He invented something so he got a 18-year country-wide monopoly on the idea. What's the problem?
He invented a place on your computer desktop that you can click with a mouse and it will open a menu.
Genius, I tell you. Who would have ever thought something like that was possible?
But they didn't win, did they? If they didn't win, it's irrelevant.
So, you think it's "irrelevant" that this sacred GMO industry that you worship sued to block other companies from labeling their food as "GMO free"? You are truly a zealot. It wasn't about them trying to "prevent FUD". It was about them trying to block the free speech of people who don't use their products. And this is the industry to which you're willing to hand over the keys to our food supply?
I still don't see you providing any shred of evidence that there are proven human health concerns for GMOs.
For me, this is not about health concerns. If I was concerned about the food I eat, I wouldn't have had that burrito from the food cart lady with the prison tattoos this afternoon.
This is entirely political. It's a pro-consumer issue for me. The consumers are paying the bill for GMOs, so if they want, they should get to know what they're paying for. I'm not asking for a law to be passed, I'm asking for food companies to start labeling their products truthfully. And to stop with using lobbyists to influence the government to pass laws to keep consumers from knowing what they're buying. And consumers should continue to run from GMO products until the industry is willing to label their products with this one truthful fact.
And I want transparency in the patenting of basic foodstuffs, because that matters to me, and I'm the one paying the bill.
and he came up with the Start button, for which he holds the patent today.
Oh, how I hate our patent system.
If the customers "don't" get what they want, then buy the (likely overpriced) stuff labelled "GMO free"
I bet you didn't know that the GMO industry sued to prevent people from labeling their food "GMO free".
Face it, they just don't want you to know what you're buying.
Nutritional information and list of ingredients are *government mandated*.
But the kosher and halal designations are not. Nor is the word "delicious" in big letters or any of the other words on the label. When I walk into the grocery, why doesn't the sign above the corn say, "Roundup Corn 3 for $1"? If the wondrous, miraculous benefits of GMO foods really exist, why doesn't the GMO industry advertise that fact to the consumers?
And if you say "They can't, because there's so much FUD", then you should know that the only proper commercial response to FUD is exercising your freedom of speech to market your products in a positive manner. The answer to bad speech is more good speech, not doing everything you can to obfuscate what is a truthful statement: "This food is made from genetically modified organisms". I would also request that the patent be clearly marked on the label. I want to know if the basic foodstuffs I buy are patented. Or is that also information I should not be allowed to have?
If they had been declared legal persons, you know someone would've tried to marry one.
Too late.
If they are not legal persons, that makes them illegal persons. Right?
If they outlaw chimps, then only outlaws will have chimps.
The chimps need to band together and register as a corporation!
I think it's already been done.
Labelling them is arguably a "warning".
And arguably, it's truth in advertising.
There are labels of all sorts on food. There's a little "K" in a circle that means kosher and there's a symbol for Halal and there's labels that say "Grown in California" and "fresh" and "delicious". Those are not warnings.
There is nutritional information, there's a list of ingredients. If consumers want it, why not a simple little symbol that shows the food was grown from GM organisms?
Remember, it's the consumers that are paying for all the GMO research, for all the products, for all the salaries of all the scientists, for all the marketing and for the lobbyists trying to get the federal government to pass industry-friendly laws.
When an industry tries to get laws passed which are meant to make sure customers DON'T get what they want, it raises red flags.
I was diagnosed as a Type 1 in 1997. Back then, a 10ml vial (U-100) of Eli Lilly's Humulin R or NPH costs--I'm not making this up-- $17.00. Today, without insurance, the same vial goes for $99. And this is for insulin made from recombinant DNA tech that has been around since the '70's like the article mentions.
The wonders of modern science. Pharmaceutical companies use recombinant DNA tech to make a drug cheaper to make but more expensive for sick people to buy.
Ain't it grand?
The food religion says GMO is bad until one of them happens to need insulin and also happens to be allergic to "natural" cow insulin, then GMO produced humulin (secreted by a genetically modified e. coli bacterium to be chemically similar to human insulin) is a miracle.
And because tomatoes are delicious, we should all go eat a whole bunch of Atropa belladonna.
The GMO religion believes that every GMO is a good GMO. That no genetically modified organism can ever possibly hurt you, so you must not be allowed to know which foods are from GMOs. They've never heard about NewLeaf Potatoes or LibertyLink Rice.
You know the difference between GMO produced humulin and GMO produced food? GMO produced medicines are labeled. You know what else is different about them? The drug manufacturers who use GMOs have done a good job of marketing their products and the makers of Agent Orange have done a lousy job of marketing their products. Maybe if they used some of the money they spend lobbying congress to pass industry-friendly laws to market GMO foods to consumers, they might be able to sell people that genetically modified foods have worthwhile benefits.
Consumers don't care if their bread is made from Calingiri or Ytipi.
But consumers DO care if their food is made from GMOs, so just put a label on it.
Outside of GMOs, what do you normally think of companies that make decisions for consumers? Maybe Samsung doesn't think you need to know what kind of processor is in your cell phone, because well, it's pretty much the same, and you probably won't notice the difference. How about if a company that sells socks doesn't think you need to know if the socks you buy are really 100% cotton or a 60-40 blend of cotton and polyester? What if the company doesn't think you need to know if the socks in the package or green or brown?
Remember, it's consumers who are paying the bills. They're the ones paying for the GMOs, and for all the research and for the marketing and press releases like the one in the article and for the high-paid lobbyists that are working to thwart their preferences. In most things, the person who's paying the bills gets to decide. The fact that you don't think consumers need to know something doesn't mean you get to decide whether they get to know something.
Just because you want to know something that is not worth including on a label doesn't mean they are hiding anything.
No, the "hiding" part comes when you lobby congress to make sure no state can pass a labeling law.
Does it make anyone else uncomfortable that this story about industrial networks being vulnerable to cyberattacks follows immediately after a story about robotic surgeons?
How will we know the robotic surgeons have installed the most recent security updates? Will they be WiFi enabled so the teenager sitting in the hospital cafeteria can use them to play Operation and try to light up my nose while trying to take out my funny bone?
That's cute. You think that actual benefits of GMOs mean anything to the people listening to all the FUD that gets spread about them.
And you think that hiding the foods' provenance is the way to make people stop believing the FUD? That's very interesting.
Because when someone tells me I'm not allowed to know something about a product I'm buying, it immediately endears me to the company hiding the information.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
