Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

The FDA sucks

profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/aquaadvantage-genetically-modified-salmon-no-threat_n_2347757.html


Lets just screw with every piece of food we eat, and see what happens in the end.
Dec 27 2012 1:34PM
3 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
Click for larger image
Dec 27 2012 1:37PM
0 0
profile picture
ILLinoisance
Posts: 3527 - Karma: 5,398
inb4 the genetically modified salmon are linked to cancer in the future.
Dec 27 2012 1:37PM
0 0
profile picture
BMB
Posts: 3138 - Karma: 232
I agree mostly with OP, but how about that Logan Tittle in that video. Lol
Dec 27 2012 1:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Miomo
Posts: 4302 - Karma: 14,133
I don't understand how it wouldn't affect the natural population. The fish grow faster and become larger, thus competing with the other salmon for resources.
Dec 27 2012 1:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Dealgood
Posts: 2587 - Karma: 1,352
Oh, it most likely will.

The problems with GMOs is an epitomizing example of tampering with nature in the name of engineering human convenience. Historically, it hasn't worked out too well.

The FDA has a long standing history of being sort of weak-sauce. It doesn't exercise its power particularly effectively and is often stonewalled by the "fourth arm of government" housed over on K-Street. (FYI: that's where many lobbying groups/firms reside in DC.)

Pizza... is a... vegetable?

I think it's funny, in a sad, ironic way. Oftentimes our efforts to control nature from everything from the blithe introduction of new species (e.g. Chinese Chestnuts destroying one of the NE's most important trees, the American Chestnut), environmental engineering (e.g. Snake, Missippi, Arkansas damming projects and the general urban plan of LA), and food production (e.g. GMOs, industrial farming.)

These are often nobly minded endeavors but they approach the problem with incomplete understanding and often find themselves in serious catch-22s where the solutions have more devastating potentialities than the original issue.
Dec 27 2012 1:57PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
Also this is after just about everything you can eat being GMO these days in someway. Humans saying, we're genius we can do this and that to change everything from being natural. We have no idea what the long term effects are but we're fine with all these parts of our food source being genetically modified. I mean, you eat food every day, all year long. If there's any negative effects, it probably won't be a minor deal.

So many cases where they will fight to protect the companies from having to label their foods as GMO. Those same companies will spend a ton of money to sue companies for labeling their foods as GMO free.

It's cliche but C.R.E.A.M. That's why the gov does so much for the groups with a ton of money to lobby and doesn't really care that much about the individual unless it's going to keep them from getting reelected.

If there was a REAL environmental movement I feel like this shit wouldn't stand.
Dec 27 2012 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11954 - Karma: 12,298
I am 100% against GMO's. Look at Monsanto. They were able to put a patent on their genetically modified soybeans which has crushed local business and kept farmers from recycling their own seed. It is fucked up that a corporation can do that. It encourages a monopoly on the market, let only the environmental factors that can be attributed to doing it.
Dec 27 2012 2:12PM
0 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10630 - Karma: 7,456
yeahhh i like my salmon unfucked with.
Dec 27 2012 2:14PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
Exactly. I was almost going to bump the thread and put this in since it's a similar discussion but decided to make a new thread.

The revolving door is insane.

The fact that people blindly believe that the government will always have their best interests in mind is ridiculous.

Fuck Monsanto. Completely disgusting barely scratches the surface.
Dec 27 2012 2:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Dealgood
Posts: 2587 - Karma: 1,352
I agree with you in many ways.

But, look at California. They were poised to pass a bill forcing labeling of GMOs. But, in the final weeks of the campaign a group of companies outspent the enviro groups massively, dumping over $40,000,000 into  a public persuasion campaign.

Even though public opinion polls indicated the labeling bill would pass handedly, the spending paid off and the bill never got passed.

I think the problem with the environmental movement is very layered.

Its methods in the past have been failed to galvanize large sectors of the populations because they have been unable to get rid of the "anti-progress" "ignorant hippie" "anti-economy" "reversion to agrarian culture" stereotypes.

