/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Don't drink fluoride water and don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat. Everyone is out to get you.

>>3981246
I've heard about that. This salmon is supposed to grow twice as fast and twice as big. There is something seriously wrong with that.
I'm voting yes. I do not want to eat that nasty shit.
DNA that does not belong to normal salmon. Can you imagine if those fish get loose in the wild? That is fucked up. You know some Monsanto idiot will do it too.

It's not like the eel gene would never have made it into the genetic makeup of the salmon! Scientists have just speeded up the natural and inevitable* evolutionary processes!

Where can I get some of these millions?

>>3981248
Typical Monsanto shill response. Come up with something new. You already know this initiative is gonna pass. Don't be so angry. Invest elsewhere.

>>3981246
>It is not natural at all
I must be retarded, don't we use and consume a great deal of things that aren't "natural?"

>>3981249
>Can you imagine if those fish get loose in the wild?

Hmm... The reminds me of this one movie....

>>3981252
You are so pathetic. It would never have happened. Your arguement is invalid. No one wants to eat your GM shit except those you keep the truth from. Then it is only because they do not know.

>>3981249

Genetically altered fish are unable to reproduce by design

Can't they put steak genes into all the rocks and dirt so people don't starve?

>>3981260
Life... Finds a way...

>>3981258
You do. I do not. There are others out there that do thinking it is natural. They have been lied to. Monsanto and Corporate America does not want them to know the truth. They want their profit. Funny thing is those at MOnsanto don't even eat GMO. They choose Organic.

>>3981264
>I do not
You don't use any artificial substances? You make your own clothing? You build your own computer?

>>3981260
Bullshit. They have not been able to prove that they will not reproduce.

>>3981267
Another rediculous comment by a MOnsanto douche. Getting paid overtime tonight eh?

>>3981270
You're not answering my questions. I understand that I've got you in a corner, but you're flailing and that doesn't help your case.

>>3981254
I wish I was a shill. Might get some money that way. Now I reply to your silly shitposting for free.

>>3981273
You are talking about nthing trying to get off the subject at hand, which is labeling GMO. The right to know what it is you are eating. If you do not want to know...fine. The majority of the US wants to know.
You sound like a politician coming up with nothing. A moron like I said.

>>3981277
>You are talking about nthing trying to get off the subject at hand
I'm talking about how ridiculous it is to be so afraid of "not natural" products. If you want to be afraid of the modern world, good for you. You sound like Don Quixote, calling a windmill a dragon just because you can't understand the world around you.

For the record, calling you stupid isn't the same as supporting GMO. You wouldn't know the difference because you're fabricating demons in your mind.

>Genetically altered fish are unable to reproduce by design

It's still a problem and they shouldnt exist in the first place. What happens when a fisherman fishes up some monsanto fish and then monsanto sues them for stealing their fish, just like they do to the farmers and their seeds?

>>3981294
THAT HAPPENED ONCE. ONE YOUNG DUMB CORPORATE LAWYER BROUGHT IT TO COURT AND MONSANTO'S EXECUTIVES ORDERED THAT HE DROP IT.

>I'm talking about how ridiculous it is to be so afraid of "not natural" products. If you want to be afraid of the modern world, good for you. You sound like Don Quixote, calling a windmill a dragon just because you can't understand the world around you.

For over 50 years we have been mass producing goods and services involving unnatural chemical combinations. These cominations make up our entire modern world. Only recently have we learned that some of these chemicial compounds have drastic long term health effects on people, such as creating sterility.

Their fears are not nonsense, they are not made up. While they do rely on a naturalistic fallacy, the core of their argument is sound. We simply do not know the long term effects of genetically modified organisms. We dont know the long term effects on our health by eating them, we dont know the long term effects these things will have on the environment. All we have are short term studies released by the people selling them, which are biased and have a clear conflict of interests.

>>3981297

monsanto pls go.

I love GMO. You'd never get Giant Strawberries without the works of Scientists.

With that said I do want GMO labelling because it simply isn't right that the companies label their GMOs in Europe but not in America. It really is despicable how they've completely slandered Prop 37.

I voted yes on 37 despite its flaws, solely because Monsanto are some evil mothefuckers.

The danger isn't in the genetic modification it's in the companies. Chemical companies engineer plants that are resistant to certain chemicals and then sell both the seeds and chemicals to farmers. It's a fucking monopoly.

monsanto needs us we don't need

hurr, i am afraid of science

Biochemistry is scary

OP is samefagging quite hard.

Personally I love both Salmon and Eel.

>>3981317

I support genetic modification and prop 37 because Mosanto does NOT deserve to have a monopoly on GMO and it must be wrenched from their hands.

monsanto's world headquarters are a few blocks away from me - they seem like nice people

fuck voting yes to anything that spends money on useless shit. i've lived up to now eating fucking trash and strawberries in the winter -- both probably not really good in the scheme of things. if you really think labeling food and bullshit is more important than funding education or putting money back into science and technology then you're fucking retarded. fuck your peace of mind. if you're complaining about education prices and the lack of available jobs due to lack of funding and you voted for shit like this, you are a dumb fuck and deserve to retake all your logic and reasoning courses again.

