|
twodot posted: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) That seems like it would be worthless, where is the emotional satisfaction there? There is none. Organics aren't labelled as "free of GMOs and guaranteed to only grow under blah and blah and use certain blah and blah's" garbage - all details do is make people lose interest. You can't brag about that to your friends. I do think a dual-labeling of some special fel good version of "Sustainable" would be a great value-add though as complementary labeling. Strudel Man posted: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. The "I loving Love Science" poo poo is big. None of these people actually really give a poo poo about science, it's just tapping into the feel-good ideas associated with it. That would be the goal of the labeling - something for GMO foods to rival the emotional kick from buying organic. Keep it generic, make it feel-goody, let the public build whatever happy associations they want in their mind (like how everyone assumes that organics are completely pesticide and toxin free, pro-science buyers will probably convince themselves pro-science food is healthier because it's designed to be!). Take control of the labeling, so when people think "do I want the prestige of buying Organic among certain social groups" they also have to think "do I want to be seen as being anti-science?" (because right now, most people do not associate organic with anti-science even if it fundamentally is)
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
I'd really like to not address the anti-GMO "natural" obsession with a similarly meaningless "science!" slogan. Industry can mislead, or harm, or kill, just as easily in the other direction.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
I'm imagining one of those Mac PC commercials: Organic rice: I'm certified USDA organic, that means my farmers can only use these pesticides (huge list of pesticides follows) GMO rice: I've been genetically engineered to biosynthesize beta-carotene, that means 670,000 children don't need to die this year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm imagining one of those Mac PC commercials: This is it, exactly, except we need a USDA certified Scientific or something. Its about framing, and right now it seems like the pro gmo people have just completely given up on trying to shape the narrative or apply any sort of counterbranding, letting the organic crowd win by default.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd really like to not address the anti-GMO "natural" obsession with a similarly meaningless "science!" slogan. Industry can mislead, or harm, or kill, just as easily in the other direction. What does that last bit even mean, and why exactly for the first bit if its something that will actually work? Do you somehow see it making things worse, and if so... how?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What does that last bit even mean, and why exactly for the first bit if its something that will actually work? Do you somehow see it making things worse, and if so... how? Blindly following a rule of thumb tends to lead to bad outcomes. The most obvious example that people here know is the low carb thread leading to this: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Has there any attempt at pro-GMO branding? The closest I can think of right now are all the "synthetic biology" companies that are popping up like Ginkgo Bioworks and Zymergen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:51
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What does that last bit even mean, and why exactly for the first bit if its something that will actually work? Do you somehow see it making things worse, and if so... how? I invite you to the other half of my world. The opposite of the natural fallacy is no more good, and no more meaningful, than the natural fallacy itself. The goal is education and information, not facilitation of false marketing. edit: I loving Love Science routinely promotes completely false information. It's a cargo cult.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The "I loving Love Science" poo poo is big. None of these people actually really give a poo poo about science, it's just tapping into the feel-good ideas associated with it. That would be the goal of the labeling - something for GMO foods to rival the emotional kick from buying organic. Keep it generic, make it feel-goody, let the public build whatever happy associations they want in their mind (like how everyone assumes that organics are completely pesticide and toxin free, pro-science buyers will probably convince themselves pro-science food is healthier because it's designed to be!).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is it, exactly, except we need a USDA certified Scientific or something. Its about framing, and right now it seems like the pro gmo people have just completely given up on trying to shape the narrative or apply any sort of counterbranding, letting the organic crowd win by default. I think that you're being too pessimistic here. Most people already eat GMOs. In most states, GMO labeling laws have been rejected by the voters; even loving Oregon of all places rejected GMO labeling. The US just recently passed a GMO labeling law that was praised by biotech companies because its requirements are extremely innocuous and it preempts state-level efforts to pass far harsher labeling laws. Anti-GMO messaging only works on low-information consumers with plenty of disposable income to spare on more expensive organic crops. Also, people who mistrust science enough to buy organic aren't going to suddenly favor GMOs just because you put a "certified by science" sticker on the label. That's not really how science works anyway; you can't say "this is definitely healthy".
