Bernie Sanders in 2020? Here is his long history with pseudoscience

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Breaking the law is not a right.

Perhaps not, but what if the law violated a person's rights? You speak of equality and inherent rights, what if the law denied due process, outlawed certain political speech, or legalized slavery? What if the law said, persons born on this side of an imaginary line have rights, and people born on the other side of that imaginary line don't.
Should we still blindly obey such laws?
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,955
6,796
126
Perhaps not, but what if the law violated a person's rights? You speak of equality and inherent rights, what if the law denied due process, outlawed certain political speech, or legalized slavery? What if the law said, persons born on this side of an imaginary line have rights, and people born on the other side of that imaginary line don't.
Should we still blindly obey such laws?
I see a big problem here. How do we know what laws are just and which are not. It seems that everybody who takes a stand on the issue one side or the other, is certain they are on the side of truth. The only folk with a real shot at this, I would say, would have to have a degree of self awareness to not be influenced by unconscious bias. I think that might be rather rare but a possibility. I don’t think the notion of inalienable appeared out of thin air.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
If very few foods are gmo then requiring a label stating as much would be a benefit to those non org food producers as the claims being made against them would be debunked, instantly by anyone capable of reading a label;)

Where did he say that few foods are GMO? In fact literally all the food you eat should be considered GMO as humans have manipulated all of it at some point. It'll just end up like the California cancer warning, where it will be meaningless because it can apply to basically everything.

You're being an idiot on this. Do you want your produce covered in giant stickers that spell all that out? I hope you realize that will just lead to even more confusions as they're going to have to explain what manner of GMO it is (I hope you realize there's a wide variety of manners that you can genetically modify things).

Have you looked at milk labels recently? Notice how everything includes a "not from cows with rBST hormone" and then it has to include a waiver pointing that no science supports that matters? Do you want "this is GMO, but science doesn't support that GMO is harmful so this is pointless"?

Plus, there's voluntary methods. There's tons of shit that has "non-GMO" or "GMO free", no regulation required. There's even organizations that will validate that ("Non-GMO Project").

I hope you realize GMO has fucking nothing to do with taste (or realize that many of these grown for taste were genetically modified as well; you know that, right? That many varieties were deliberately bred for their taste qualities). The bigger issue is that its providing year round access to fresh produce, which means non-optimal picking, and growing regardless of climate (with it tending to have to come from farther away, meaning more time between when its picked and when you'd get it, which is a big factor and why stuff is often picked non-optimally as there's a shelf life). Would you prefer to not have access to them outside of their "natural growing season", and then be limited to what amount was grown in your region?

If you want tastier food, you should be growing your own and/or buying locally and in season. GMO stickers won't do a damn thing to provide you with better tasting produce. It will also likely inhibit growers from being able to modify for flavor. Furthermore, the anti-GMO movement that you're helping foster (no matter how you try to spin it, I can see through your bullshit argument, you're a nutter and its clear with how you keep trying to push this nonsense; I bet you would not be able to tell the difference in taste between GMO and non-GMO that was grown under the same circumstances and you had the same access to - so same route to you; this was scientifically researched and the natural variance among a population was higher than any reliably shown difference between GMO and non-GMO in nutritional value and taste), will prevent us from modifying out things that don't help (for instance, say huge factory labs of produce take off, where there's no need for pesticides - most of which the plants have naturally developed themselves by the way - means we wouldn't be able to remove ones that have no benefit and are possibly even responsible for people's allergies to them; you are aware of how horrible some food allergies like peanut ones can be right? You do know that they've been working on developing peanuts that wouldn't trigger those allergies, right? Are you aware that potatoes used to be inedible, they're a member of the nightshade family, yes the one that the poison is sourced from; they naturally developed their own genetic modification that led to them being edible? Oh and by the way the nightshade family includes tomatoes, many types of peppers, egg plants. I hope you haven't been enjoying all the crazy variety in peppers from recent years as those are due to genetic modification, but like you said, it hasn't helped make for better tasting produce so guess we should make sure people are aware of them being GMO so they can be sure to avoid them and their not good flavor. Do I need to keep going on the ways that the food you know and love today was likely much less tasty if not outright inedible, prior to humans manipulating their genetics?).

