I want in

It's a good idea. I envision a voluntaryist form of government in which we use a sort of direct democracy. No more corrupt representatives. We all get to vote on what we want and our vote includes us in a group. So maybe you vote for roads to get fixed up in your area, and you contribute money voluntarily to this road fund, which would then be used to hire private contractors to do the work. All associations would be voluntary and exist within a free market where those who provide the best service for the lowest fee will win out.

No, its code for "51% of us are going to pillage you other guys"

No, its code for "0.1% of us are going to pillage you other goys" fixed it for you.

-I want it to be legal and socially encouraged to explore my own consciousness through psychedelic travel!

Just got magicians of the gods bout to crack that spine!

yeah good luck with that

It's easy, but first you need to completely abolish the current system by any means necessary...

[deleted]

How exactly do I use the military industrial complex? What number do I call?

Mandatory labels for GMO foods:

• violate legal precedent (kosher, halal, organic are optional labels)

• do not provide the consumer any useful information (we don't label other developmental techniques)

• would cost untold millions of dollars (need to overhaul food distribution network)

• stigmatize perfectly healthy food, hurting the impoverished

• are already "in place" through GMO-free certification

Literally your entire posting history is defending GMO food

If my post history was defending vaccines, would arguments I make to anti-vaxxers be less credible?

Wouldn't it make sense that someone who is passionate about a subject would have a lot of posts? Now, obviously there are some problems if I didn't provide sources but as you can see I often provide links to peer-reviewed research. Not links to naturalnews, foodbabe, truthout, commondreams, that sort of bullshit spread by Sandy Hook deniers like ragecry or anti-corporate nutjobs like henrycorp.

It is incredibly suspicious to only comment in such a narrow topic. Now it's certainly possible that it's due to speciality or specific interest in that area.. but it raises a big red flag.

Funny, it only seems to raise a red flag to /r/conspiracy goers. Maybe check my top posts/comments of all time to see I don't exclusively post GE advocacy.

Why do you waste your time defending these crimes against humanity? I hope you get benefits!

I'm dispelling myths. I'm not paid by anyone.

So like some kinda weird nerdy hobby? Do you get together with other "defenders of the current narrative" and have drinks or coffee? Or are you some kinda lone warrior defending helpless big business?

I'm not a "lone warrior". I dispel myths, I don't defend big businesses.

There are lots of other users (eg. on /r/GMOmyths) who dedicate time to dispeling myths around GE crops. Often that degenerates into dispeling myths about Monsanto because anti-GMOers have no credible arguments about GMOs.

Meanwhile, you have guys like henrycorp who spend their days posting misinformation and propaganda.

[deleted]

GMOs are considered safe by every scientific agency worldwide.

You guys should see if you can get grants from Monsanto or even the government for the very generous work you guys do! Might as well make a bit of cash!

Yeah, I would also love money to argue with anti-vaxxers.

You can do it! Believe in yourself!

The only people i see mentioning this Henerycorp feller is by you hard stance pro genetically tainted food brigade so I'm led to believe that Henerycorp is your version of control opposition. Happy hunting !

He mods 175 subreddits...

pro genetically tainted food

Every scientific agency agrees GE food is safe.

[deleted]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKz82v5JQY

Nice

Fuckbook is not a source...

Dude. There are dozens of quotes from major scientific bodies within that link, it's just a text post. Each quote is sourced.

If some one still religiously uses fuckbook I don't trust that their mind hasn't atrophied, so forgive me if I don't listen to you further.

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://ow.ly/uzTUy)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (bit.ly/1u6fHay)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” (http://bit.ly/1kJm7TB)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

American Council on Science and Health: ”The consensus of scientific opinion is that the application of genetic modification technology introduces no unique food safety or environmental impact concerns and that there is no evidence of harm fromthose products that have been through a regulatory approval process." (http://bit.ly/1sBCrgF)

agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/1sBD8qv)

International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)

Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

"la la la evidence can't convince me la la head in the sand"

You guys should see if you can get grants from Monsanto or even the government for the very generous work you guys do! Might as well make a bit of cash!

The only people i see mentioning this Henerycorp feller is by you hard stance pro genetically tainted food brigade so I'm led to believe that Henerycorp is your version of control opposition. Happy hunting !

Yeah, I would also love money to argue with anti-vaxxers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKz82v5JQY

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://ow.ly/uzTUy)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (bit.ly/1u6fHay)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” (http://bit.ly/1kJm7TB)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

American Council on Science and Health: ”The consensus of scientific opinion is that the application of genetic modification technology introduces no unique food safety or environmental impact concerns and that there is no evidence of harm fromthose products that have been through a regulatory approval process." (http://bit.ly/1sBCrgF)

agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/1sBD8qv)

International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)

Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)