Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Authority (Score 1) 510

The irony here is that the FDA itself conducts no scientific review.

As reported last October: (emphasis added)

Q: Does the FDA test these foods before they're allowed on the market?

A: No. Instead there is a voluntary consultation process. Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process. Foods are presumed to be safe unless the FDA has evidence to the contrary, Jaffe says. The FDA "has to show that there may be a problem with the food, as opposed to the company needing to prove it's safe to FDA's satisfaction before it can get on the market," he says.

And from the horse's mouth itself: (emphasis added)

[Section V B] It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met. In section VII., FDA provides guidance to the industry regarding prudent, scientific approaches to evaluating the safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including the safety of the added substances that are subject to section 402(a)(1) of the act. FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.

Also, the basis for the fallacious assumption that genes introduced from other species are not worth rigorous testing: (emphasis added)

[excerpted Section V C] With respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), generally FDA does not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation. Nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism, including every plant and animal used for food by humans or animals, and do not raise a safety concern as a component of food. In regulatory terms, such material is presumed to be GRAS. Although the guidance provided in section VII. calls for a good understanding of the identity of the genetic material being transferred through genetic modification techniques, FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.

"Obviously GMO organisms are safe because we have no expectations they won't be safe." Most people would call BS on that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Does the FDA really not understand it's how those nucleic acids are arranged, not just what nucleic acids are present?

Comment Re:GMOs=evil business (Score 2) 510

In theory a pest resistant crop might have fewer pesticides/herbicides

And in reality, more pesticides are used on pesticide-resistant crops. FTA:

"Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent," Benbrook said.

Monsanto officials had no immediate comment.

Comment Re:victory against science (Score 5, Informative) 510

These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water"

That's an overly broad and unfair characterization. Everyone seems to be ignoring that companies are not required to prove with sufficient rigor that GMO crops are adequately safe.

The FDA requires new pharmaceuticals to undergo years of testing. In contrast, GMO crops are assumed to be safe because they 'closely approximate' their originating crop. That's a foolish assumption.

Comment Re:logic... (Score 1) 462

it would still be multiple orders of magnitude lower chance than dying of many other things like cancer, heart disease, or car accidents.

This is the key argument I never seem to hear at the national discussion level. Of course, there's no direct path to authoritarian police state by fighting cancer.

Comment Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous (Score 1) 462

Well... here in the states, corporations are people. Natural persons get due process but incorporated persons are obviously due more. Hence, no criminal prosecution for nefarious acts such as, say, collapsing the financial sector. Just token fines.

Insofar as "civil forfeiture" goes, it's simply a much more pleasant phrase than "intimidatory theft".

Comment Re:4th Amendment (Score 1) 894

We interrupt this post for a breaking news flash:

Americans no longer need to enter an airport to have their 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure suspended. Pretty much any activity will do, including but not limited to: being within 100 miles of the border, conducting business with any commercial entity, or communicating by electronic means such as telephone, SMS, email, Facebook or in-game chat.

Comment Re:Not cans (Score 1) 371

Nobody wants dollar coins.

I do.

And vending machines are very good at accepting even the filthiest of bills

Pfft. Every vending machine I've ran across rudely refused to accept any bill with the slightest tear, wrinkle or folded corner. As a whole, vending machines certainly don't deserve a "very good" rating.

And frankly, if you're so chincy as to get twisted over carrying dollars in your pocket versus wallet versus just losing them in the sofa, then you should really appreciate how much money (your tax money) could be saved by the switch.

Comment Re:why ? (Score 1) 392

You appear to be a technical user, so the metaphor isn't even for you. From TFS (emphasis added):

he describes the religious metaphor he uses with non-technical folks to explain the relationship between Mac OS X and UNIX.

I find it mildly amusing, if not overextended.

Slashdot Top Deals

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.

Working...