Roundup (cancer causing substance) cases underway

[Rob Tucker]

Yeah, well... 280 posts and no closer to a conclusion.

[My 2 cents]

PaulW, your argument is that companies would naturally choose not to put negative things on their labels. Agreed. Are you saying that GMO, Glyphosate, etc. are bad things, and THAT'S why they don't want to put it on their labels, or is this an apples/oranges argument?

I'm going along with the assertion that GMO, Glyphosate, etc. are "making the world much better". Greatest innovations since cupcakes. If these things are so great it doesn't make sense that they don't want the world to know about them. Again, putting it on the labels voluntarily would quash the assertions that they are trying to hide something and that they had to be forced to do it.

The question remains unanswered.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by My 2 cents

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW

If it's voluntary then they don't have to and they choose not to. So what's the problem?
The problem of course is that the anti-GMO mob want to force their misguided opinions on others.

---

Another nice try, but still not answering my question. They choose not to. Why?

---

Wow. I didn't fail to answer, you failed to understand. I'll restate:

Because they don't want a target (applied voluntarily or otherwise) on their back (and that is all the GMO label is - a TARGET)). GMO produce isn't healthier for you, but it helps the farmers produce more food for a hungry world. One is micro and one is macro.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

How about we just try and minimize using the atmosphere as a convenient sewer ?

How about "no more free externalities" and let the market decide?

---

And where should we put our gaseous "emissions" if not the atmosphere?

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Lutes

Open-d: Oh man, I just can't even.

Care to back up your assertion that "GMO and other modern agricultural chemicals and practices ARE making the world better, MUCH better." ? Otherwise it's just you spouting nonsense your opinion.

Or how about "Electricity if far more important to our society than an unreasonable desire to breath perfectly clean air". Where is anyone campaigning for perfectly clean air ? How about we just try and minimize using the atmosphere as a convenient sewer ?

BTW, thanks for making my point r.e. chest beating and grunting noises. Rather than ask for clarification on what I said, you doubled down on your incorrect assumption, further misconstrued my subsequent reply, and then went off in some new bonkers direction about making the world MUCH better.
Back to the topic, do you have any new information to contribute ?

edited for clarity of target

---

It's obvious to anyone with the desire to understand. Refrigeration, lighting, food in ample quantity and quality, temperature control inside buildings, on and on. People used to live 40 years (if they were lucky) and then went kaput. Now, it's closer to 80. We sleep on clean bedding in temperature and humidity controlled homes, free (mostly) from vermin. If you don't "get it" by now, there is no hope.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by My 2 cents

PaulW, your argument is that companies would naturally choose not to put negative things on their labels. Agreed. Are you saying that GMO, Glyphosate, etc. are bad things, and THAT'S why they don't want to put it on their labels, or is this an apples/oranges argument?

I'm going along with the assertion that GMO, Glyphosate, etc. are "making the world much better". Greatest innovations since cupcakes. If these things are so great it doesn't make sense that they don't want the world to know about them. Again, putting it on the labels voluntarily would quash the assertions that they are trying to hide something and that they had to be forced to do it.

The question remains unanswered..

---

The answer may not be understood, but the question has been answered... in spades!!

[ironyak]

Open-d: We sleep ... in temperature and humidity controlled homes
Oh, we're sorry, the answer was Puna - which your reply cannot be accepted as even closely related.

But, that's four personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacies in a row - has to be a record of some sort? What's he win Robbie? (Please say it's a free vacation

[My 2 cents]

No, the question has not been answered, and it's clear that it won't be. So at this point I am agreeing with Rob. I'm done.

[PaulW]

Putting "Contains dihydrogen monoxide" on a label is not something negative. It's the truth.
Yet they choose not to do so because it's not useful.

It's voluntary anyway, so who's business is it?

That's the big difference here, compulsion vs choice. Guess which side you're on.

[ironyak]

Oh, but now open-d has gone back and edited all his answers. Sorry, no points for lacking conviction. (how many pages are we at? Is it too late to place my bet?)