Further, I feel that our culture at large doesn't collectively share in the deeper myth, lore, attraction to wilderness that was the original impetus to protect natural resources. It's different on NS, many of us understand that the protection of the natural world is essential to our sport and sense of balance. But as people continue to become detached from the natural world or just end up being fun-hogs boating around Lake Powell and don't understand what they're enjoying... well, we'll never end up protecting the planet. Particularly in the western world where our wilderness ethos has largely been fueled by exploration followed quickly by harvesting resources.
Dec 27 2012 2:21PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
I meant more with this "environmental" movement we have. Everyone's going "green". If you buy some carbon write offs and share some photos on facebook you're saving the planet.


At the same time those people don't care about cutting down trees, polluting the oceans, or shit like this.

As far as what you're saying I agree. That's why I was saying CREAM. Even though many people want to know whats in there foods the companies with the $$$ don't want it so it doesn't happen, and that's fucked.


I agree. with the bottom I guess to. I sort of disagree with the middle. I feel like that's part of the problem but you also have a public that only gets one side of the story and many times it isn't stories about things like these. The news will make a big deal about nothing, but then totally blow on some of these major issues. Not saying it's never been covered but it just doesn't seem to really get attention.

In the end we're probably fucked. We're doing so much shit these days. I wonder what will take us out, disease, technology, or war.(or other things)
Dec 27 2012 2:34PM
0 0
profile picture
thenightman
Posts: 766 - Karma: 132
I would sail my skin boat to Logan Tittle's tuna town
Dec 27 2012 2:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Dealgood
Posts: 2587 - Karma: 1,352
Precisely.

I think one of the best metaphors to help understand the problem is a simple one:

The Green Shopping Bag.

Many of us have the green shopping bags, I do too. But there's a weird irony in the way they're used. People walk around toting them as a symbol of their commitment to the planet. But the green shopping bag fails to approach the actual problem of consumption. In that way, it justifies patterns of consumption. Essentially, gilding consumption as justifiable if there are elements (e.g. shopping bag) that indicate a commitment to change.

I think people too easily fall for this short-circuited reasoning.

As long as we have implements that suggest "green" then everything we doing inherits a green I love the Earth! It's often called greenwashing. Aesthetic attempts at curbing a problem without enacting real change.
Dec 27 2012 2:47PM
0 0
profile picture
howlongcanausern
Posts: 4982 - Karma: 1,737
>obama appoints monsanto CEO in top-tier position at the FDA
>people in america more concerned about what they eat
>people still vote for obama

oh, liberals.
Dec 27 2012 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
Can't tell if joking or
Dec 27 2012 3:09PM
0 0
profile picture
accualyisdolan
Posts: 3295 - Karma: -192
The FDA does suck but gmos are not linked to cancer or anything of the sort
Dec 27 2012 3:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Abu_Hajaar
Posts: 2749 - Karma: 3,907
They way I see it nature has survived for millions of years without us tampering with its genetics, so why start now?
Dec 27 2012 3:13PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
How can we be so sure of all the long term effects with such short term knowledge?

Why do we feel such a need to fuck with nature so much anyway? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Food was fine the way it was.
Dec 27 2012 3:16PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
Dub post but I forgot to mention. If people want to do it, whatever, but it should be labeled as such. You should be able to know what's in your foods. I mean even if you don't have to label that it's in your foods, at least let people label that it ISN'T in their foods.

And if people feel like they're losing money because people don't want GMO foods, then too bad. They should have thought of that when building their business. Even if it's totally ignorant and making something out of nothing, people should be able to make their own choices based the information. If there's nothing wrong with it, they shouldn't need to hide it.
Dec 27 2012 3:19PM
0 0
profile picture
e.wait
Posts: 869 - Karma: 1,954
Excuse the pun, but this whole salmon ordeal does seem fishy. I fail to see how it won't have an affect on the ecosystem. However, I don't see too many problems with GMOs as far as produce goes, granted there are some exceptions. I think people are way too quick to write off anything genetically modified as unnatural and harmful.
Dec 27 2012 3:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Dealgood
Posts: 2587 - Karma: 1,352
True, Obama has been truthfully criticized for a bait and switch regarding his stance on GMOs and food production. His 2008 campaign excited a lot of people because he seemed to passionately care and understand that, like Abortionator pointed out, barring effects people deserve to know what's in their foods.