>>3981248
What?
The planet outside of corporate owned-america is very wary of GMO food.
Japan is actually researching American children and possible effects on their biological development as part of their investigation on GMO foods and associated laws.

>>3981346
>Japan is actually researching American children and possible effects on their biological development as part of their investigation on GMO foods and associated laws.

have they found anything bad yet?

>>3981334

Are you sure it won't just harm the field of genetic engineering as a whole? I was thinking I'd vote no because scaring off buyers will become an obstacle, and what he said>>3981341

>>3981371

May as well harm the entire field if the only other option is to give it to Mosanto for eternity.

Someone else will pick it up eventually.

>>3981317
>implying the scientific community know enough about Cellular Respiration to make an informed decision in regards to GMO foods and their metabolic effects.
>implying the scientific community isn't largely divided on the matter
>implying you understand the irony of using the term "science" to make blatantly ignorant assumptions.

>>3981246

Under existing law we don't know whether the fish department clerk used your salmon like an fake pussy before selling it to you.

We have a right to know!

btw, Eel tastes way better than Salmon, and is much healthier.

>>3981408
maybe its best if people like you are culled..

>>3981412

Where's your piece of mind now though, do we have to check the inside of fishes to test for human semen. Where do we stop?

capcha: rhetoric velyede

>>3981414
I'd rather eat semen-laced fish than genetically modified fish. But that's beside the point, maybe if a corporation was lobbying government to legalize the addition of semen to fish for some strange profit-motivated objective, and said semen could arguably interfere with humans molecular biochemistry, you might have a valid argument.

no matter how beneficial or not GMO is you should support this prop because fuck monsanto.

seriously guys.

>>3981448
if you're voting based off what you saw in some documentary, you should really consider what voting is about and what you're doing.

monsanto: steals farms, corn bullshit, blahblahbalbhalhblahblablhabalhblah

we know what the fuck happens with monsanto if you care to google names of companies you keep hearing about every fucking day.

but THIS vote... is not about "fuck monsanto" or "fuck pepsi" or "fuck wal-mart" or whatever you want to fuck. it's about the state of california, fiscal responsibility, and quality of life.

if you believe the quality of life is harmed because you can't research your own food yourself, then vote yes.

if you think quality of life is fine and ignorance is fine, then vote no.

if you think it's fiscally wrong to spend millions on state regulation of a glorified ingredients list, then vote no.

if you think we are fiscally just to spend millions to quell our "peace of mind" then vote yes.

personally, if you're on /ck/ and you're in california and you don't know what the fuck a CSA box is, you should really get the fuck off this board and find out what the fuck a CSA delivery box is.

>>3981455
This laws if enacted actually supports ignroance, the ignorant people of california (which is most of them by all accounts) will see "genetic scary science words" and assume that means the food is bad for you depite the complete lack of evidence to support such a conclusion

Its just like MSG, people got all scared of it for absolutely no valid reason now people advertise thongs as having no MSG as though that makes it more desirable

>>3981350
>have they found anything bad yet
No one has ever found any bad effects of GMOs on humans

that turned out well last time...

>It is not natural at all and I do not wish to ingest this.

none of your food is natural, it has all been genetically altered over thousands of years by farmers

I haven't frequented /ck/ in over 8 months, but I still remember this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Re6pZri8Gw

>>3981469
like i said here >>3981341, this is a waste of money for the state. people can purchase food wisely already -- they are just too lazy (read: ignorant) to do so.

plus, labeling doesn't change anything but the game of marketing. just imagine...

non-GMO apples: 89 cents a piece
GMO apples: used to be 79 cents a piece... now, 6 for $3.

bad guys are still turning a profit. the cheap spenders keep spending...

>>3981498
and it really sets science and future innovation back when people aren't conditioned into think genetic modification is unhealthy

>>3981507
science and innovation will always be fucked with from here on out if it has to do with anything that isn't 100% guaranteed and doesn't add to the quality of life. cures and vaccines are great because generally they are 100%. iphones are nice because they add to the quality of life. stem cells though? you're messing with life, bro. GMO food? you're fucking with life, bro.

just think when nanobots come into play... the ruckus that will cause...

>>3981515

Oh god crazy fucking creationist detected.

>>3981426

Semen laced fish is genetically modified fish.

it's better argued that people shouldn't be conceived by invitro fertilization, so this is small fish

This whole GMO thing just goes to show how far out of touch with reality, and how anti-science and anti-intellectual the left really is. It's fucking disheartening.