Oh and I hope you don't mind significantly increased food costs, so that even when your "as nature intended" produce is in season, that it'll cost a lot more. I'm sure that won't lead to lower quality stuff getting punted to highly processed foods, which will make up more of people's diets because of the lower availability of fresh foods due to anti-GMO sentiment. Oh and have fun if there's some breakout of disease (not sure if you've heard how the bananas today are not the same as the bananas from decades past? Through the same science that gives us GMO, they can potentially bring back those bananas), or sustained drought (they're modifying some crops so that they can grow in salt water such that we could grow them along the coasts).
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
Most of those arose through good-old-fashioned selection methods (or radiation bombardment) with sellers selecting for shelf life and shipability (e.g., tomatoes - of which there are no GMO variants on the market) (only a handful of vegetables are available as GMO variants, and the few genes that are used tend to be commercially-oriented)

You're of course talking strictly of the CRISPR modified (or other explicit gene splicing) ones, that had to be ok'ed by government regulators before they could be sold for consumption. The thing is, that's not the only manner of genetic modification, even if that is currently that which requires designation as a GMO. (Not saying you didn't know this, just that, well the overall argument is ignoring how we've been genetically modifying things in other manners for millennia.)
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,623
15,186
136
You're of course talking strictly of the CRISPR modified (or other explicit gene splicing) ones, that had to be ok'ed by government regulators before they could be sold for consumption. The thing is, that's not the only manner of genetic modification, even if that is currently that which requires designation as a GMO. (Not saying you didn't know this, just that, well the overall argument is ignoring how we've been genetically modifying things in other manners for millennia.)
As far as I know, CRISPR-modified crops are still only in development. The traditional type of GMO either used retroviruses to insert genes or they shot the DNA into single cells of a seed and selected the ones that best took up the desired gene; both fell under various regulations due to genes often being borrowed from bacteria. Ironically, CRISPR modification may or may not fall under existing regulations, depending on the modification performed.

With my quoted post, I was specifically talking about other ways in which we've "modified" stuff prior to "GMO"-technology, specifically selective breeding, hybridization breeding, or radiation, three methods that didn't require government approval and have provided us with most of our produce today, and why some of the produce might look good but be flavorless overall (i.e., was not an effect of "GMOs").
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,043
136
Not sure what kind of answer you are wanting? Rather confused.




Breaking the law is not a right.


Er, so now you are accepting the law overrides 'rights'? Previously you seemed to be using 'rights' as a basis and justification for laws, now you are reversing that and declaring that rights depend on laws. This seems a bit confused to me.

To be clear - which are you claiming to be primary, laws or rights?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,523
20,163
146
I’m really sorry that my request for GNO labeling has threatened your fundamentalist faith in the bio-tech religion. I intend to flagellate myself later to atone for my sin. I just have this thing about demonizing demonizes demonizing me for being a demonizer. Oh, and fuck off.

So. You can't prove GMOs are harmful so labeling based on that is pointless. NOW you want it labeled for you because you just don't like it, or some idea of a company that produced it or what-the-ever-loving-fuck-ever.

Well, there we go, you want the exact source of everything labeled so you can avoid things made by people you don't like..

I want ANYTHING containing corn from farmer John Brown labeled because he's an asshole and I don't like him. My wishes should be law because my irrational feeling based wishes should be a burden unto everyone else.

This is what you sound like. And no. It's still not rational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: s0me0nesmind1

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,955
6,796
126
So. You can't prove GMOs are harmful so labeling based on that is pointless. NOW you want it labeled for you because you just don't like it, or some idea of a company that produced it or what-the-ever-loving-fuck-ever.

Well, there we go, you want the exact source of everything labeled so you can avoid things made by people you don't like..

I want ANYTHING containing corn from farmer John Brown labeled because he's an asshole and I don't like him. My wishes should be law because my irrational feeling based wishes should be a burden unto everyone else.

This is what you sound like. And no. It's still not rational.
I sound like that to you because I offended your notion of rational. Your basically saying, according to your line of reasoning, that people have no right to know if their food contains pig shit. You and you alone decides what others should know or not know about what they eat. You are authoritarian blind and don’t see it because of arrogant self certainty.

