Apparently you don't know the meaning of the words "for fun".
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
And calling them something that sounds scary to the ignorant, while at the same time leaving out other information that could be relevant
If it "sounds scary to the ignorant" then isn't it just a matter of marketing?
Why do you think the chemical industry spends billions on keeping GMO labels off of food instead of using that money to market their "completely safe and delicious" genetically modified plants to consumers? Why are they so heavily invested in keeping a simple fact from their consumers instead of in teaching them how healthy they are for their kids?
There are thousands of things the consumer might want to know but they can't all possibly fit on the package.
And yet, there is one thing - one single bit of information - that the chemical industry has spent billions making sure never gets on that package.
I've got concerns about the corporate influence or the monoculture that GMOs create. But the health concerns are bogus.
I've already stated that the health concerns are not what's driving my opinion on GMOs.
What's the difference between a GMO and non-GMO food? The GMO food can potentially create a slightly different set of chemicals. We can assess it's safety the same way we assess the safety of any piece of food, look at what those chemicals are and see if any are dangerous.
Shall we have a little conversation about which chemicals "Science" has told us are completely safe? And especially the FDA? You really wanna go down that road with me?
Or my personal favorite in the category of "Scientist who tells you something is completely safe but runs away when it comes near him":
About 10 years ago I worked on simulating a rocket with electric turbopumps for fun. The concept was the exact same as theirs - minimize the number of parts that have to operate in harsh environments to reduce cost, maintenance and risk of failure. You don't even need any penetrations of the propellant lines, the rotor of the electric motor is the compressor itself.
I have no clue whether the design will actually be practical. But it's certainly not new. I'm sure I'm not the first person that this concept occurred to.
I made no claims about my own intelligence or angst; only a throwaway joking comment about the self-assessed intelligence of the average Slashdotter.
Labeling should be about safety, not IP rights
Why? Every product I buy seems to have tons of label information about intellectual property rights. Why should food be any different?
Let me pick up some random item and see: OK, here's a package of DVD-Rs sitting on my desk. Let's see....one, two, three, four, five, six...I count six different indications of people claiming intellectual property rights over some aspect of the name, brand or technology involved in the production of these DVD-Rs. And I didn't even look at the fine print. And nothing on this label has any reference to or association with "safety".
It seems like the ONLY products that seek to hide their intellectual property claims are GMO foods. And that, my friend is suspicious.
They talk about how they need to regularly pick up and relaunch balloons when they come down. I don't see why they would need to design the balloons without any sort of reinflation system. The leak rate is tiny, right? So:
1. A little more solar panel area than they already need.
2. Hydrogen filled instead of helium filled.
3. Tiny container of sulfuric acid (hygroscopic - self-dilutes down to a given concentration with atmospheric moisture)
4. Electrolysis cell (sulfuric acid is used as the electrolyte in some types of electrolysis cells).
Problem solved. Sulfuric acid draws moisture from the air, and during the day the solar power electrolyzes it it to produce a minute trickle of hydrogen into the balloon, which replaces the minute trickle that leaks out. Your balloon's lifespan is now as long as your electronics and envelope last.
Labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with 'Evolution is just a theory.'
No, labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with the name of the author, name of the publisher and copyright date.
If it objectively matters, it gets labeled,
Have you seen the labels on products in the store? You think everything on that label is objective?
And what does "objectively matters" even mean? Are you saying that genetically modified food products are exactly the same as non genetically modified food products?
If so, how can they be patented?
are you against music because people can copyright songs?
Songs' copyrights are clearly labeled. I can see who wrote it, who produced it, and who holds the copyright.
there is science
then there are corporations
I don't know if you've ever seen the agriculture science department of the schools that have done GMO research, but the distinction between corporations and science gets pretty blurred. Just look at the names on the buildings, for starters.
Name just 1 country that doesn't have hungry people
OK, you're right. I could go for a little something right now in fact.
The point is that GMO foods are no closer to helping world hunger today than they were 20 years ago. Maybe in large part because history has taught people to be wary of someone with the last name, "Inc" showing up on their doorstep telling them they're going to solve their biggest problems if they just sign this little piece of paper.
Just ask the people of Bhopal.
Then maybe we should change the GMO laws so that someone other than a multinational can afford to get a GMO plant certified as safe to eat.
Or change the laws to not allow food organisms to be covered by intellectual property laws beyond the brand name.
On the other hand, the race of the people working in the factory producing those socks is not an information that consumers must know, regardles of what some people feel about it.
This is another desperate tactic of the GMO sockpuppets. Believe it or not, they try to paint people who object to chemical companies owning the IP rights to basic foodstuffs as somehow racist.
That's how you know they don't have a real argument. They bounce from one ad hominem to another, praying something sticks.