>>3981534
Yeah, liberals like to frame themselves as the pro science party, but in the end they are just as big into fearmongering and misleading when it comes to science

>>3981534
if "the right" is all about science and funding science, count me in. however, i have an odd feeling it's not a left v right thing...

>>3981539
no, both sides are afraid of science

so we are all screwed

seriously fuck off with all that bullshit I'm sick and tired of people thinking Monsanto is up to no good

>>3981534
>>3981538
>>3981539
wtf are you morons talking about? The science fraternity is the first to admit that THEY DONT FUCKING KNOW THE LONGTERM IMPACTS OF CONSUMING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD.

>>3981547
but knowing the mechanisms by which GMOs are created there is no reasonable way to think they would be bad for you

Its telling that the vast majority of actual scientists will be buying GMO food regardless of whether the government nannies force food producers to label them

Meanwhile ignorant people will see the new labels and assume this means GMO is bad (as most things that must be labelled by law are)

>>3981552
our understanding of cellular respiration and the dynamics of food on a molecular level are so limited that science has no credible means of making any determination.
It's like putting Stevie Wonder at the helm of a ship and asking if he sees any iceburgs

>>3981546

0/10

>>3981559
>our understanding of cellular respiration and the dynamics of food on a molecular level are so limited that science has no credible means of making any determination.
where did you get this idea?

We know a whole lot about this topic, and cellular respiration is only marginally related to the topic of GMOs.

We are usually adding genes from one thing we eat to another thing we eat, there is no plausible mechanism by which this would magically render the resulting organism toxic

>>3981534
>HURF A DURF FUCKING DURF LEFT LEFT LEFT RED 1950s SCARY STALIN CHAPS

>>3981564
Yeah, and letting it grow, reproduce and compete for resources in the same ecosystem with the other things we eat. I WONDER WHY THIS WON'T END WELL.

>>3981534

>left
>right is controlled by creationists
>left are the only ones pushing for science and space exploration
>the left
>right is trying to kill stem cell research, teaching evolution, pro choice
>left

I want Fox News to leave

>>3981568
the potential environmental effects entirely unrelated to the topic

I am only saying there is no reason to possibly believe that GMOs are unsafe to eat as forcing food producers to label them implies

>>3981564
>We are usually adding genes from one thing we eat to another thing we eat, there is no plausible mechanism by which this would magically render the resulting organism toxic
Genetic engineering is not high-school arithmetic. The change in genes required for a plant to evolve a defense mechanism is absolutely tiny, and it's a fact that fiddling around with the genes of plants can make them produce foul, allergenic, poisonous, disease-prone (and so on) food, where those issues didn't exist in the prior strain.

Don't take me for someone who is anti-GM, though I do want to see labeling of such. Keep consumers informed; I won't have any of this "consumers are too stupid to be told the origins and ingredients of their food" bollocks.

>>3981570
Both sides are anti-intellectual, as recent elections prove smart rich people are fucking hated by the typical voter in favor of coolish not so smart sounding people like Obama and Bush

>>3981572
>Don't take me for someone who is anti-GM, though I do want to see labeling of such. Keep consumers informed
You don;t need labels for consumers to be informed. I think people should be e=informed, but forcing people to label food as GM will scare ignorant people into being against science

>>3981571
Regardless of whether they are safe or not, people should have a right to choose.
Or does your arrogance extend to believing your opinion should decide what people put into their own bodies?

>>3981573

>smart rich people
>wants planes with roll down windows
>mormon
>left his state with a 1.5bil deficit
>creationist
>liar
>smart

One president wants to take the 1% to feed the 99% that run this country, the other wants to tax the 99% to feed the 1% that do nothing for this country. Both of them believe in income redistribution.

Obama is just the least evil.

I want Fox News to leave.

>>3981571
>believe that GMOs are unsafe to eat as forcing food producers to label them implies

That's not what is implied. What is implied is that the biggest GM research compan(y/ies) habitually misbehaves, and that consumers want to way to discriminate between what is and is not the result of their product without resorting to hearsay.

>>3981578
>people should have a right to choose
they already do

>>3981579
its impossible to become super rich like that without being smart

>>3981584
>what is luck
>what is inheritance
>what is getting other people to do the grunt/mentally taxing work
You're too silly to breathe.

>>3981579
>One president wants to take the 1% to feed the 99% that run this country
You can't be so daft as to believe this.

Obama's as much of a financial-industry puppet as Romney, the difference is that Romney makes no attempt to hide it and people support him for that. It's vile really.

>>3981583
Based on what information?

>>3981584

Except he's rich because his father was the only one who worked. That's like saying Bush is smart because he inherited his wealth from his parents.

Oh by the way, Mitt Romney's dad, the guy who made his own company, who started from absolutely poverty and became a millionaire voted for Obama. And he's nothing like his son.

You'd be rich too if you had everything handed to you and never had to work for anything, dumbass.

