|
Even worse, amygdalin is definitely not vitamin B17. I don't know where that label came from, but it is definitely not a necessary nutrient in any way whatsoever.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Absolutely! There's been a whole discussion about that horrible product in the Pseudoscience thread, starting here: I got it fr9m the schadenfreude thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Even worse, amygdalin is definitely not vitamin B17. I don't know where that label came from, but it is definitely not a necessary nutrient in any way whatsoever. Much easier to sell your fake cancer treatments if you make up an appealing name for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Even worse, amygdalin is definitely not vitamin B17. I don't know where that label came from, but it is definitely not a necessary nutrient in any way whatsoever. Yeah, we had that discussion over there. It's basically a fake and illegal designation for a loving poison. exploding mummy posted:I got it fr9m the schadenfreude thread Link to the post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
There is no such thing as vitamin B17- the term was made up by people to describe amygdalin, as is true of most vitamin names. There's no official convention or definition for most of the vitamins. The photos are the same source as the ones from the pseudoscience thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
ThermoPhysical posted:I didn't even think you could eat those. No, stonefruits contain a precursor to cyanide which is transformed into cyanide if you chew into the stonefruit and allow the precursor to mix with another component in the stonefruit, swallowing stonefruits without chewing into them will leave the component in its precursor state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
I think you are misreading that. The pits/stones contain cyanogenic glycoside which can be hydrogenated in Hydrogen Cyanide when metabolized by your body after passing through your intestinal wall. It has nothing to do with eating the flesh of stonefruit or other chemicals in the stone. Which is why this bag (and practically every health agency out there) suggest not eating a lot of stones - even as a dried snack independent of the rest of the fruit like this one. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
The biggest scandal here is that Whole Foods is selling apricot kernels in the first place. Where's the rest of the apricot, you thieves? I don't shop there to get pieces of food!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Someone should start a donut and bagel shop with products made with organic, fresh, sustainable, non-GMO, etc. ingredients and call it "Hole Foods."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
I was hoping the thread could help me recover some context from a few years back. There was that story from over a decade ago of the Canadian Farmer that was raising a ruckus over getting sued by Monsanto after his fields were basically contaminated by Roundup-ready crops in his neighbor's plots. If I have that right, this Wikipedia article describes what happened to it at the level of the Canadian Supreme Court: Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser.quote:1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. IIRC, he apparently very much did his damndest to get the Roundup-ready seeds for free and start using them, even though he played a victim victim when he got sued for it. On the other hand, Monsanto fired off a smorgasbord of litigation that muddied all of that, and let him effectively play that card. Didn't he show up in some documentaries? I believe this thread, or a predecessor to it, brought it up. It's hard to search threads of this length for that context--and I'm possibly embarrassing myself if it was just a few pages ago. It just happened my wife and I were running through this the other day and we're trying to look up everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I believe this thread, or a predecessor to it, brought it up. It's hard to search threads of this length for that context--and I'm possibly embarrassing myself if it was just a few pages ago. It just happened my wife and I were running through this the other day and we're trying to look up everything. It has been discussed a few times throughout the thread. The case has become a meme in its own right as the go-to example of Monsanto constantly suing innocent farmers for shits and giggles. They don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I was hoping the thread could help me recover some context from a few years back. There was that story from over a decade ago of the Canadian Farmer that was raising a ruckus over getting sued by Monsanto after his fields were basically contaminated by Roundup-ready crops in his neighbor's plots. If I have that right, this Wikipedia article describes what happened to it at the level of the Canadian Supreme Court: Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. The accidental contamination claim was completely irrelevant, and thus dropped. It did not matter whether his fields were contaminated with RR seeds in 1997. There was no accident in 1998, he deliberately planted Monsanto's patented seeds without paying for them. Where he got them from did not matter. The bullshit is all the documentaries painting him as a victim because of his claim that Monsanto sued him for inadvertent drift of seeds. That was not at issue in the CSC case. Monsanto including a bunch of charges in their initial suit, many of which were subsequently dropped due to insufficient evidence, is standard practice, AFAIK. Nobody makes one claim, then if it fails goes back and makes another. You put them all in at the start.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:42