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted: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? I don't think most people would find the idea of mixing up their food with scientific progress to be that attractive. Generally the focus in food advertising is (obviously) taste, and (even though it's wrong) many people associate "organic"/"natural" with characteristics like freshness and, thus, good taste. There's also an association with "healthy", but I think that ultimately also comes back to an unstated assumption that healthy = fresh = good-tasting. Also there's the fact that GMOs are still way more commonly purchased and consumed than organic and aren't going to be going anywhere anytime soon. edit: GlyphGryph posted:The "I loving Love Science" poo poo is big. None of these people actually really give a poo poo about science, it's just tapping into the feel-good ideas associated with it. That would be the goal of the labeling - something for GMO foods to rival the emotional kick from buying organic. Keep it generic, make it feel-goody, let the public build whatever happy associations they want in their mind (like how everyone assumes that organics are completely pesticide and toxin free, pro-science buyers will probably convince themselves pro-science food is healthier because it's designed to be!). Take control of the labeling, so when people think "do I want the prestige of buying Organic among certain social groups" they also have to think "do I want to be seen as being anti-science?" (because right now, most people do not associate organic with anti-science even if it fundamentally is) The people who are into that "I loving love science" stuff wouldn't generally be seeking out organic food to begin with. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Anti-GMO messaging only works on low-information consumers with plenty of disposable income to spare on more expensive organic crops. Isn't a the stuff going on in mainland Europe pretty damning evidence this isn't true? It's low information voters that need to be targeted more than simply low information consumers. If you're limiting your scope to the US maybe things are looking alright, but the US isn't the whole world. Ytlaya posted:many people associate "organic"with characteristics like freshness and, thus, good taste. This didn't just magically happen one day - it was something that was actively pursued by a group of people. Ytlaya posted:I don't think most people would find the idea of mixing up their food with scientific progress to be that attractive. History says otherwise. The current rhetorical landscape around food was not always the dominant one. QuarkJets posted:Also, people who mistrust science enough to buy organic aren't going to suddenly favor GMOs just because you put a "certified by science" sticker on the label. That's not really how science works anyway; you can't say "this is definitely healthy". That's not how "organic" works either, but the anti-gmo folks didn't let them stop them. The point is to disrupt the organic marketing and political mindshare campaign by providing a meaningful counter-narrative. (and yes, some portion of them will, because a portion of non-dedicated organic buyers simply want the "best" and there's no counter-narrative to the organic narrative that they are, in fact, the best) Discendo Vox posted:I invite you to the other half of my world. The opposite of the natural fallacy is no more good, and no more meaningful, than the natural fallacy itself. The goal is education and information, not facilitation of false marketing. I'm aware that it's a cargo cult. And the labeling would, sure, promote the scientific fallacy to the idiots that are prone to embracing fallacies - but it could also be a useful tool for helping them make better choices if, like with the organic label, additional positive requirements were rolled into it. Most importantly, anyone buying into the organic labeling isn't going to respond to "education and information" - you don't convince someone with facts, you convince someone by giving them an emotional justification for being receptive to facts (and then providing those facts)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
I'll grant you that it's not completely inconceivable that GMOs could be marketed as a good thing, but given the fact that they're already a large majority of the market it seems like the risk of attempting to bring attention to them is greater than any potential benefit. "Organic"/"natural" food marketers have already managed to establish the association I mentioned, and it's entirely possible, if not likely, that not bringing attention to GMOs is a better idea than doing so. Also, there's the price issue I think I mentioned. People naturally tend to assume more expensive things are of higher quality. Price is arguably a bigger factor than the organic label when talking about the sort of consumers who always want the highest quality products.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Also, there's the price issue I think I mentioned. People naturally tend to assume more expensive things are of higher quality. Price is arguably a bigger factor than the organic label when talking about the sort of consumers who always want the highest quality products. So price the science-labelled foods for more money, and sell the equivalent unlabelled foods for cheaper like they are now? I'm not proposing that all foods containing GMO's have the label... just carving out a market niche with a handful of premium-priced ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