>>3981587
>>what is getting other people to do the grunt/mentally taxing work
yeah, you have to be smart to get others to do that for you

>>3981590
His dad didn't work either; his underlings did the work.

>>3981591
You have to be in a more fortunate position than them. The coercion of labour market forces automatically works in your favour if you're in that position. That is all.

>>3981589
I fully support people knowing things, but there is no evidence that GMOs are bad for you and no real reason to believe they should be, so I find it hard to take anyone who whines about them seriously

>Genetically Modified Food thread turns into Republican vs. Democrat faggotry.
enjoy your mutant salmon shitheads.

>>3981595

You're dissembling.

>>3981594
>You have to be in a more fortunate position than them
Yeah, man, everyone's economic situation is entirely decided by luck
Please find me one smart hardworking poor person

>>3981593

Lol, George Romney came to the US after the Mexican revolution, and became an auto worker, he invested in this company which took off, and he used that to start his own business and eventually run for governor. In about 4 years he went from nothing to a self made business man.

Mitt had everything paid for him, his college, the business he started? was bankrolled by his father. And when he became governor, he pissed away the states surplus into a deficit.

He says what he has to get elected, so he can cut taxes for the rich and get his dick sucked by them. That's all he cares about. If he gets elected, you can say goodbye to the US, it won't exist anymore. Once the rich are done with the US, they'll just move to Dubai.

>>3981598
>one day I'll be rich! honest! not like those plebs!
Internet Entrepreneur General.

>>3981598

>Please find me one smart hardworking poor person

Sure, our country was created by them.

Next

>>3981607
Um, you're fucking joking, right? Our country was founded by wealthy slave owners that felt like they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Absolutely nothing has changed.

>>3981612

You might want to go back to school.

Oh right, right wing creationists don't believe in school.

>>3981612
>shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Just like Romney

Wow, is OP's image actually a campaign ad? If it is, it's fucking stupid.

>GMO in Australia is restricted to certain plant (soybean, corn, canola) and has to be clearly labeled if GMO ingredients exceed 1% of the product.
>mfw americlaps arguing about genetically modified mutant fish

>>3981617
You're right, they don't. Which is why i became educated and cracked a history text that bothered to check the facts...You seriously got "Right wing" out of that? No wonder the american political scene is fucked, you idiots don't even know what you're supposed to stand for. That's a paraphrase of Howard Zinn (Google him, fuckhead), and if you think he's right wing, you must be the msot specialest person at the group home.

>>3981629
>Howard Zinn
>Using Howard Zinn as a role model

oh lord

no wonder you're an edgy conspiracy theorist

>>3981631
What about what I said is conspiracy, pray tell? GW owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson owned slaved. Franklin owned slaves. None of them were poor. It figures that you bash howard zinn, i supppose anything that doesn't mesh with your pie in the sky view of american history is to be derided and ridiculed, right? Brilliant. Oh, and saging won't hide how fucking stupid you are, btw.

>>3981631
>Quotes someone
>Must idolize them
Holy shit, how do you get this autistic?

>Under existing law you will never be labeled as containing the genes from a mouse

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6915/full/420509a.html

>>3981633
I still laugh at how 4chan doesn't understand what sage means.

If only I knew moon so I wouldn't have to spend time on a board that imports foreign concepts and then DOES IT WRONG all the time.

Using sage as a way to "insult" someone's post or thread is just completely wrong and a retarded misuse of a good feature that is so popular in sites like 2ch and Futaba. Fuck, iichan and 4-ch do it right. It's just 4chan and 4chan's lame knockoffs that fail at using sage.

The true meaning of sage means that YOUR POST isn't worthy enough to bump the thread. It's ironic, because you think that you're insulting others while you're just, in fact, insulting yourself. Yes, sage can be used when posting a derogatory comment in a thread that you don't want to bump, but posting with just the word "sage" accomplishes nothing but contribute to spamming the board. The trend of replying with the name of a tripfag and sage is even worse, as it accomplishes nothing and only serves to increase the e-penis of whoever you're "attacking".

The sage feature was never meant to serve as an implied insult or general disagreement! Why people started using it that way is beyond me. There are plenty of reasons why one would choose not to bump a thread with his reply. For example, bumping threads with stupid one liner replies should be discouraged and those people should be coerced into using sage instead.

I want to use sage, yet I almost never do it on 4chan because people will jump on me thinking I'm insulting their post or something.

>>3981636
could you really be that arrogant?

>>3981645
>>3981633
samefag

>>3981646
i guess you can

>>3981648
i wz arrgoant wen i fuked ur mummy up the pooper last nite

lol get wreckt son

>>3981648
Yup, especially since i'm the other poster.

>>3981655
lol i posted my dik up ur mummy's cunt last nite boy

TOLD

>>3981298
where's the angry guy defending GMO food, is he not gonna reply to this guy?

