human UX type study has long since shown that humans are much better looking for the presence of something rather than the absence of it. It would be way harder for me to pick out my organic milk if I had to find the carton that didn't say, "Non-Organic." The other downside of negative labeling is that if you miss the label (don't see it), then you fail the wrong direction. I.E. if I miss the "non-organic" label, then I think it's organic (though it's not). Positive labeling fails safely, by preventing you from accidentally picking the wrong product. If I miss the "organic" label, I assume it's non-organic and fail safely. This is why "Gluten-Free" labels are more popular than simply omitting a label in the ingredients that says, "contains gluten" -- it's obviously easier for consumers if there is a front-facing label declaring "Gluten-Free" Beyond all of this, I just don't understand what 522 is supposed to solve. It won't make people healthier (GMO vs. Non-GMO food is not what is causing our health problems). The fat mother buying cap'n crunch for her obese children obviously doesn't notice (or care about) the high-sugar content, or artificial flavors, or artificial colors -- all of which are clearly labeled -- in the crap she's buying. Do people honestly think this woman is going to buy a different product if it says, in small print, "may contain GMO?" Additionally, the scientist in me objects to the anti-science knee-jerk hippy reaction that genetically-modified things are automatically bad. When I hear people use the word, "frankenfood" I know they are kevbone retarded. No offense, kev. This idea that somehow "nature" produces things that are good and safe is pretty retarded, and in fact genetic engineering can be safer than nature (fewer random mutations) and theoretically can produce foods that don't even need pesticides. Nature has produced a lot of poisonous shit, yo. I'm way more worried about toxic pesticides than GMO's, btw, so I just don't see why everybody is spending so much time and energy trying to label GMOs. I don't see these people clambering for pesticide labels. Or for labels warning people that "this food will cause diabetes," etc. No, it's just a bunch of hippies who don't understand science, I think. Sure, I hate Monsanto, too, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm just not sure what 522 is supposed to do except scare people. Telling me something contains GMO doesn't actually tell me anything I need to know to make a decision. What kind of GMO? It might as well say, "this product contains chemicals." It's almost completely useless info, unless you're a hippy who thinks that GMO = Poison, in which case you're spending all your money at whole foods anyway. I'd rather see an initiative laying out a certification process for GMO-free food, similar to what we have with organics labeling. If people are so confident that the public wants GMO-free foods, than GMO-Free labeling will be the next Organic fad. So what's the problem? I thought this was a good article for people with a poor understanding of the science.

remember to post a TR. I was thinking it might be fun to ride small BMX bikes around inside the monkey cave.

Most of the trails get closed for the winter, but they are still open through this weekend as far as I know. They'll probably close shortly after.

sounds good but I will try very hard not to learn anything from watching you or anyone else

History? That sounds dangerously close to allowing the actions of others to influence your convictions. How adolescent.

I've often been complimented on my discretion.

OMG THAT TRIP REPORT HAD A PICTURE OF IVAN SMOKING!!!!!!!!!