How Bad is Beer??

If there's nothing wrong with GMOs then why do corporate lobbies put forth so much money (ie California last year) to fight labeling them. If it's such a good thing then why not advertise it? Oh right... people wouldn't buy it.

Drink red wine instead: fights cholesterol and heart disease, boosts brain function and immune system, helps regulate blood sugar level, increases metabolism. No brainer! Just make sure it's California made.

Morgan Patterson wrote:If there's nothing wrong with GMOs then why do corporate lobbies put forth so much money (ie California last year) to fight labeling them. If it's such a good thing then why not advertise it? Oh right... people wouldn't buy it.

Ha, wrong. 95% of Americans would buy the same food they were buying if it was labeled. The 5% that did are the upper/upper middle class folks that can A: afford it and B: are pretentious enough to throw a fit about some that has no scientific backing. I'm sure they would be loudly proclaiming how they are GMO free whenever they can fit it into a conversation.

Read this article on labeling of GMO foods. I think it has some good points.
cast-science.org/file.cfm/m…

True story: I went to Whole Foods today to buy some chips and bananas and there was one of those petition tables sitting out front with your typical dread headed hippy sitting behind it, trying to get me to sign a petition to label GMO's, I politely said "no, thank you." When I came back out she was talking to another dread headed gentleman who said something to the effect of "i am so tired of eating GMO's!" Female behind the table replied: "I know, right? These people that come here and don't sign the petition, I'm like what the hell? What are you people doing here?" I was standing right there and gave her a funny look and left. Its as if they think because they have dreads and smell terrible they own Whole Foods.

Realistically, GMO's are no more worrisome than , say, fluoride in the water, radiation from the Fukashima reactor, chemical spills and he'll, if you buy it, Chemtrails. They all contribute to the globalist banking elite's plan to depopulate the earth and implement their global government.

When I first read the OP's title, I thought I needed to post a smart a$$ reply:

"Beer is good".

But, now that I've read the concerns in his original post, plus all (well most) of the replies so far, I feel compelled to provide a much more serious and somber reply:

Beer is GOOD!

Paul-B wrote: Its as if they think because they have dreads and smell terrible they own Whole Foods.

No kidding! I enjoy shopping at Whole Foods and don't mind paying more for local produce and meats, etc. but the people that accost you as soon as you enter or leave the store drive me crazy.

Morgan Patterson wrote:If there's nothing wrong with GMOs then why do corporate lobbies put forth so much money (ie California last year) to fight labeling them. If it's such a good thing then why not advertise it? Oh right... people wouldn't buy it.

Morgan,

This assertion, while valid, doesnt mean that GMOs are inherently 'bad'. It simply may mean the anti-GMO marketing push has convinced people to feel negative about GMOs. They're still selling a product, and their advertising may have little to nothing to do with the quality of their product.

The problems of our world are increasingly complex but the solutions remain simple. Food is one of the simple solutions. Hidden in the production, distribution and consumption of foods are profoundly negative effects on the environment, economy, health, equality, and politics worldwide.

GMOs involve a wide variety of things that, as a whole, can neither be labeled as good or bad. A major motivator for the creation of GMOs is to make more money for the agricultural-industrial complex. When intentions are guided by the quest for money they typically have negative effects on others. Why do we need GMOs? Organic farming seems to work well most places with most foods. Why make it complicated?

Ever hear of the 3-day food supply? Supporting local agriculture is one of the most important things we can do to protect our personal livelihood and community.

Whole Foods is a joke, 99% marketing, 1% local food and full support of GMOs. An out of state based corporation trying to promote localism? If you care about food and are in Boulder I suggest Alfalfas or a farm.

As for the beer, you care or you don’t. If you don’t have enough self-awareness and respect of life to care what you’re putting into your body and the planet then you are here attempting to reinforce your own sense of being right.

Amen, MC Poopypants! Amen!