I also avoid meats cured with nitrates and they are safe.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,523
20,163
146
I sound like that to you because I offended your notion of rational. Your basically saying, according to your line of reasoning, that people have no right to know if their food contains pig shit. You and you alone decides what others should know or not know about what they eat. You are authoritarian blind and don’t see it because of arrogant self certainty.

I also avoid meats cured with nitrates and they are safe.

Pig shit would be harmful.

considering the fact that GM corn is no different from any other corn in any meaningful way that can affect health or dietary concerns, there is no reason to BY LAW MANDATE we label it separately anymore than there is a reason to label corn from Farmer Brown because I hate Farmer Brown (that little fucker).

Nitrates actually can have a negative health effect on some people with pre-existing heart conditions and also serve as a warning not to burn or over cooks foods with them so as not to create nitrosamines. That's why they're labeled.

And no, not me and me alone. Rational people who see no need to labels foods for political reasons rather than health and dietary reasons.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Moonbeam

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,955
6,796
126
Amused: Pig shit would be harmful.

M: Where did that ridiculous idea come from. A product of your imagination? It can be rendered perfectly harmless and in fact, there is no reason to think that one day we won't will be able to pump it out by the tons as a food additive via GMO engineered and absolutely sterile lab grown pig intestines. No labeling should be required.

A: considering the fact that GM corn is no different from any other corn in any meaningful way that can affect health or dietary concerns, there is no reason to BY LAW MANDATE we label it separately anymore than there is a reason to label corn from Farmer Brown because I hate Farmer Brown (that little fucker).

M: It's no surprise you say this. You are stuck in the same old groove you have been stuck in from the beginning of this conversation, that the only opposition to GMO's are imaginary health concerns. But my concerns are philosophically related to moral values I hold that insist I chose nonGMO foods as opposed to foods modified in that way. I understand the scientific safety issue perfectly. My choice is unrelated to that.

A: Nitrates actually can have a negative health effect on some people with pre-existing heart conditions and also serve as a warning not to burn or over cooks foods with them so as not to create nitrosamines. That's why they're labeled.

M: A revolution in food production occurred with the introduction of pesticides, and they were once considered a wonderful scientific revolution. Then we got Silent Spring.

A: And no, not me and me alone. Rational people who see no need to labels foods for political reasons rather than health and dietary reasons.[/QUOTE]

M: Eating GMO's affect my joy in living up to my own moral beliefs. Without labels I can't know I am living up to what I believe. I have dietary, political, and philosophical objections to eating GMO foods and all I want is a label so I can avoid them. I live on a far superior ethical plane than you do and all I want is to not be dragged down my arrogant blind moral dwarfs like yourself. You're the kind of prick that would force a Jew to eat bacon. Who needs pork on a label. Who the fuck needs labels. Isn't the purpose of a label to identify what it is you want to buy or avoid not whether it is safe or not to eat. Your ideological absurdity here is astounding. What sort of moral prick wants to insist that nobody knows if their food is GMO or not if there are people for whatever fucking reason want to know that. You ought to join the Trump defense team.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Pig shit would be harmful.

considering the fact that GM corn is no different from any other corn in any meaningful way that can affect health or dietary concerns, there is no reason to BY LAW MANDATE we label it separately anymore than there is a reason to label corn from Farmer Brown because I hate Farmer Brown (that little fucker).

Nitrates actually can have a negative health effect on some people with pre-existing heart conditions and also serve as a warning not to burn or over cooks foods with them so as not to create nitrosamines. That's why they're labeled.

And no, not me and me alone. Rational people who see no need to labels foods for political reasons rather than health and dietary reasons.

Yeh, but the frankenfood woo is out there, like anti-vax woo. Sometimes I think Brandolini's law is too optimistic.

I think the law of unintended consequences looms large in all this nonetheless. The planting of roundup ready crops may well wipe out monarch butterflies, for example, because there is no such thing as roundup ready milkweed for their larvae to eat.

OTOH, disease & pest resistance in GMO seeds can actually promote organic methods of farming. As it stands, the organic food crowd would flip their shit over that, I'm sure.
 

Herr Kutz

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,545
242
106
Democrats will never again field a straight white male on the presidential ticket which makes Bernie “unqualified”.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,742
17,396
136
Your question is stupid. You thought that you could find information from a label that was not there. Don't get mad at him because of your ignorance.