>>3981692
lol hes probably fukin ur gf rite now

fukin BURNT

>>3981341
your waste-of-money argument is flawed and these labels are educating consumers on what they are buying. you should be supporting it.

how can you possibly demand that information is held back from you, are you human? if you don't care, fine, buy without thinking/ reading. but there are people who are not as dense.

>>3981414
>>3981408
stop derailing, you're trying too hard

>>3981704
>>3981702
lol i shure derailed ur sister's pussy last nite

I'm having this argument with a friend and he is asking for some scientific evidence that GM food is unhealthy. I can't find any. Suggestions?

>>3981469
the lack of evidence you speak of is the reason why it should be labelled. so far no one knows whether it is safe to eat it or not. until then people should be able to know whether they're gambling when eating or not.

what is definetely known however is its dangerous impact on the environment.

>>3981709
There is none.

>>3981475
whatever reason an invidual has for not eating said foods doesn't matter. what does matter is that information is not held back.

>>3981517
nice try

>>3981552
spoken like someone who actually has no connection to science

>>3981564
>we know a whole lot

ffnar

>>3981571
the environmental effects are just as related as the health effects on human bodies.

both aren't because this is entirely about knowledge and education when buying food, still you insist on telling everyone that their health concerns are silly simply because you cannot into sciencific evaluation.

>>3981575
no it will scare people of corporations that don't fucking care about consumer's health.

people do differentiate between science that's working towards defeating illnesses and science that is only applied in favour of money grabbing corporations.

>>3981552
>but knowing the mechanisms by which GMOs are created there is no reasonable way to think they would be bad for you

so by the simple act of knowing the process of how genetic engineering works you can reason that all genetically engineered organisms must be healthy. You simply cannot conceive of a gene spliced that could code for something harmful but beneficial to the bottom line of the company that uses it, or simply not studied well enough to understand the resulting products' long-term effects on consumers.

>Its telling that the vast majority of actual scientists will be buying GMO food regardless of whether the government nannies force food producers to label them

The word 'Scientist' means very little. There are biologists, physicists, chemists, human physiologists, biomedical engineers. Knowing some science doesn't automatically make you aware of all possible issues related to a particular issue.

>Meanwhile ignorant people will see the new labels and assume this means GMO is bad (as most things that must be labelled by law are)

Well, you're right, which is why we have to do our best to provide maximum truthful information to consumers. Tell them exactly what they're getting and exactly why they don't need to be worried. Setting a precedent for hiding information, any information, is exactly what is not needed when seeking truth.

>>3981595
how are you constantly ignoring the fact that NEITHER is evidenced?
at this very moment it is neither safe to eat nor is not safe to eat them. you just magically jump to the conclusion that it's alright because you didn't die of instant poisoning.

science is not so your thing, is it.

>>3981733
>science that is only applied in favour of money grabbing corporations.
making food that is easier to grow, more hardy and more resistant to disease is in both the "corporation" and the people's best interest

You are acting against your own best interest because it will also hurt someone else, that makes you an asshole

>>3981740
there are some cases where there exists a mutual interest between corporations and consumers, but there's certainly precedent to say it's not always the case.

Regardless, the priority has to be in delivering safe food to consumers, disclosure of all relevant information on the product, and restriction on the ability of one corporation to monopolize on the production of any particular foodstuff.

>>3981713
>>3981707
>>3981701
>>3981656
GMO food guy has lost it now

what else would one expect

ITT: Prop. 37 opponents getting told.

I'm not american, so this really doesnt make any difference for me, but in my opinion i wouldnt mind eating and buying GMO, but i sure would love to know what it is im jamming down my throath. That way it could be my own informed choice to eat shit.

> It is not natural at all and I do not wish to ingest this.

You are a pussy , go catch your own fish if you are gonna be such a crybaby. Or better yet, only buy fish that says its not GMO on the label.If people really want this, the fish dealers with label it so.
Everything mass produced with be GMO soon because its better.Get used to it .

What's so bad about genetically modified foods? I'm really curious.

I mean, I'd understand if I heard arguments like it causes cancer, or something. But all I hear are people repeating the phrase "genetically modified."

>>3981856
it hurts hippies feelings

>Thinks gentic modification is unnatural
>Still believes in evolution

>>3981873
But I herd that wen u splice dem jeans the cansers creeps into the nooks and crannys that we dont knows about because unknown unknowns ???

>>3981856
I imagine because it's an unknown factor. And because the people pushing the envelope on them are widely considered to be untrustworthy cutthroats.

Me, I'm perfectly happy living in my Scandinavian socialist utopia though, without even the remotest of worry about my fellow citizens seeking to poison my food just for an extra buck. Hey, maybe you guys could take a page out of our book and stop murdering eachother for a minute, you know?

>>3981746
>>3981743
>>3981740
>>3981739
>>3981761
lol u just mad cuz i fuked ur mummy last nite

>>3981910
>Scandinavia

Enjoy your future female dominant society. I'll enjoy still being a man and not a tranny in ten years, thanks.