MC Poopypants wrote:The problems of our world are increasingly complex but the solutions remain simple. Food is one of the simple solutions. Hidden in the production, distribution and consumption of foods are profoundly negative effects on the environment, economy, health, equality, and politics worldwide. GMOs involve a wide variety of things that, as a whole, can neither be labeled as good or bad. A major motivator for the creation of GMOs is to make more money for the agricultural-industrial complex. When intentions are guided by the quest for money they typically have negative effects on others. Why do we need GMOs? Organic farming seems to work well most places with most foods. Why make it complicated? Ever hear of the 3-day food supply? Supporting local agriculture is one of the most important things we can do to protect our personal livelihood and community. Whole Foods is a joke, 99% marketing, 1% local food and full support of GMOs. An out of state based corporation trying to promote localism? If you care about food and are in Boulder I suggest Alfalfas or a farm. As for the beer, you care or you don’t. If you don’t have enough self-awareness and respect of life to care what you’re putting into your body and the planet then you are here attempting to reinforce your own sense of being right.

Yep, this. I do find it a bit odd that people are going to Whole Foods in an attempt to get quality, locally sourced food. Even here on the Western Slope (not exactly a bastion of hippies/educated/wealthy/progressive types) there are a variety of CSAs and responsible ranchers. Through the summer months I hardly ever go to the grocery store, not that we have a Whole Foods within a 100 miles to begin with though.

MC Poopypants wrote: When intentions are guided by the quest for money they typically have negative effects on others. Why do we need GMOs? Organic farming seems to work well most places with most foods.

A comment on your first point - you are essentially saying capitalism is inherently evil, but out of all economic systems we've run through the experiment we call history I think a strong argument could be made that capitalism has provided the most good to the most people. Please don't confuse this to mean that capitalism is without flaws - but like most things, taking it to extremes can result in poor outcomes.

To answer your second question - scale. Simply put, we couldn't feed the planet and maintain the lifestyles we know today via organic farming.

Someone earlier made the point, that we've been doing this (genetic manipulation) for thousands of years. A point I would echo. Disagree all you want, but just because we understand what's going on at the genetic level and can make changes in a rational way without relying on an obvious phenotype to guide the process doesn't mean that these things aren't fundamentally the same.

Ben Circello wrote: A comment on your first point - you are essentially saying capitalism is inherently evil, but out of all economic systems we've run through the experiment we call history I think a strong argument could be made that capitalism has provided the most good to the most people. Please don't confuse this to mean that capitalism is without flaws - but like most things, taking it to extremes can result in poor outcomes. To answer your second question - scale. Simply put, we couldn't feed the planet and maintain the lifestyles we know today via organic farming. Someone earlier made the point, that we've been doing this (genetic manipulation) for thousands of years. A point I would echo. Disagree all you want, but just because we understand what's going on at the genetic level and can make changes in a rational way without relying on an obvious phenotype to guide the process doesn't mean that these things aren't fundamentally the same.

I don't think that's what he's saying about capitalism, unbridled capitalism WILL harm... u must have regulation for capitalism to work (think businesses making money dumping toxic waste).

Re: Scale... There are other forms of technology, techniques, and crop composition that could be applied to meet our needs going forward they just don't make the MONEY GMO's do for these businesses.

Genetics... Genetic Engineering is vastly different then selective breeding that Darwin used. That you would call them fundamentally the same is mind boggling... one uses natural forces (breeding) the other is entirely unnatural (gene splicing. And when doing selective breeding you are not controlling or dictating you are simply aware of how a natural process work and utilizing it. Breeding two dogs for phenotype selection vs splicing flounder genes into tomatoes is not fundamentally the same, neither in technique nor in outcome.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Genetics... Genetic Engineering is vastly different then selective breeding that Darwin used. That you would call them fundamentally the same is mind boggling... one uses natural forces (breeding) the other is entirely unnatural (gene splicing. And when doing selective breeding you are not controlling or dictating you are simply aware of how a natural process work and utilizing it. Breeding two dogs for phenotype selection vs splicing flounder genes into tomatoes is not fundamentally the same, neither in technique nor in outcome.