"science-labeled" doesn't inform consumers, in the same way that "organic" doesn't, and "GMO" doesn't. None of these things should be labeling conventions, because all of them promote abuse.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Isn't a the stuff going on in mainland Europe pretty damning evidence this isn't true? It's low information voters that need to be targeted more than simply low information consumers. If you're limiting your scope to the US maybe things are looking alright, but the US isn't the whole world. On the contrary, Europe is quintessentially "low information voters with disposable income". The number of GMO crops banned in Europe has been decreasing over time, but I don't know anything about recent efforts to ban things there GlyphGryph posted:That's not how "organic" works either, but the anti-gmo folks didn't let them stop them. The point is to disrupt the organic marketing and political mindshare campaign by providing a meaningful counter-narrative. (and yes, some portion of them will, because a portion of non-dedicated organic buyers simply want the "best" and there's no counter-narrative to the organic narrative that they are, in fact, the best) You're putting the cart before the horse. You can't say that GMO crops are proven scientifically to be healthier or more delicious, because that's simply not true (even in cases like Golden Rice, the food isn't "healthier" per se unless you're susceptible to having a vitamin A deficiency, which most Americans aren't). To say otherwise compromises the integrity of scientific inquiry. And doing this wouldn't accomplish anything anyway; the people who are choosing organic foods don't care what science has to say. I just don't see any benefit to the idea of creating "science-verified" food or whatever. It would turn off anti-GMO (anti-science) and pro-science people alike
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
You know what else is scientific?    There were also problems in the Good Old Days when scientists were broadly respected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Just a little FYI to the people in this thread, organic food is farmed using scientific methods, the crops for organic farming is made using scientific methods, and there are plenty of scientific papers showing that certain parts of organic practices are better for the environment and humans living in that environment, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Buller posted:Just a little FYI to the people in this thread, organic food is farmed using scientific methods, the crops for organic farming is made using scientific methods, and there are plenty of scientific papers showing that certain parts of organic practices are better for the environment and humans living in that environment, thank you. And none of those good bits are things that non-organic crops can't also do. What they can do but organic can't is use safer pesticides, produce more crops in the same area (so reduce the demand for clearing) etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Buller posted:Just a little FYI to the people in this thread, organic food is farmed using scientific methods, the crops for organic farming is made using scientific methods, and there are plenty of scientific papers showing that certain parts of organic practices are better for the environment and humans living in that environment, thank you. Eh, not really. The name itself, "organic" farming, is a totally unscientific misnomer. This is pretty indicative of what "organic" farming represents as a whole. Obviously "organic" farming is a multinational multi-billion dollar industry, so there's going to be some amount of science backing some of those practices (because that's just good business). But many of the rules regarding what makes something "organic" range from "completely arbitrary" to "naturalist fallacy to the extreme". Sustainable and environmentally-friendly farming practices are laudable and should be evaluated on their own merits regardless of whether those practices can be labeled "organic". Genetic modification has a positive role to play here, for instance, even if it's not organic. Most "organic" farms are just as unsustainable as any other form of industrial farm, and "organic" restrictions are ineffective at supporting environmentally-friendly agriculture. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Tired of GMO good talkers always talking about theoreticals, sure GMO will be able to do that some time (never) but we live in a capitalist world and people are using GMO to produce cash crops or maximizing yield for meat production creating further demand for landclearing. I am not seeing any environmental benefits of GMO today. There are of course really cool applications of GMO like producing hard to produce plant substances in algae or golden rice. And organic is not a scientific misnormer, its a rule set within which you attempt to maximize your yield, you figure out how to maximize this yield with scientific methods used on experiments thought up on the basis of current scientific knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Buller posted:Tired of GMO good talkers always talking about theoreticals, sure GMO will be able to do that some time (never) but we live in a capitalist world and people are using GMO to produce cash crops or maximizing yield for meat production creating further demand for landclearing. I am not seeing any environmental benefits of GMO today. There are of course really cool applications of GMO like producing hard to produce plant substances in algae or golden rice. If someone gave you an example of genetic modification providing benefits to a local ecosystem, or to sustainable agriculture, would you be in favor of that? In the 1990s, Hawaiian Papaya trees were on the verge of going extinct; ringworm virus was devastating small farms and local ecosystems alike, as the ringworm virus was being spread by local bird and insect populations that relied on the fruit as a significant nutritional source. Scientists worked with local farmers to develop and introduce a genetically modified papaya to the islands that would be resistant to the ringworm virus. This worked; the local populations of papaya trees flourished, and today it's estimated that 80% of the papaya trees there have inherited ringworm resistance. The nutritional content of the papaya is no different than it was before, and there's just as much genetic diversity among papaya trees, but an important genetic intervention managed to preserve a fragile ecosystem while at the same time supporting local sustainable farms. quote:And organic is not a scientific misnormer, its a rule set within which you attempt to maximize your yield, you figure out how to maximize this yield with scientific methods used on experiments thought up on the basis of current scientific knowledge. The scientific meaning of "organic" is