You should probably do more reading and less replying, it's better for everyone to think you are an idiot than to prove to everyone you are.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
You should probably do more reading and less replying, it's better for everyone to think you are an idiot than to prove to everyone you are.

Did you not say you support the GMO label because you thought it would help you avoid foods that were modified and lost taste? Did you not misunderstand what GMO was?
 
  • Like
Reactions: s0me0nesmind1

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
The real reason behind GMO is profit and control of markets as well as resistance to poisons like Roundup, not to feed humanity or some other altruistic bullshit Monsanto and others like them promote.

Roundup Ready crops are crops genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. Roundup is the brand-name of a herbicide produced by Monsanto. Its active ingredient glyphosate was patented in the 1970s. Roundup is widely used by both people in their backyards and farmers in their fields. Roundup Ready plants are resistant to Roundup, so farmers that plant these seeds must use Roundup to keep other weeds from growing in their fields.


The first Roundup Ready crops were developed in 1996, with the introduction of genetically modified soybeans that are resistant to Roundup. These crops were developed to help farmers control weeds. Because the new crops are resistant to Roundup, the herbicide can be used in the fields to eliminate unwanted foliage. Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum, with wheat under development.


Roundup Ready crop seeds have notoriously been referred to as "terminator seeds." This is because the crops produced from Roundup Ready seeds are sterile. Each year, farmers must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto. This means that farmers cannot reuse their best seed. Read more about terminator seeds.


To read more about genetically modified food from a few different perspectives, check out the key players page. To learn more about the impact of Roundup Ready seeds, check out the impact page.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/
In the history of agriculture, no technology has been adopted so quickly and completely as genetically engineered crops. Particularly useful crops are ones that have an engineered resistance to herbicides. These crops have alluring benefits: reduced crop damage when herbicides are sprayed, easier weed management, and even the potential for environmental benefits. So what’s the problem? Herbicide-resistant weeds. The benefits gleaned from these crops begin to disappear as these superweeds gain prominence on farmlands across world. However, to fully appreciate the current predicament, it is necessary to understand what led to the difficult problem of superweeds. And it starts with the most common herbicide used in agriculture: Roundup.


Rise of superweeds, return to old farming practices
Unfortunately, these studies had one major problem: the croplands they created for their experiments were rather small [1]. Industrial croplands, on the other hand, can be on the order of a million acres. Therefore, even though developing resistance to Roundup is not probable for any individual plant, there are a massive number of weeds growing that have the potential to resist its poison: this significantly increases the probability of at least some Roundup resistant weeds developing [7,8].


We do not have to go into detail about probabilities to assess whether superweeds will form – we already have confirmation that they have. Twenty-four cases of glyphosate-resistant weeds have been reported around the world, 14 of which are in the United States [7]. Farmers are now back to tilling their farmlands and spraying more toxic herbicides in addition to Roundup in an attempt to control the superweeds spreading across their farmlands [8].


Additionally, because many of the superweeds can still be killed by glyphosate if it is sprayed in higher doses, many farmers are spraying more glyphosate and other herbicides to combat the weeds. The attraction is that this is much less labor intensive than plowing and handpicking weeds out of the soil [9]. Consequently, a report drawing from US Department of Agriculture data on pesticide use estimated that an additional 383 million pounds of herbicides have been used than if Roundup Ready crops were never introduced [6]. This increased use of glyphosate heightens the likelihood of higher concentrations of the chemical running off into nearby ecosystems. At these elevated concentrations, glyphosate may be capable of causing environmental damage.


Furthermore, the practices of tilling and increased herbicide use are similar to what they were 20 years ago (with even more reported herbicide use). This is both an environmental problem and a financial problem for farmers who must now revert to spending more on herbicides and labor costs to till the land [10].
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
The real reason behind GMO is profit and control of markets as well as resistance to poisons like Roundup, not to feed humanity or some other altruistic bullshit Monsanto and others like them promote.

Farmers voluntarily grow GMO crops for better yield. The end.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,043
136
Democrats will never again field a straight white male on the presidential ticket which makes Bernie “unqualified”.

So far they've fielded exactly one woman (not sure how many might have been gay, admittedly ) in their entire history. And one non-white guy.

Sounds as if you are drawing a trend-line based on just the two most recent data-points. Are you a climate-change denier, by any chance? That's the sort of statistical reasoning they use.