Why do you say that? You seem adept at saying thing are ridiculous without any reasoning provided. How are they not similar? This is what happens in breeding. Genes recombine, both set of genes splice in an unpredictable manner, you have a somewhat (not entirely random) reassortment of genetic information. Genetic engineering does this in a much more precise manner. Certainly all breeding experiments do not turn out as planned given the random assortment. In GE we know exactly the protein we want to transfect into the DNA and do so in a precise manner. You, as many people that share you view, seem to have the assumption that "natural" is good, always better than otherwise... Don't forget random gene assortment is what continues undesirable genes that produce a multitude of autosomal dominant or recessive traits that are pathologic.

Paul-B wrote: Why do you say that? You seem adept at saying thing are ridiculous without any reasoning provided. How are they not similar? This is what happens in breeding. Genes recombine, both set of genes splice in an unpredictable manner, you have a somewhat (not entirely random) reassortment of genetic information. Genetic engineering does this in a much more precise manner. Certainly all breeding experiments do not turn out as planned given the random assortment. In GE we know exactly the protein we want to transfect into the DNA and do so in a precise manner. You, as many people that share you view, seem to have the assumption that "natural" is good, always better than otherwise... Don't forget random gene assortment is what continues undesirable genes that produce a multitude of autosomal dominant or recessive traits that are pathologic.

One is breeding at random... one is molecular manipulation and splicing of genes from species that could not otherwise breed naturally. One has evolved and has occurred for eons. The other for 20 years in a science lab and is almost entirely unnatural. Nothing about the process is the same no matter how much you claim they are... you are obvious bright and educated on the topic, I agree they are similar but to claim they are the same is manipulative of you at best.

Nature is inherently neither good nor bad... it simply is. As a being created in a natural process I prefer those and as such tend to label them as good even if they harm me (so is the way of nature, the struggle for balance). I consider GE genes to be pollutants in the natural world and thus bad. I cannot speak for the rest of the 'us' you have labeled me with.

You also failed to give a reasoned explanation as to why companies spend millions of dollars fighting the labeling of GMOs...

Also to correct you on another point, the majority (approx 90$) of Americans in recent studies want GMO's labeled. Additionally over 50% in recent polls stated they would avoid them once labeled. Obviously, companies might have some issue with labeling since ~80% of American food supply is polluted with these fake foods. ( abcnews.go.com/Technology/s…). If you google you'll find plenty more like the Pew poll with similar results.

Just out of curiosity.. what do you do for a living?

I just wanted to say that I think it's hilarious that people are complaining about additives in their alcoholic drinks.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Re: Scale... There are other forms of technology, techniques, and crop composition that could be applied to meet our needs going forward they just don't make the MONEY GMO's do for these businesses. Genetics... Genetic Engineering is vastly different then selective breeding that Darwin used. That you would call them fundamentally the same is mind boggling... one uses natural forces (breeding) the other is entirely unnatural (gene splicing. And when doing selective breeding you are not controlling or dictating you are simply aware of how a natural process work and utilizing it. Breeding two dogs for phenotype selection vs splicing flounder genes into tomatoes is not fundamentally the same, neither in technique nor in outcome.

If other technologies, techniques, and crop compositions meet our needs, they would make money (see also, electric and hybrid cars) That's how capitalism works. Clearly they are defective in some way. You can't just claim arbitrary solutions exist - they have to be proposed, vetted, and critiqued appropriately.

The fundamental unit of biological information is the gene. And organisms swap genes, move them around, duplicate them, shuffle them, and remove them all the time. Naturally. Just because you have a preconceived notion of what is "natural" doesn't make it so. The kinky stuff bacteria and viruses due to procreate and survive would blow your mind. That being said, I will reiterate - breeding and recombination are fundamentally the same.