>>3981873
Well it's unnatural in that sense the change can be too drastic and have unexpected effects. I'm all for improving crops and stuff, but I'd rather it be stately funded with no corporative interests involved.

>>3981910
I would love to move to scandy , you have one of the best cultures on the planet. You socialism is burden to you but your culture is so strong that you are able to make it work.
That same liberalism fails everywhere else, especially in the third world.

>>3981294
>just like they do to the farmers and their seeds?
That never happened.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-b
usted

> It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.

>But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.

• Who do you trust with the health of your family: Pesticide and junk food companies and the $45 million they've spent lying to you, or Prop 37 supporters like the California Nurses Association, the Breast Cancer Action Fund, the California Council of Churches, and the American Public Health Association?

>>3981639
No, you're just plain wrong.

Sage adds toward a thread's post count without bumping it. Throwing a sage into a thread means that you're pushing the thread closer to the point when it will die because it won't be able to be bumped, but you're not increasing the visibility of the thread at the same time.

Interpreting that functionality of sage as insulting a thread is completely reasonable.

Guys! Don't support Proposition 37! Monsanto, DOW, Dupont, Conagra, Kellogs, Nestle, Cocacola, McDonalds, etcetera, all have our best interests in mind and they know that we should remain ignorant -- all for our own sake!

>Californians actively participating in further bankrupting their own state.
I'm ok with this.

If you oppose prop 37, you oppose liberty

>liberty (n.) "free choice, freedom to do as one chooses,"

>>3981918
It's not really a burden. The socialist parts of our society are what enable it. As a result, we have a good infrastructure and a clean nature that are public domain rather than anyone's private property. That the power of the individual or individual special interest groups are curbed are why we don't have to contend with issues like this.

As for the public services, I am more than glad to pay any measure in taxes when it ensures that we have well-educated, competitively skilled future generations, and that I know that when I get old, or if something happens to me, I'll be looked after properly regardless of health insurances and the like.

By allowing corporations to decide what goes into your body (rather than you having the personal choice,) you are literally consenting to slavery under their leadership.

>>3981964
You mean to say, "under their ownership"? Slavers are not leaders, y'know.

>>3981964
You don't know what the word literally means.

>>3981964

Corporations never decide what goes into my body. They decide what goes into their product. I decide whether or not I eat it. Don't like the product? Don't buy it or eat it.

>>3981948
>It's not really a burden.
It's a huge burden. Your state has the highest taxes in the nation and yet it's still bankrupt.

>>The socialist parts of our society are what enable it. As a result, we have a good infrastructure and a clean nature that are public domain rather than anyone's private property.

They are what happened to have provided your infastructure. That doesn't mean that there is no alternative. For example, at the turn of the century all of the US's roads and railroads were built with private money. There was no government-owned roads, and yet the country still had among the best in the world.

I agree with you that things like infascturture, education, healthcare, and so on are important. The key is that the private market can provide those things better and cheaper than the government can.

Here's something to think about. If you live in the USA you currently pay about 1/4 to perhaps 1/3 of your yearly income in Federal taxes. That could be tens of thousands of dollars. Now, ask yourself what you get for that money: Education? Nope, unless you got a pell grant. Police and fire departments? No, those are paid for with local funds, except for the FBI. Roads and bridges? Nope, that's state funded. Public parks? Nope, that's local and state again. Housing or food assistance? Nope, that's state-funded. You're spending a massive chunk of your income on the statist machine and getting next to nothing in return. Now imagine if you had that money back in your pocket. You could fund whatever cause you cared to: you could buy the best healthcare for dozens of people. You could fund whatever charitable cause you might want. You could do a lot more with that money than the government is doing for you on your behalf.

>>3982016
>You could fund whatever cause you cared to: you could buy the best healthcare for dozens of people. You could fund whatever charitable cause you might want
And this is an absolutely terrible idea, because most people have no idea where their money can be spent to maximize the benefit from expenditures.

Most people look at basic research in animal models like worms and flies and plants and think it's a tremendous waste of money, but that basic research has led to tremendous advances in genetics and medicine that wouldn't have otherwise been possible.

Also, charitable causes are very ill equipped to handle the total social welfare burden; that's why our federal programs were created in the first place, because charities weren't cutting it.

>>3981987
Choke on this. Turns out its you who does not know about hyperbole .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_VHZq_7eU

>>3981998
how are you gonna make a decision with no information about the product provided?

>>3982032

I bet people could buy their own health insurance if the government wasn't wasting 1/3 of their salary on bureaucracy and needless foreign wars.

The problem is that the government does things badly. For example, it costs the Federal government more money to send a child to Public school than it would cost you to send a child to private school. They spend more money on an inferior outcome.

>> ill equipped to handle the total social welfare burden

So is the government. Remember the FEMA debacle when Hurricane Katrina came through? Fucking WALMART was on the scene giving out aid more than a week before FEMA did anything, and WALMART is the poster-child for out of control corporations.