Though they do seem to have a lot more potential women candidates than they used to. Which increases the chances they'll find one that's better than either Hillary or Bernie. Which has got to be a good thing.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,043
136
Farmers voluntarily grow GMO crops for better yield. The end.

Yeah, because farmers are well-known for being entirely rational and altruistic and always considering the bigger picture for everything they do. In no way are they profit-hungry agri-businessmen. They've never fed scrapie-infected dead-sheep as feed to cattle and introduced prions into the human food-chain, in pursuit of greater profit, for example, never happened.

Seriously - I don't know about GMO either way, but that farmers choose to do something because it increases their profits doesn't make that thing beyond criticism.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Yeah, because farmers are well-known for being entirely rational and altruistic and always considering the bigger picture for everything they do. In no way are they profit-hungry agri-businessmen. They've never fed scrapie-infected dead-sheep as feed to cattle and introduced prions into the human food-chain, in pursuit of greater profit, for example, never happened.

Seriously - I don't know about GMO either way, but that farmers choose to do something because it increases their profits doesn't make that thing beyond criticism.

Which has nothing to do with increased crop yields.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,523
20,163
146
Yeah, because farmers are well-known for being entirely rational and altruistic and always considering the bigger picture for everything they do. In no way are they profit-hungry agri-businessmen. They've never fed scrapie-infected dead-sheep as feed to cattle and introduced prions into the human food-chain, in pursuit of greater profit, for example, never happened.

Seriously - I don't know about GMO either way, but that farmers choose to do something because it increases their profits doesn't make that thing beyond criticism.

Ya know what makes farmers more money?

HIGHER YIELDS.

FFS, this is beyond fucking stupid. If GMO crops were not producing more output per acre farmers would not be falling all over themselves to use it.

And yet they are.

I can go cherry pick an article that cherry picks statistics from a university too. But that wouldn't be real science, would it.

Meanwhile, the consensus on GMOs is stronger than the consensus on climate change, vaccines or tobacco:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html?utm_term=.a3087a2256ca

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-solid-gmo-scientific-consensus/


The TL;DR version
  • There is a scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is supported by the evidence.
  • There is a scientific consensus regarding the safety and productivity yields of GMO crops is supported by the evidence.
  • The vast majority of scientific experts in the field are part of each consensus.
  • If you are a denier about one, but not the other because the science supports one or another, you’re still a denier. But this is about the solid GMO scientific consensus, and it is solid–as solid as the consensus about evolution, climate change, vaccines, or gravity.


  • The authors’ meta-review provides the following conclusions:
    • GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%.
    • GM technology increased crop yields by 22%.
    • GM technology increased farmer profits by 68%.
    • Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,043
136
Ya know what makes farmers more money?

HIGHER YIELDS.

FFS, this is beyond fucking stupid. If GMO crops were not producing more output per acre farmers would not be falling all over themselves to use it.

And yet they are.

I can go cherry pick an article that cherry picks statistics from a university too. But that wouldn't be real science, would it.

Meanwhile, the consensus on GMOs is stronger than the consensus on climate change, vaccines or tobacco:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html?utm_term=.a3087a2256ca

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-solid-gmo-scientific-consensus/


The TL;DR version
  • There is a scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is supported by the evidence.
  • There is a scientific consensus regarding the safety and productivity yields of GMO crops is supported by the evidence.
  • The vast majority of scientific experts in the field are part of each consensus.
  • If you are a denier about one, but not the other because the science supports one or another, you’re still a denier. But this is about the solid GMO scientific consensus, and it is solid–as solid as the consensus about evolution, climate change, vaccines, or gravity.


  • The authors’ meta-review provides the following conclusions:
    • GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%.
    • GM technology increased crop yields by 22%.
    • GM technology increased farmer profits by 68%.
    • Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

I'm sure. But that's not relevant to what I said. My point is simply that the mere fact of farmers choosing to grow it doesn't, in itself, say anything about the pro-s and con-s of GMO. Farmers do all sorts of things to increase raw yeild and hence profits (in a rigged market, incidentally, where those profits are somwhat arbitrary in any case due to all the subsidies and price-supports). That on it's own doesn't prove anything either way. That's the sum total of my point, the rest of your comment is addressing points I didn't make.