I like how you're not even trying to counter my points, just saying that more people agree with you, therefore you're right. Fortunately, regulations are not decided by majority vote, and for good reason. Do you really think the opposite should be the case, that regulations should be decided by majority vote?

and they overwhelmingly want to know if there are GMOs in them.

Depends on how you ask them. Ask what they want, few say GE labels. Ask if they want GE labels, then they say yes. Of course, labeled products are already available, and consumers can already tell if something is GE or not as I explained in my previous post; that they either do not buy the former or do not educate themselves is no justification for a new law.

Not really; look at your own loaded questions for the reason. Even independent biotech information organizations are accused of being corporate propaganda.

Personally, I wan organic food labeled as having been grown in 400-700 nm radiation. What's wrong with letting the consumer know that?

There are; they're called ingredient labels. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. Know that, and a few details behind them, and you can tel if something is GE or not. Why do you need a label to replace educating yourself?

Yeah, that's practical. You offering to pay for all the tracking necessary to do that?

No. I am, however, saying that GE crops are no more different than those derived from hybridization, mutagenesis, bud sports, somaclonal variation, induced polyploidy, ect. all of which you eat unlabeled all the time, and you probably don't even know about them. I'm saying that unless there is a difference to the end consumer which is significantly different than what could otherwise be expected from the crop, then it should not matter for the purpose of labeling.

Why are you irrationally singling out one aspect of crop improvement, one that just so happens to be controversial (but not scientifically controversial [and yes, as a plant scientists, this stuff is about as controversial in my field as vaccines or the validity of evolution]), without demanding anything else be labeled (like other aspects of crop improvement and production, including but not limited to the other crop improvement techniques I mentioned, rootstock, PGR use, biocide use, fertilizer use [where's my poo label on organic foods?] date and location of harvest, ect) , without telling the details (such as gene inserted or what it does, ex NPTII, Bt, EPSPS, bar, CSPb, various cp genes, ect), without telling the benefits (ex. reduction in mycotoxins, reduction in insecticides, shift away from harsher herbicides such as atrazine, saving crops from viral infection, ect.).

You seem to want to be very specific and selective in what you tell the consumer, which is very fishy when we are talking about a thing that can be identified simply by knowing what you are looking for (corn, soybean, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya are all the GE crops out there). I can always tell if something I'm eating is likely to contain GE ingredients; why can't you educate yourself enough to do the same? Millions of vegans, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus with religious or personal dietary restrictions do the same, and they don't deserve a special law catering to their beliefs. You don't either.

The same way non-GE crop varieties such as Clearfield wheat, Beneforté broccoli, and Snowsweet apples can be patented. You do realize that non-GE crops can also be patented, yeah? My question is why you're trying to use a legal argument on a topic that should be decided on the scientific basis of the things; if they are scientifically different, th

There's noting wrong with truth in labeling. A lie of omission, however, is still a lie. If you tell consumers just enough about a single, arbitrarily selected manufactured controversy for them to be afraid, and don't give them any context whatsoever, then you're not really being honest, are you?

Let's think about this economically; do you really think farmers would have adopted this technology so rapidly if the only use for them was to spend more costly herbicides on crops, which detract from the farmer's bottom lines? Be real; your 'soaking' rhetoric is extremely misleading. The reality is that farmers apply what them need after the seeds come up, thus avoiding the need for pre- and post-emergent applications of herbicide cocktails. It's not ideal, but I don't here any anti-GMO groups coming up with better weed management strategies.

As for your point about weed evolution, yep, that's been going on for a long time, before GE crops were a thing. Saying we shouldn't use that technology because of it is pretty off base though. Better resistance mitigation strategies, yes, but not completely forging the technology simply because it exists within a biotic system. If that's your stance, I hope you never get something that requires any anti-viral medication, because by your logic, that viruses evolve means we just shouldn't treat them. Pretty bad reasoning, no?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. Glyphosate use hasn't just go up; it has displaced other herbicides (including some harsh alternatives like atrazine, or just soil eroding tillage) and allowed farmers to hit the field with a single post emergent application of one of what is actually one of the more beneign herbicides out there. I wouldn't go drinking it, but glyphosate is hardly one of the scarier agrochemicals.

So yeah, glyphosate use is up, but so what? That's better than the alternative. Do you have a better weed management solution? Because if you do the farmers of the world would love to hear it; it isn't like they spend all that money on glyphosate for nothing. What you are saying is like saying that a line of cocaine is better than a glass of wine because the cocaine weighs less; you neglect to take into consideration that not all herbicides are equal. Furthermore, you consider only the one option against an ideal, when in reality, it is one of several options, and the ideal is not one of them.

First off, you are against a technique because of how some people use it? Do I really have to point out how bad that logic is? Second, no one forces anyone to use Monsanto/Syngenta/Pioneer/ect.'s seed. They don't 'own' basic foodstuffs, they own the IP on very specific strains of crops. Don't like it? Fine, don't use them. Problem solved.

You're claims that supporting genetic engineering equate to supporting all the things various companies have done in the past is like saying that supporting vaccination equates to supporting all the nasty things pharmaceutical companies have done. Your logic is again completely off base.