You seem to be a strong proponent of the naturalistic fallacy. So I'd like to remind you that nightshade, Ebola, and cyanide are all natural.

Lastly - are there other areas of your life that you accept evidence without proof (outside of religion)? I tend to live my life believing in the things that are proven, not dreading what could be lurking around every corner. Do you worry that every single cam you place is going to blow because they haven't been proven to be 100% effective?

Life is constant risk assessment, and based on all available evidence, this isn't a large one.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Obviously, companies might have some issue with labeling since ~80% of American food supply is polluted with these fake foods

I'd venture that the reason companies fight so hard to avoid labeling is to limit the potential losses which will inevitably come when a very large group of uneducated people (read: not trained in the relevant sciences, I don't mean stupid) follows the illuminated advice of a a Jenny McCarthy-style food expert and completely removes labelled GMOs from their diet.
Whatever gut feeling you have, whatever hearsay you chose to follow, it is easily dismissed by scientific evidence. Unfortunately public opinion is rarely if ever influenced by facts but rather is stirred by the meaningless statements of various celebrities, pundits, leaders of opinion, etc... whose favorite move is to dismiss actual experts as pawns of whatever industry they're attacking in order to promote their own agenda. However well meaning they are, they're still completely unequipped to make the assessments they're making, let alone make life-style recommendations based on personal opinions which they parade around as facts. Their intimate beliefs remain just that, beliefs.

Also, the concept of fake food is laughable. If the caloric intake sustains you, it's food, end of story.

+1 about everything in Ben's post above.

For those who are terrified of gene splicing- do you know how it works?

Have you heard of plasmids?

Bacteria exchange DNA with eachother through plasmids. They are fragments of DNA that get passed around by bacteria, which get added to the bacteria's DNA. What kind of genes do they contain? Well, just about anything!

How do we splice insulin genes into bacteria for laboratory insulin production? Plasmids. Stick an insulin gene into a plasmid, give the plasmid to a bacterium- tadah!

It certainly produces different results than you would have seen in nature, but the mechanism is nothing special. There are no mad scientists in dark labs using glowing radioactive waste. We just pick a different gene and side-load it into the process that is already there for swapping around DNA.

Or, have you heard of retroviruses? They are a special kind of virus that infects you by inserting their own DNA into your DNA. Now, obviously viruses are dangerous and all, but the point is the process of altering DNA with foreign genes is 100% natural.

Patrick Shyvers wrote:It certainly produces different results than you would have seen in nature

Familiar with many of the processes and thanks for making the point... at least you don't claim these are the same thing.

I don't claim to know everything but as I have stated I act on a precautionary principle. Just because it hasn't proven to be harmful doesn't make it safe.

From the discussion those of you in support of these creations seemingly give your full and total devotion to their safety, unquestionably. The veracity with which many of you stand behind the science, full well knowing that quite a bit of the pro-GMO science is industry funded, seems somewhat blind to the realities of how science progresses and functions. To think the science is settled and all issues have been vetted seems naive to me, but that seems to be how you guys are writing your post. Science has been wrong many times... just look at the margarine example provided above.

In your opinions what are the dangers of GMOs or are there no foresable dangers whatsoever? I grew up a science geek... I used to be very well studied on these subjects. As a philospohy major though I can justify on many levels a precautionary approach which this country has taken anything but. . . that you could not argue.

I don't believe GMOs are 100% safe and there's no chance we'll discover some problem in the future.

But I don't have any reason in particular to believe they are dangerous either.

I could avoid them on a purely precautionary basis as an unknown, but right now I'm more concerned about HFCS, good fat & oil choices, etc... and I can only handle worrying about so much, so I don't sweat GMOs for now.

I just don't have the time, nor the money, nor do I care enough to spend a quarter of my life worrying about my food, buying from farmers markets, and only eating kale. But that's my failing.

As far as I'm concerned, everything causes cancer eventually anyway. So avoid the lead paint, but don't sweat a little red meat.