When does global warming actually show up in real life?

[J T]

True, sort of...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23193004

[MrPopo]

This whole thing kind of reminds me of some restaurants having to label their steaks "gluten-free" because people kept asking about it.

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm worried about.

That's an arrogant paternalistic view. The information should be out there for the smart people. Stupid people make bad decisions regardless of what information they have.

You're right that stupid people will make bad decisions regardless; my concern is when those bad decisions lead to scientists being hobbled from improving the world. Look at the state of power generation in this country. The majority of the power still comes from burning hydrocarbons in various forms, rather than a larger nuclear infrastructure (and yes, that still has pollution issues, but it's much smaller, and the greener alternatives aren't at the necessary level of efficiency to be a power backbone).

What I don't get about your argument is your stance seems to be inaction due to risk of improper implementation of labeling. Why is it not instead a stance on labeling in a proper fashion that coincides with your ideals? As ZeroAX stated it has effected trade and if you research it has not negatively impacted foreign countries revenues or profit.

You've convinced me that labeling can properly be done. I honestly don't pay attention to the trade or profit issues; I'm concerned more with the pursuit of science and overcoming the limitations of nature (which we already do; we wear glasses, we build houses).

[pepharytheworm]

True, sort of...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23193004

That's why moderation is always key. Food can effect us in so many ways from mixing different food groups to mixing raw and cooked foods. Most items linked to cancer and other diseases are usually over consumed items.

[ZeroAX]

You're right that stupid people will make bad decisions regardless; my concern is when those bad decisions lead to scientists being hobbled from improving the world. Look at the state of power generation in this country. The majority of the power still comes from burning hydrocarbons in various forms, rather than a larger nuclear infrastructure (and yes, that still has pollution issues, but it's much smaller, and the greener alternatives aren't at the necessary level of efficiency to be a power backbone).

Well nuclear energy is a difficult 'scary' subject, since most people picture Hiroshima and Chernobyl when they hear that (though most people haven't bothered to research how many people actually died).

But I'm sorry, I just see this as giving consumers more choice and ending the debate once and for all. People who want to consume GMOs (had to google what the O stands for btw) can do so no prob, and people who want to stay away from them can pay normal produce prices (which would be higher) and enjoy those.

[pepharytheworm]

What I don't get about your argument is your stance seems to be inaction due to risk of improper implementation of labeling. Why is it not instead a stance on labeling in a proper fashion that coincides with your ideals? As ZeroAX stated it has effected trade and if you research it has not negatively impacted foreign countries revenues or profit.

You've convinced me that labeling can properly be done. I honestly don't pay attention to the trade or profit issues; I'm concerned more with the pursuit of science and overcoming the limitations of nature (which we already do; we wear glasses, we build houses).

Totally in agreement here. I do not want GMOs to stop. I would like it to be in a more controlled environment such as what Ack linked and Vertical Farms I mentioned, furthering science even more. It would fix most of the proven down sides of GMOs. The energy usage and cost would be the biggest concern to overcome.

[Forlorn Drifter]

95% of animals in the US are fed GMO crops and have no side effects. I think that's a pretty good indicator of how safe they are.

And what is the average lifespan of livestock
As a side note Measure 92 won't be labeling livestock that has been fed GE foods as Genetically Engineered.

I'm taking into account all animals used in various types of herds- for example, the majority of cow/calf operations use GMO feed, and many of those cows are kept until a change in herd genetics (moving to leaner meat, or towards more marbling, etc.) or they can no longer produce calves. The average lifespan of cows is fifteen years, depending on whether it is a dairy or beef cow, the amount of calves birthed, milk given, etc. A dairy cow usually gets about 10 years of use before being culled, and that means they are somewhere in the 10-12 year old range at death. No ill effects are seen in these cows over that time period.

How does Measure 92 deal with milk from cows fed GMO feeds? Any possible effect from the feed is more likely to show up in the milk than the meat.

[jp1]

So, uh, global warming...it like never shows up in real life! amirite? I mean it was COLD today.

Sorry for posting this in the GMO thread.

[pepharytheworm]

95% of animals in the US are fed GMO crops and have no side effects. I think that's a pretty good indicator of how safe they are.

And what is the average lifespan of livestock
As a side note Measure 92 won't be labeling livestock that has been fed GE foods as Genetically Engineered.

I'm taking into account all animals used in various types of herds- for example, the majority of cow/calf operations use GMO feed, and many of those cows are kept until a change in herd genetics (moving to leaner meat, or towards more marbling, etc.) or they can no longer produce calves. The average lifespan of cows is fifteen years, depending on whether it is a dairy or beef cow, the amount of calves birthed, milk given, etc. A dairy cow usually gets about 10 years of use before being culled, and that means they are somewhere in the 10-12 year old range at death. No ill effects are seen in these cows over that time period.

How does Measure 92 deal with milk from cows fed GMO feeds? Any possible effect from the feed is more likely to show up in the milk than the meat.

It wouldn't be labeled under the measure. Your test is flawed though, the feeding habits of farmers for feed was already poor. Feed crops are unfit for human consumption gmo or no. Now compare both to grazing pasture raised livestock.

[MrPopo]

You're right that stupid people will make bad decisions regardless; my concern is when those bad decisions lead to scientists being hobbled from improving the world. Look at the state of power generation in this country. The majority of the power still comes from burning hydrocarbons in various forms, rather than a larger nuclear infrastructure (and yes, that still has pollution issues, but it's much smaller, and the greener alternatives aren't at the necessary level of efficiency to be a power backbone).

Well nuclear energy is a difficult 'scary' subject, since most people picture Hiroshima and Chernobyl when they hear that (though most people haven't bothered to research how many people actually died).

My point exactly. And coal/oil/natural gas can have tons of problems if things go wrong at the plant, or those lovely coal seam fires like under Centralia. There's still things lingering thing where people think a nuclear power plant is an atom bomb just waiting to happen.

[pepharytheworm]

So, uh, global warming...it like never shows up in real life! amirite? I mean it was COLD today.

Sorry for posting this in the GMO thread.

GMOs are tied in with climate change. We could discuss that too.