Yes, things like Golden Rice and BioCassava and..oh wait, anti-GMO activists have worked to get such things blocked so that only large corporations have the money to get through the regulatory hurdles. That's a pretty key detail you conveniently neglected.

If it objectively matters, it gets labeled, if not, no label. Same reason why there is no mandatory labeling on Halal/Haram, Kosher/non-Kosher, vegan, ect. Don't want to eat GE crops? There are only 8 species of food crop that are GE; if doing five minutes of research are so hard then perhaps you don't care that much anyway.

What I hate is when people use a lie of omission to imply a falsehood. Labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with 'Evolution is just a theory.' Technically true, but also misleading politically motivated garbage and everyone knows it. I'll believe you care about 'knowing what's in your food' and not just fearmongering when you demand all other methods of crop improvement (which most people outside of plant & agricultural science [that's you] don't even know about) be labeled and demand labeling for the hows, whys, and benefits of what has been genetically engineered.

And there haven't been any 20 plus years on the effects of Wifi either, and yet, I don't see you panicking about that. Maybe when you give me a reason to suspect genetic engineering, instead of arbitrarily singling it out, I'll ignore all the safety data that shows no problems. So, lets talk biochemistry; what is it you find uniquely suspicious about genetic engineering, and be as specific as possible.

So you write a post slandering the flawless safety record of GE crops, reflecting the multitude of misinformation on the internet, then wonder why farmers and seed companies don't want them labeled? Gee, I can't imagine why.

If this is important enough of an issue to consider such a radical change to policy, then they should also have considered other possible solutions, like requiring a statistician be included in the pool of reviewers. The journal I submit to most frequently uses 2 to 3 ad hoc reviewers plus the associate section editor. It could be possible to require the section editor who choses the ad hoc reviewers to include a statistician as the 3rd reviewer. They would then review for the soundness of the statistical procedures, and the appropriateness of the conclusions based on the model used, and analysis conducted.

I have better stats chops than most in my field (dunning kruger delusion on my part, possibly), but I know that I'm no statistician. I think that getting an actual statistician involved in reviewing most papers as a content expert is far more valuable to science as a whole than simply banning a statistical convention that can be, but is not universally, abused. The comments from the statistician would improve the statistical prowess of the corresponding author, thus reducing the tendency for conclusions based on poor stats to be accepted at face value. This move just hides the ignorance behind confidence intervals, which can also be abused if they are not calculated correctly.

I am not Jewish, but a co-worker of mine who is indicated that you must pay pretty hefty membership dues to be able to join and attend Temple. I don't remember all of the details, but the description he provided sounded very much like a 'pay-to-pray' type arrangement.

Ok what about this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Or this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Apparently they're not hard to find, so probably more common than you think.

In these situations, I'm not entirely sure collateral damage is of a primary concern. The image of either building being damaged or destroyed or the threat to elected representatives likely presents a worse impact than collateral damage might. Its like all the special protections they already have. For instance, punch your neighbor and face a misdemeanor, punch a senator or the president and it is not only a felony but a serious one at that. Kill someone in an auto accident and it can be a charge with less than 10 years but run over a police dog and you face life for killing an officer of the law.

Our system has said they are special and more protected than most people for quite a while now.

I disagree, I think healthy capitalism is where the competition is so strong that regulations aren't needed. When the forces of supply and demand (aka free markets) regulate the market, things have a way of turning out much better.

For an example, look at the net neutrality situation. Sure, the government can regulate that Comcast be fair when it comes to peering disputes, they might even be able to one day regulate Comcasts prices, but one thing they'll never be able to regulate is the fact that Comcast are total assholes to their customers. Comcast will always be assholes unless they have a competitor taking customers away.

I remember how during the 80's, the local phone companies had really asshole policies (Need to reconnect a phone line after you suspended it because you were leaving the country for 6 months? That'll be $300 please, or $700 in 2015 dollars) and they were HEAVILY regulated, both in terms of price and service. It wasn't until just about everybody could finally offer phone service that adding a new phone line became dirt cheap, and long distance became basically free.

This is going to sound ad-hom, but I'll just be honest: You'd have to be incredibly stupid to believe that. In fact, the people who started that nonsense against McDonalds are incredibly stupid. It isn't greedy to, for example, sell lemonade, which is a very sugary drink that harms diabetics.

In fact, if we're going to start calling it greedy to sell any kind of food that harms any kind of person with any dietary restrictions, then we'll have to ban commercials that advertise the following foods, because in large quantities they cause problems with people who have any kind of kidney disease: (which includes a lot of people, especially diabetics, who often end up with kidney failure)

Legumes
Beans of any kind
Tomatoes
Spinach
Melons of most varieties
Star fruit
Milk
Cheese

In fact while we're at it, let's ban every commercial featuring food that there's a known fatal allergy for, like all varieties of seafood, eggs, all varieties of fruit, and all varieties of wheat, and also all foods containing high amounts of vitamin k because it harms people taking drugs designed to fight thrombosis, so that means most green vegetables are out too.

Like this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Anything is possible but they have helicopter rides at the county fair around my neck of the woods. They take off and land right next to the fair way with an area about 30 yards roped off. Of course they approach and leave from the far side and away from the rides but its usually still over a parking lot.

I'm not sure I would be overly excited about his landing. Still some concerns but likely not dangerous.