Probably most of them. But a few that I know better I'd be pretty confident in saying the feeling is their own. Still might be a more chronic version of what you're talking about, where people learn to "care" about the kinds of "news" that get clicks and headlines. Maybe you don't see that as any different...anyway I do.

They'll keep their mouths a little more shut in public, and maybe that will actually lead to some good (maybe), but not to their children. Strong opinions + lack of open conversation = more polarization.

And, to me, it is the point. There are issues I frankly care more about a food company's position on than whether a pasta company dude thinks that the iconic family that he wants to portray in his ads includes a woman in the kitchen. I don't speak for Minupla, and have no problem if this issue makes or brakes his pasta-buying choices over other issues that I wished more people cared more about. But against his point as stated, I think my point stands valid.

I guarantee you that if you by any pasta, or really any product at all, you're supporting someone whose views you don't agree with.

If there are only five, I must know them all, because I've seen at least that many posts from folks in my fb network. So while it may be hype that will die down for something else next week, it's still more than just the media saying it.

Which is one of the reasons I did/do not support this boycott. Best I could tell, he expressed his opinion, but wasn't or isn't actively trying to suppress gay rights. If we boycott companies for honestly stating opinions, as is my read of this situation (please inform me of any more relevant details, however), then we don't change their opinions, we just change what they say. Everybody loses.

Yes.

Also, ditto on arctic sea ice volume, which is a more meaningful metric

I value my health and sometimes eat burgers => you are wrong, QED.

Really, though, burger meat can be ground on premises from whatever cut of meat you'd like (and I do this myself sometimes, a decent food processor will do the trick), so why the distinction based solely on form?

There are plenty

"GM rice passes unexpected benefits to weeds" is true. This does not imply that this is occurring on any particular scale at any particular location, it just states that it happens. Which it does. When GM rice cross-breeds with a wild variety, the offspring has a benefit.

To this point, the weeds were not GM'd directly with the transgenic gene, they were cross-bred with GM rice crop. So, it is reasonable to suspect this is likely to happen in the wild. I wonder how difficult it is to collect a reasonably meaningful survey of wild crops to detect this occurrence, and if anyone has attempted it.

As I have read it (in the paper itself), the authors cross-bred the rice & weedy rice, then split up the following generation of plants into those that expressed or did not express the modified gene. So the comparison was amongst hybrids. Still, it may be that this division has an inherent bias as to the presence or absence of other beneficial genes from the food crop, so it is interesting to question what the mechanism behind the reported benefits were.

The take-home point, however, is still that the hybrids containing the modified gene possessed an advantage over hybrids not containing that gene.

Calling it "insanely dangerous" and talking about a famine in 5-10 years may be going all tin-foil hat, but you still can see why faster can potentially mean more dangerous, right? (Of course, I'd be more inclined to spend energy on investigating the Bt modification than the roundup ready, but anywho...)

Perhaps, as stated, sure. In the same breath, though, I'd also call not devoting just a little more of our finite resources toward scrutiny of the effects of rapid GM (i.e. transgenic methods over cross-breeding) similarly short-sighted.

The point above I believe is that rapid genetic modification (transgeneses) is more likely than existing flora that co-evolved with its ecosystem to cause harmful disruption to that ecosystem. The questions "what are my assumptions" and "what happens if they are wrong" should always be on a scientist's mind.

That must be some kinky pr0n you're watching...

(Hint for the slow ... it passes these traits by cross-breeding, which is, of course, not saying anything about the presence or absence of effects due to consumption and digestion)

That's one possibility, among many. That doesn't get us to it being "very likely that in the presence of glyphosate their yield will drop".