I don't think it's just people in American that are concerned about what they eat. That's a, how do I say, global issue.

Of course a lot of people continued to vote to Obama. You can't possibly argue that Romney's platform indicated any better protections for environmental causes and the labeling of GMOs. That would just be asinine.

Also, THERE IS NO REASON, IMO, that something like labeling food for what it is or even the environment should be a party issue. I understand that undercutting environmental causes is sometimes an unfortunate necessity, but insuring that our planet is able to sustain life over the (very) long term should not fall down party lines.
Dec 27 2012 3:27PM
0 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10630 - Karma: 7,456
as much as i agree with this statement, it can also be argued that we fucked it up by industrialization so we should try to fix it.
Dec 27 2012 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I also find it funny that people who eat farmed fish (i.e. chemical mush that has been died pink) are against GMOs. At that point you might as well already be eating that shit.
Dec 27 2012 8:59PM
0 0
profile picture
nagger
Posts: 1576 - Karma: 883
everything is linked to cancer. I don't even give a fuck anymore.
Dec 27 2012 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
grapejuice3000+
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 1,985
not relevant
[IMG]rainbowman.com/images/folkarthispanic/Rodriguez/hispaniclead.jpg[/IMG]
Dec 27 2012 9:55PM
0 0
profile picture
caucasian_chad
Posts: 4078 - Karma: 3,625
This. I don't think most people even really understand what a GMO is. I don't really see how it could pose a major health risk. The fish will only affect the natural system if they escape farms. The only concern I have about GMOs is the fact that people now hold copyrights on the food supply.
Dec 27 2012 11:15PM
0 0
profile picture
=M=
Posts: 50 - Karma: 16
Didn't read lol

#fuckmonsanto
Dec 27 2012 11:17PM
0 0
profile picture
JWoods
Posts: 2369 - Karma: 2,635
They shouldn't release them into the wild but as hatchery fish, why the hell not. Everything gives us cancer at least fish tastes good
Dec 28 2012 1:33AM
0 0
profile picture
B.Aussie
Posts: 5852 - Karma: 4,531
It is inevitable that at some point they will find their way out into the wild and fuck up the ecosystem.
Dec 28 2012 2:01AM
0 0
profile picture
steezywannabeezy
Posts: 990 - Karma: 690
FDA should go back to blissful ignorance about LSD.
Dec 28 2012 2:19AM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
Are you serious? I don't understand why anyone would write off something unnatural as unnatural. The harm is another discussion, but clearly it isn't natural.
Dec 28 2012 6:19AM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51666 - Karma: 162,572
We're saying we know everything, and fucking around with every facet of nature. We're basically saying we're smarter than nature, it just about every aspect. Instead of letting things be we need to tinker around and try to fix everything with our little chemistry set.

And more than anything, most people are just arguing that they have the right to know what's in there foods. It's a little bit ridiculous when you get sued simply for telling people what's in/not it the food you produce because some giant company feels it will hurt their sales.

Also I agree with the last part because having patents on food, is a pretty big deal. When you have sketchy corporations with a ton of money, you don't stand a chance as a small farmer. If they want to shut you down, they will. IT doesn't matter if you're right.

I just don't think we know enough about any of this stuff in the long term to so quickly deem it all safe. I mean food is something you eat every day. It's not like some risk that you might run into a couple times a year.

I just don't agree with fucking with nature. And if you're going to argue to do it, whatever. But at least let small farms label their products how they want.

The government shouldn't be this deeply intertwined in every part of society. Not even remotely surprised so many of these agencies are corrupt.
Dec 28 2012 6:24AM
0 0
profile picture
PeppermillReno
Posts: 4807 - Karma: -646
Nature usually gets shit right.


But I think most of the corn we eat is some special genetically engineered strain isn't it?

I think Salmon is cheap enough that this is uncalled for. And the time and engineering could go into creating imitation salmon like imitation crab.

If this is OK there should be genetically engineered humans. But we say no to that don't we?
Dec 28 2012 6:41AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)