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Monsanto including a bunch of charges in their initial suit, many of which were subsequently dropped due to insufficient evidence, is standard practice, AFAIK. Nobody makes one claim, then if it fails goes back and makes another. You put them all in at the start. Absolutely, at least in the US. Failing to include the claim at the beginning of the case will preclude its use later on, iirc.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
My favorite Monsanto court case is the US Appeals case where someone (possibly the judge) straight up asked for literally one example of Monsanto suing a farmer because of pollen drift, and the plaintiffs simply couldn't provide despite all of their public blustering. In the one situation where providing literally any evidence at all would have benefited them the most, the anti-GMO side had nothing to show. It's the perfect example of how the anti-GMO movement makes a bunch of outrageous claims but doesn't have any evidence to back them up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:My favorite Monsanto court case is the US Appeals case where someone (possibly the judge) straight up asked for literally one example of Monsanto suing a farmer because of pollen drift, and the plaintiffs simply couldn't provide despite all of their public blustering. In the one situation where providing literally any evidence at all would have benefited them the most, the anti-GMO side had nothing to show. It's the perfect example of how the anti-GMO movement makes a bunch of outrageous claims but doesn't have any evidence to back them up. "Your honor, please see Exhibit B, A David Avocado Wolfe Tweet, clearly establishing Monsanto as evil."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
My favorite David Wolfe fact is that he is literally a gravity denialist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:My favorite David Wolfe fact is that he is literally a gravity denialist. He also blames arthritis on gravity poisoning, and says if you hang upside down, it'll cure you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He also blames arthritis on gravity poisoning, and says if you hang upside down, it'll cure you. Sounds like he has uncovered the truth about Big Planet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 11:41
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
CommieGIR posted:He also blames arthritis on gravity poisoning, and says if you hang upside down, it'll cure you. But...you'd still be under the effects of gravity...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:But...you'd still be under the effects of gravity...? He believes it's a toxin rather than one of the fundamental forces and that by hanging upside down will remove some of it from your body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:He believes it's a toxin rather than one of the fundamental forces and that by hanging upside down will remove some of it from your body. That's a pretty weighty theory. I hope it forces an acceleration of his fall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That's a pretty weighty theory. I hope it forces an acceleration of his fall. Don't worry, he sells a product for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
107 Nobel Laureates have signed an open letter to Greenpeace asking when GMO opposition will be considered a crime against humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:49
|
|
posted:
|
Anos posted:107 Nobel Laureates have signed an open letter to Greenpeace asking when GMO opposition will be considered a crime against humanity. Ironically, this letter seems to be part of a campaign, whose website looks very dodgy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Ironically, this letter seems to be part of a campaign, whose website looks very dodgy. Actual newspapers like WaPo have interviewed them, so I'm guessing it's probably because they're chemists and biologists and physicists and not web designers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
In the third world GMO is about people not losing eyesight from vitamin shortage, in the rest of the world its about spraying as much pesticide as possible on the least amount of farmland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Buller posted:In the third world GMO is about people not losing eyesight from vitamin shortage, in the rest of the world its about spraying as much pesticide as possible on the least amount of farmland. actually that's not quite true
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Buller posted:In the third world GMO is about people not losing eyesight from vitamin shortage, in the rest of the world its about spraying as much pesticide as possible on the least amount of farmland. Actually pesticide is expensive so it's about spraying -less- pesticide by making the plants resist stuff by themselves more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
blowfish posted:actually that's not quite true that's right, in the first world it's actually about turning children into literal zombies and trying to sue small farmers out of existence also
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
So the EU went and did a bad thing because of OMG GMOs, deciding not to support a group of African states in improving their agricultural sector to not suck and actually feed the population, because the project is insufficiently ~traditional~, ~local~, and ~natural~.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
blowfish posted:So the EU went and did a bad thing because of OMG GMOs, deciding not to support a group of African states in improving their agricultural sector to not suck and actually feed the population, because the project is insufficiently ~traditional~, ~local~, and ~natural~. Here's a Kenyan farmer. He is not amused. Open Letter to the EU Parliament from a Kenyan Farmer: Leave Africa Alone