literally anything that was alive at any point. You're organic. GMOs are organic. Everything living is organic no matter how it was grown. It wasn't until after WW2 that people began to misuse the word "organic" to mean something different from its scientific meaning. Thus, organic farming is a misnomer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The scientific meaning of "organic" is literally anything that was alive at any point. You're organic. GMOs are organic. Everything living is organic no matter how it was grown. I think you're confusing scientific meaning with etymology and being a pedantic retard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Buller posted:Tired of GMO good talkers always talking about theoreticals, sure GMO will be able to do that some time (never) but we live in a capitalist world and people are using GMO to produce cash crops or maximizing yield for meat production creating further demand for landclearing. quote:And organic is not a scientific misnormer, its a rule set within which you attempt to maximize your yield, you figure out how to maximize this yield with scientific methods used on experiments thought up on the basis of current scientific knowledge. quote:people are using GMO to produce cash crops or maximizing yield for meat production
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
It's not natural. Those yields shouldn't be there and we had to change the plant genetically to get those yields. Oh wait, we first did that around 12,000 years ago... gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Buller posted:Tired of GMO good talkers always talking about theoreticals, sure GMO will be able to do that some time (never) but we live in a capitalist world and people are using GMO to produce cash crops or maximizing yield for meat production creating further demand for landclearing. I am not seeing any environmental benefits of GMO today. There are of course really cool applications of GMO like producing hard to produce plant substances in algae or golden rice. "I'm not seeing any environmental benefits other than this crop that feeds more people on less land"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"I'm not seeing any environmental benefits other than this crop that feeds more people on less land" Thats a very simplistic world view, do you really think that the environmental impact of an organic and GMO field is equal? Do you really think you can feed more people with cash crops than with edible crops? Denmark had its maximal land use for agriculture in the 40's, as much land was drained as possible to farm on which of course proved unsustainable in many cases but the environmental impact of farming peaked in the 80's even though there was less land use. This was caused by excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides. If we just outright abandon all precautionaries measures and start using GMOs to maximal effect we will once again heavily damage the environment, already in Germany streams are being ecologically harmed by Glyphosate and if you unleash full GMO regiment on the fields it will only get worse. GMO can perhaps yield more on the same land, but it is not free and never will be until someone finds a way to make plants more efficiently use renewables better, like creating a more effective photosynthesis but who knows if this is even possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Buller posted:Thats a very simplistic world view, do you really think that the environmental impact of an organic and GMO field is equal? Nope, it's higher for organic crops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nope, it's higher for organic crops. lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
He's right.Buller posted:Do you really think you can feed more people with cash crops than with edible crops? You seem to think this question is related to the discussion, but I'm reduced to guessing why. It's not that you believe that only cash crops are genetically modified and only edible crops are grown with organic methods, is it? Buller posted:Denmark had its maximal land use for agriculture in the 40's, as much land was drained as possible to farm on which of course proved unsustainable in many cases but the environmental impact of farming peaked in the 80's even though there was less land use. This was caused by excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides. If we just outright abandon all precautionaries measures and start using GMOs to maximal effect we will once again heavily damage the environment, Many genetic modifications serve the purpose of reducing usage of fertilizer and pesticide, and countless precautionary measures remain firmly in place. The effects of GMO crops are very closely scrutinized. Is there a detectable environmental impact comparable to chemical runoff which you think they're having right now, or do you think we'll only notice it when its too late?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Buller posted:I think you're confusing scientific meaning with etymology and being a pedantic retard. I'm telling you that scientists gave that word a specific definition, which was the common definition that everyone employed until it was preempted by a bunch of gentile fucks who suddenly wanted to be choosey about which pesticides were sprayed on their industrially-farmed food. I don't know why this is making you so upset. You keep trying to claim otherwise, which makes you an incorrect pedantic nerd