>create a great recipe for a soft drink, want to start a business making and selling it
>check all my ingredients to make sure they arent gmo
>create soda and start selling it
>some fucking hippy finds out that the small amount of organic cherry extract I use comes from a company who buys cherries from a farm that has one GMO cherry tree
>state of california sues me into oblivion for trying to poison its people

sounds like fun, im sure this will be good for business

>>3982042

1) No information ->assume the worst->don't but it.

2) Competitors will provide the information for you. There is no law mandating the labeling of non-organic produce, yet you can easily find out which produce is organic and which is not because the organic producers voluntarily label their product as such. Likewise the non-GMO crop producers will be sticking "NO GMO" labels on everything, just like you see labels for "no fat" or "no cholesterol".

3) You are always free to research it on your own. You know how you read reviews about cars or computers or phones before you buy one? Likewise you can research which brands you may want to avoid. Nobody is stopping you from doing that.

>>3982042
Exactly.

>>3982057
The industry should never be in charge of regulating itself. Any fool can see the problem with this.

>>3982059
>some fucking hippy
Wow, I'm sure people listen to you all the time.

>>3982059
>the small amount of organic cherry extract I use comes from a company who buys cherries from a farm that has one GMO cherry tree
Then it isn't organic is it?

Why do you have a problem with companies following their marketing claims?

>>3982016
Er... pardon? My state? Bankrupt? Who on earth are you talking about?

My nation - note the use of the word - certainly isn't "bankrupt". Frankly, my nation tops economical competitiveness comparison charts with steady regularity. We live in an export economy society, with plenty of specialized competitive production capacity that can't be replicated with uneducated drone workers. Combined with a vastly developed and all-encompassing educational system, we have a highly innovative and socially conscious worker base firmly anchored in the middle class. Finally, we have an enormous amount of natural resources available per capita. We are everything but bankrupt, and this is all provided by the social contract of ours. The Scandinavian form of society that searches consensus and the progress of society as a whole, rather than any form of... objectivist footrace where people are segregated by success or inherited wealth.

As for "burden", I doubt you even understand the very concept of what I attempted to describe. I am not burdened by the taxes I pay. I see them used with reason and compassion, and under the common scrutiny of the entire nation. The "burden" of paying taxes just means acknowledging that I depend on my fellow citizen, as he does on me, and that no man could ever achieve the sort of nonsense you Americans spout about "hard work".

You're free to do as you're told.

Mandatory Labeling of GMO ->
Companies are economically forced to have stricter GMO standards and promote better farming methods ->
GMOs are engineered for better reasons, such as higher nutrient/taste profiles, and less for producing internal pesticides ->
GMO food labels are seen as something prestigious and foreign countries begin having higher demand for our produce exports ->
United States national economy does quite a bit better because of this


I fail to see the issue with labeling...

>>3982170
Also, this theory could only fully work if the GMO labeling included specific breed/patent labeling, and people had the due diligence to do research on the specifics of what they're eating (which is far more unlikely than anything else).

Why is this so controversial? It's like having a list with carbons and proteines etc on the product. Or having the ingredients listed. Sure it'll cost a few bucks to put 3 extra letters on a label, but certainly not "millions".

And it'll give rise to 2 whole new consumer groups pro and con GMO's which'll be great for business either way, just like previous labelling did.

>>3982116

My mistake, I assumed you were Californian.

I know the Scandinavian system well. My family is from Denmark; I have visited many times. I'm not sure there is much "reason" with taxes, as every Dane I know actively tries to avoid them. My relatives travel to Germany to buy alcohol because of the high taxes in Denmark. My uncle recently passed away and his surviving relatives were surprised to hear that the state was talking 1/3 of his estate as an inheritance tax (and no, none of them are wealthy). The business I own frequently ships goods to customers all over Europe, and the #1 message I always get is "Hey, could you declare a lower value on the paperwork for my order so I don't have to pay as much tax, thank you".

What Scandinavian countries do very well is have extremely low taxes on businesses. Sadly I don't think that plan would fly over here.

>>3982305
>>And it'll give rise to 2 whole new consumer groups pro and con GMO's which'll be great for business either way, just like previous labelling did.

You don't need a law to do that. It already exists. For example: organic. There are no labeling laws regarding mandatory identification of organic vs. non-organic, yet people do it anyway, voluntarily.

>mfw Americans don't want freedom of information and are happy to get shit on by a private company

>>3982357
Many Americans don't want freedom of information/transparency, because companies are pumping them full of misinformation using price increase hysteria, and when you vaguely threaten "muh wallet", people oppose things, even if it is in their best interest—I mean, shit, that's even evident with the companies involved!