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:that's right, in the first world it's actually about turning children into literal zombies and trying to sue small farmers out of existence If Stellaris taught me anything it is that lizard people are pretty great, so you better stop your antireptile hate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
This is making the suspiciously uniform media rounds. What do folks think? I don't have time atm to parse it myself, and the methods are beyond me.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This is making the suspiciously uniform media rounds. What do folks think? I don't have time atm to parse it myself, and the methods are beyond me. Interesting, but needs more support (like every other broad statement in ecology). tl;dr of the paper is that bees which are likely to come into contact with neonics from seed treatment have poorer population persistence (i.e. higher risk of local extinction) than bees that don't, and that the overall effect on the former group is moderate. Overall good things: the basic study design is not completely retarded, in that it has some semblance of a useable control group (bees that shouldn't come into contact with neonics from seeds). The study cites results from experimental exposure of some relevant species to neonics impacting reproduction so there is at least some consistency between evidence both from observational studies and from experimental studies which is more than you can say for many other large-scale studies on effects of X on populations. Reduced colonisation rate (which can stem from reduced reproductive output etc.) leading to such an initial pattern of slowly-decreasing patch occupancy is also what you'd expect from a population biology point of view (this could have been discussed better but apparently they didn't have an author who could be bothered to talk population biology even though they modelled populations). Bad things: discussion of other potential factors leading to such population declines besides overly general habitat characteristics stuff is missing. In particular, anyone dealing with species distributions or population trends needs to talk about loving climate change. Not talking about climate change in the discussion of a paper on population changes in tyool 2016 is inexcusable. No, using the term climate change a grand total of one (1) time while listing previously-identified drivers of population changes in the introduction doesn't count. Assigning bees as (non-)rapeseed using based on 2 studies totalling 114h of bee observation time is the most questionable part of the methodology imo: it may or may not work as a very rough correlate of actual use of rapeseed for the most common species which this study focuses on, but sending a dozen undergrads to sit in fields across England and collect bees would have provided a way more solid foundation here (  , lol). The thing reads like pure data people who haven't seen an actual bee in years heard of a new hot topic and then downloaded a data set because why not.Things to double check: whether the neonic exposure levels in actual fields and in the previous studies are remotely similar, because a common mistake in experimental studies is throwing so much pesticide at the organism that you can be certain it'll be unhappy. I'm not qualified to comment on Bayesian stats so someone more mathematically-minded would need to look at that part, in particular in how the model deals with presence/absence vs. records/no records. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This is making the suspiciously uniform media rounds. What do folks think? I don't have time atm to parse it myself, and the methods are beyond me. It would be confirmation of a study from Purdue from about ten or so years ago which made similar claims in the US. Unfortunately for these folks, if I recall correctly, several bee researchers looked into whether the mechanism made sense (neonics applied to seeds are expressed by the adult plants) and found basically no neonics in the pollen of plants which had been treated as seeds. Not to say that there couldn't be something going on, but...
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Has there any attempt at pro-GMO branding? Calling their products "Scientifically Designed" or "Progress Oriented" or "Intentionally Designed" or some other meaningless word that gives GMO a positive connotation that could be used as an anti-label to counter the anti-GMO "Organic" nonsense?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Not that I've seen so far. The notion is still sufficiently toxic ( ) that it'd definitely do more harm than good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Not that I've seen so far. The notion is still sufficiently toxic ( Would "Pro-Science" or whatever actually do more harm than good (I assume you're referring to specific, immediate, short-term goods sales here)? I would imagine most people like to see themselves as pro-science. It seems like something they should at least be experimenting with in niche markets, since doing it is literally the only way for things to become less toxic - I don't think I've ever seen any pro-gmo marketing at all, and without it the organics crowd is pretty much inevitably going to win the opinion war. Surely these big GMO companies must have some sort of long term interests they are willing to try and protect even if they risk a minimum of short-term losses?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
I don't think most people do. We live in an era of great distrust of institutions, the institution of science included. If people wanted to see themselves as pro-science, GMO wouldn't be a boogeyman to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
I think GMOs are better off advertising the actual effect of the modification rather than fact it's modified. "Grown in previously un-arable land due to a new drought resistant breed" seems a lot better than "We applied random science to this food". (This is not a claim such a modification exists)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:49
|
|
