mtv ceased being a music channel back in the 80s! -- j
.

Complete agreement.
Private companies may let the profit motive influence decisions. Individuals may allow prejudices biases family and career enhancement to influence decisions. Some of us in our younger days thought that governments and their agencies would be impartial. Learning is not always pleasant.

I'm not saying GMO is harmful or shouldn't be done (I commend human ingenuity) however I do worry about human beings, their motives, and their intentions particularly when things are done by a few without the knowledge of the many they are, in this case, feeding. Things may have changed across the spectrum - leftists haven't and neither have those, well intentioned or otherwise, desirous of power.

Though the thought is valid-
What is this Nature? Surely just a description for the world without, or with, humans, it does not have intentions.
Living things change over generations even to the extent that they become classifiable as other living things. What you buy today in the fruit and veg section of the market is different from things of the same name centuries ago. They have all evolved. Up till a few decades ago this was done by selection from existing populations, now humans have faster techniques.
Humans have changed, farm animals have changed.
Down with sustainability - I want improvement.

Personally I have nothing against GMO foods. My concerns stem from who's tinkering with anything I consume and what are the adding to or taking away from what I consume. Further, the engineering could eventually be misused, without our consent, to medicate or inoculate people or, darkly, cull earths population (remarkably, one plank of leftist ideology).

Yeah, its my sinister sci-fi authors mind. I just want an apple, banana, or ear of corn the way nature intended without man's kind of interference.

As a tree farmer we look to increased yields for our crops as well. But from the biology side remember altering a gene only changes the proteins made from the DNA. What is the missing side in some cases is that the access to the DNA is controlled by the Nuclear Pores in the Nuclear membrane so only allowed molecules can get to the DNA to change it. So we are not our genes which are only passed on from somatic cells not body cells. Keep at it. Good stuff.

People have been eating GMOs for centuries. The alterations done over time, the old fashioned way. All the nonsense is just another way to drive us backward in time so that the persons-who-know-what's-best-for-us can have more control.

Good one!
I'm thinking of going into production making aluminum helmets. If I buy a roll of Reynolds Wrap, I think I could make 10 or so and charge $10 each plus shipping.

I love GMO. It's delicious. I don't like glyphosates, though. I still struggle with that part a bit.

They are good at messing with you.

When I kill the ones I eat (usually those that elect to be chosen due to bad behavior) I have a butcher that comes and kills them in my field, cleans them out and takes the rest to his butcher shop. I had one heifer that was always getting out breaking fences and she was the target for my freezer. She would jump my fence, run over a 20-acre field jump that fence and then slow down a bit every time he would come up.

She survived for three years this way and I still had this pain in the rump cow, so on the third year that I wanted her dead, I pulled out my 7mm WSM 15 minutes before the butcher was going to get there, dropped her and bleed her out and it worked out wonderful.

The best stakes you will ever enjoy are from an aminal that was a pain in the butt for you for a year or two, even more so when it is three.

So they may just be messing with me!

I read it and it to me was just the opposite and it's not the first article I've read in this vane. It's true, there are many time tested methods that work better naturally than doing things forcibly.

Yup that is it.

If you look back at history a lot of our agriculture has been genetically modified throughout the years. I don't mean just Monsanto, it is called grafting, it is how we got better apples and potatoes. A lot of agricultural products have modified over time long before Monsanto was around, yes, it made it so that you could use more of their products and yes, they are very protective of their products but more people are able to get foods and products that they would not otherwise have available.

I meant that the "scare" of asbestos tiles affects many more than you would assume...not that they directly affect people.

There is no doubt that asbestos is bad, but do the asbestos tiles in an old office offer that much of a health hazard? It does to many more than you would assume. How about mercury? We have lighting, thermostats, thermometers...thousands of things with mercury, but how many have actually died from exposure to these things?

Let's not forget that asbestos, lead, mercury, etc. are ALL present in nature. They are all around us, yet we continue to survive.

The scare is irrational when the mere word is enough to create panic and this is what we are seeing, now days.

What is the brand name? I assume it is s Roundup ready.

Businesses do not have any rights at all, only people do. That means all people, consumers and people who own businesses, have the exact same rights. A business is a separate entity invented by people to structure their cooperative efforts. If you assign any rights to the business entity, then you are denying some right from some group of people. The DARK Act is a perfect example. Your "right to attempt to seek the knowledge" about your food is infringed if that knowledge has been blocked by legislation giving rights to the business.

That's great!
I'm now looking forward to the day when we can eat food that actually wants to be eaten, as proposed by Douglas Adams in HItchhiker's Guide ...
"Are you going to tell me," said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?"
"Well," said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am."

You have no "right to know." You have the right to attempt to seek the knowledge, but not to demand someone tells you something. Just like the freedom of speech does not mean someone has to equip you with a stage and microphone, or the right to self defense means someone has to give you a gun, your right to seek knowledge does not mean someone has to give it to you.

Also, what are businesses but made up of people? They aren't magic entities with different, special, or less rights. One cannot gain or lose rights by voluntarily cooperating with others.

An individual absolutely has a right to privacy and to proprietary information. Secret ingredients, software processes, makeup of alloys, and processing procedures are all things that you cannot ethically use force to make someone tel you. If they refuse to tell you, you have the right to choose not to buy their product.

Rights do not conflict. If you think you have a right to something and it requires someone else to take action in order for you to exercise or realize that right, then that is not a right at all. In reality, you would be violating the right to self determination of the person whom you are demanding take action.

So, how applicable is the old adage "You are what you eat" in this matter?

"fascist and anti-liberty"??
Liberty in my world applies only to individuals (consumers right to know what they eat).
Liberty does not apply to business ("right" to hide the source of ingredients).

Two major problems with this kind of study:

(1) Short time span: If a pathogen does not express measurable effects in the short term, this is no guarantee that it won't trigger problems in the longer term.

(2) Genetic engineering (GE) is not "a technology" but a whole class of technologies. This study is like doing a study into the health impacts of cannabis, and concluding from that that ALL drugs have low health risks, and therefore crystal meth is safe to use recreationally.

As such, this reminds me of the old whitewashing "studies" commissioned by the tobacco industry