>>3982057
>Remember the FEMA debacle when Hurricane Katrina came through?
That was because Bush put someone in charge of FEMA who didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

Contrast FEMA's Katrina response with their performance in recent years under new leadership. It's a very different story.

>>3982348
Haha, oh boy. Well, first off, I'll have to admit that I was trolling by and wide. While we have a great deal of perks, the whole "communist sunshine" part was largely an attempt to troll my American friends. And amusingly, while not Danish, we do the whole alcohol thing too, except we sail over to Estonia on overnight cruises, get tax-free blitzed on the international waters, then buy cheap booze when we land. The taxation on alcohol is ironically the most circumvented part of the system, and sadly, not even the draconian taxation on alcohol is anywhere near hefty enough to cover the costs of public healthcare expenses caused by liver chirrosis and other related damages.

As for business taxes and workforce flexibility and re-purposing, Denmark is on the very global spearhead. I've heard a lot good and a little bad of it. Over here, the hire-and-fire arrangements are a fair deal stiffer, but we still manage to roll out competitive products, especially at small business levels. Sad as it is, though, people keep pining for big global success story corporations, while forgetting that the grand majority of innovation and exports are done at the business sizes that are the most adaptable, such as small to medium scale production and exports firms.

>>3982035
Nope, sorry, you're just wrong.

>>3982373
Excellent rebuttal.

I voted No because i want super scienced food.
Its like were in the future, man.

>>3981472
could you imagine coming from a different country and seeing Prop 65 warnings everywhere? You'd think California was just recovering from nuclear fallout.

>>3982672
Finally someone gets it.


Guys, this is the only way we'll get those de-hydrated food pills you see in movies and tv shows.

Just sit back and enjoy the show, we're going to the motherfucking future.

>>3982687
Im over here enjoying my Soylent Green and some asshole politician wants the ingredients to include people instead of just natural Soylent Green. I can't believe the nutjobs in congress.

>>3982699
That son of a bitch.

You guys want knowledge and more labeling on your food products? You're all clearly AGAINST science!

>>3981259
And you're a dumbass, dumbass.

>>3982348
>What Scandinavian countries do very well is have extremely low taxes on businesses. Sadly I don't think that plan would fly over here.
But their political systems aren't bought by corporations and they actually have strong regulations.

did it pass?

>>3983539
no

This is a bump.

don't bother, this is the only triumph the libertarians have and fuck if they aren't going to defend it to hell and back

Man I'm so sick of this fucking planet. Everyone always trying to get the better of others. Sometimes I just think about going on a fucking rampage on these corporate fucks and killing as many as I can before they get me.

>>3983540
>>3983570
are you babysitting this thread or do you just lurk /ck/ more than any reasonable person would?

Anti-GMO organizations label all reputable scientists as paid off whenever they come out with studies that go against them. They're inherently illogical.

NEWS!!
Almost all the food you eat has been genetically modified.
They just did it in a lot slower way before now.

See, the problem with labeling genetically modified food is that it doesn't matter, because the chemicals have already passed our certification.

You'd have to be pretty fucking illogical to ingest food that has no known side effects. You're being overly cautious and saying "Well we COULD find out that it's bad for you in the future!" when you could say that about any product. If we don't have any evidence, it's illogical to act on it. Once we do have evidence, we change the policy. That's how fucking science works, and it's remarkable that organic food dumbasses don't understand it.

>>3983596
What harm would labeling the food as GMO do? It doesn't say on the label that it is possibly dangerous, its just 3 fucking letters and people can at least PICK to eat it or not.

>>3983600
oh wait thats right the harm is loss of money in these rich motherfucker's pockets

>>3983590
because Salmon can magically adopt eel genes through selective breeding and traditional "genetic modification".
>this is what Mosanto want you to believe

>>3983600
>What harm would labeling the food as GMO do?

Unnecessary fear mongering + money

GMO foods are no different than organic foods. The only difference is how they were made. They passed our tests and they are safe.

>>3983606
Bullshit. Watch Food Inc.

>>3983602
>this is what Mosanto want you to believe

Why do you accuse people of shilling Monsanto? It's a fucking shit argument when everyone in the thread is fucking condemning them and their shit studies.

The point everyone is making is that plenty of reputable scientists say that GMO foods aren't harmful. That doesn't mean they are being paid by monsanto unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

>>3983607
>watch a movie

Hey bro, how about you watch these studies.

>Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

>inb4 every one of those organizations are paid off

>>3981269
>>3981263

see this is the bullshit that gets you retards labled tinfoil hatters. take your hollywood magic, TV overdose and your god damn creationist bullshit and get the fuck out. I personally think the initiative should pass becuase I agree that people should have a right to know what theyre eating, but in reality the bill will do nothing, because you retards still wont know what you're eating, you'll just act like toxic nuclear waste when really you don't know fucking anything about science, and aren't planning on doing any reading up except in crazy blogs and stupid 'news' articles any time soon. fucking hypocrites

>>>/pol/7013920