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Buller posted:Thats a very simplistic world view, do you really think that the environmental impact of an organic and GMO field is equal? I literally just gave you an example of genetic modification preserving a fragile ecosystem. No amount of organic farming was going to save the Papaya tree in Hawaii, ringworm virus is extremely contagious and was on the verge of wiping out the entire population of trees, including wild trees. Clearly genetic modification has a far more beneficial environmental role to play than organic farming. Buller posted:Do you really think you can feed more people with cash crops than with edible crops? Denmark had its maximal land use for agriculture in the 40's, as much land was drained as possible to farm on which of course proved unsustainable in many cases but the environmental impact of farming peaked in the 80's even though there was less land use. This was caused by excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides. If we just outright abandon all precautionaries measures and start using GMOs to maximal effect we will once again heavily damage the environment, already in Germany streams are being ecologically harmed by Glyphosate and if you unleash full GMO regiment on the fields it will only get worse. GMO can perhaps yield more on the same land, but it is not free and never will be until someone finds a way to make plants more efficiently use renewables better, like creating a more effective photosynthesis but who knows if this is even possible. You've described a bunch of unsustainable farming practices, all of which had been employed before GMO crops ever even exists, none of which can only be employed on GMO crops. You haven't actually provided any arguments against genetic modification, you just keep falsely associating it with other environmentally damaging practices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
My point was that rather than reduce the unsustainable practices of conventional farming GMO will only serve to exaggerate them as farmers are being given more powerful tools. And the Papaya is a good example of GMO being cool, just like GMO algae producing medicin more rapidly than plants. But my point was more directed at people spouting just how bright the future will be with GMO farming theoretically being able to make everything, when that is clearly not the evidenced route the world has chosen. And to the previous poster, i think alot of people, especially those in the farming industry believe that Glyphosate is harmless and if you tell them that their crops are Glyphosate resistant they will use execessive amounts of Glyphosate which will end up in streams and the groundwater. The consequences of which are still relatively unknown, although recent Danish research has found Glyphosate in Danish childrens and pregnant womens pee, a known carcinogen in humans and possible hormonal disruptive in unborn children which are effected through their mothers uptake of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Buller posted:My point was that rather than reduce the unsustainable practices of conventional farming GMO will only serve to exaggerate them as farmers are being given more powerful tools. And the Papaya is a good example of GMO being cool, just like GMO algae producing medicin more rapidly than plants. But my point was more directed at people spouting just how bright the future will be with GMO farming theoretically being able to make everything, when that is clearly not the evidenced route the world has chosen. You haven't provided any evidence for that though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Buller posted:My point was that rather than reduce the unsustainable practices of conventional farming GMO will only serve to exaggerate them as farmers are being given more powerful tools. And the Papaya is a good example of GMO being cool, just like GMO algae producing medicin more rapidly than plants. But my point was more directed at people spouting just how bright the future will be with GMO farming theoretically being able to make everything, when that is clearly not the evidenced route the world has chosen. If Glyphosate is toxic then we should ban it. If some farming practices are bad then we should stop using them. Neither has anything to do with GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Buller posted:My point was that rather than reduce the unsustainable practices of conventional farming GMO will only serve to exaggerate them as farmers are being given more powerful tools. And the Papaya is a good example of GMO being cool, just like GMO algae producing medicin more rapidly than plants. But my point was more directed at people spouting just how bright the future will be with GMO farming theoretically being able to make everything, when that is clearly not the evidenced route the world has chosen. Again, that's not an issue with genetic modification, that's an issue with unsustainable farming practices that would continue to be used with or without GMO crops. Industrial organic farming is just as bad for the environment as industrial non-organic farming. quote:And to the previous poster, i think alot of people, especially those in the farming industry believe that Glyphosate is harmless and if you tell them that their crops are Glyphosate resistant they will use execessive amounts of Glyphosate which will end up in streams and the groundwater. i think alot of people, especially those in the organic farming industry believe that organic pesticides are harmless and they will use execessive amounts of organic pesticides which will end up in streams and the groundwater.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:ringworm virus Ringspot virus  Buller posted:My point was that rather than reduce the unsustainable practices of conventional farming GMO will only serve to exaggerate them as farmers are being given more powerful tools. Herbicide-resistant GMOs have helped farmers to switch to low or no-till farming. They have also allowed conventional farmers to switch to glyphosate, which is less harmful to the environment. Insect-resistant GMO crops have led to a decline in insecticide usage in the US. I would consider those to be examples of GMOs directly reducing some of the unsustainable practices of conventional farming. Which practices do you think GMOs will exacerbate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that the "organic" movement was invented by a bunch of rich British people during world war II. Who decided to get real loving picky about their food when the common man was on severe rationing and Britain needed to grow all the food it could, in any way possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Why does he keep talking about cash crops? When I think of GMOs I think of tomatoes and corn, not tobbaco and peanuts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
GMO Cash Crops
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 06:51
|
|