DescentBB

This is what our corporate butt-licking Republicans are passing in Oregon. Prohibiting a community's right to ban or regulate GMO food or agriculture.

http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/lo ... y.html.csp

Is there a good reason to keep local governments from "regulating genetically modified crops. "? I believe the FDA rules still apply don't they?

I have no problem with regulating any kind of food, but I wouldn’t want any government at any level placing a ban on any kind of food.

Will Robinson wrote:Is there a good reason to keep local governments from "regulating genetically modified crops. "? I believe the FDA rules still apply don't they?

I don't see the Feds protecting us from frankenfoods very effectively since the Feds are just part and parcel with big Ag. companies. They're allowing Monsanto almost free reign as to the use of their patented crops, so what's wrong if some locality wants to ban it themselves? Hell, Europe doesn't want the stuff, so what's so good about it? I can't even eat anything with GMO's in it now anyway, so I try to avoid it at all costs. I thought you of all people thought that local rights were better than the big, bad, Fed's rights. State's rights and city rights and all that?

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Is there a good reason to keep local governments from "regulating genetically modified crops. "? I believe the FDA rules still apply don't they?

I don't see the Feds protecting us from frankenfoods very effectively since the Feds are just part and parcel with big Ag. companies. They're allowing Monsanto almost free reign as to the use of their patented crops, so what's wrong if some locality wants to ban it themselves? Hell, Europe doesn't want the stuff, so what's so good about it? I can't even eat anything with GMO's in it now anyway, so I try to avoid it at all costs. I thought you of all people thought that local rights were better than the big, bad, Fed's rights. State's rights and city rights and all that?

I am States rights oriented but I'm anti-government of any kind if it isn't warranted. Is the call for regulation in this case warranted or simply tree hugging gone wild? That's what is behind my question.

Will Robinson wrote:I am States rights oriented but I'm anti-government of any kind if it isn't warranted. Is the call for regulation in this case warranted or simply tree hugging gone wild? That's what is behind my question.

I'm not necessarily a tree hugger, but I think local control is warranted when it comes to genetically modifying our food supply and a federal government owned and controlled by big agriculture with a big conflict of interest. People need another voice when what they want is overridden by the Feds. In this case, I don't think that the Feds have our best interests and health in mind. Just look at Obamacare, which I know you loathe. It doesn't solve any problems and creates a whole host of others, so why is the worry about the safety of our food any different of a concern?

All we need is proper labeling, and let the consumer choose.

now, TC, as someone who benefits from renting land to farmers which grow GM soybeans, please explain to me what the threat is, either in growing these crops, or ESPECIALLY consuming them. Soybeans be soybeans, once ingested....it isn't like they are putting some sort of functioning virus in the plants or killer bacteria, or some deadly toxin. I have never understood the entire fear of GMO products.
That said, it really doesn't speak to the right and wrong of overriding local control, but the Constitution does give the Feds control of interstate commerce, which agriculture generally falls into.

callmeslick wrote:now, TC, as someone who benefits from renting land to farmers which grow GM soybeans, please explain to me what the threat is, either in growing these crops, or ESPECIALLY consuming them. Soybeans be soybeans, once ingested....it isn't like they are putting some sort of functioning virus in the plants or killer bacteria, or some deadly toxin. I have never understood the entire fear of GMO products.
That said, it really doesn't speak to the right and wrong of overriding local control, but the Constitution does give the Feds control of interstate commerce, which agriculture generally falls into.

Maybe you benefit yourself, but I'm very skeptical of genetically modified crops and want nothing to do with them. So am I more of a liberal than you Slick? Personally, I can't eat GMO soy products at all, and it's in every processed food I find, so I have to "read the label", which is not always forthcoming. I'm also suspecting GMO corn tastes differently. I haven't gotten good tasting popcorn in ages, so I've quit buying it. And if GMO's are so good, why do the Europeans and Japanese forbid it's importation? Maybe they know something we don't?

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... -crop.aspx

We had a big snit here about GMO Canola rapeseed crops. The damn plant cross pollinates with many other types of food crops and local organic farmers feared cross pollination, rendering their crops unsaleable to the organic market. All for what? Biofuels for big corporate farm profits that would have destroyed the local organic crop economy.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/08/16/ ... te-valley/

tunnelcat wrote:Maybe you benefit yourself, but I'm very skeptical of genetically modified crops and want nothing to do with them.

but, WHY are you skeptical. You are aware that nothing of nutrional substance is modified, right? It's all about disease and/or pest resistance and tolerance of herbicides.

So am I more of a liberal than you Slick? Personally, I can't eat GMO soy products at all, and it's in every processed food I find, so I have to "read the label", which is not always forthcoming. I'm also suspecting GMO corn tastes differently. I haven't gotten good tasting popcorn in ages, so I've quit buying it. And if GMO's are so good, why do the Europeans and Japanese forbid it's importation? Maybe they know something we don't?

widespread panic and stupidity over stuff people don't know isn't surprising....and, yes, a LOT of people are more liberal than I.

We had a big snit here about GMO Canola rapeseed crops. The damn plant cross pollinates with many other types of food crops and local organic farmers feared cross pollination, rendering their crops unsaleable to the organic market. All for what? Biofuels for big corporate farm profits that would have destroyed the local organic crop economy.

once again, the only fear was 'unsalability' in the 'organic' market, a market which, by the way, is COMPLETELY bogus, having seen it in action.

Nice, slick. My sister manages at a health-food store. There is a lot of bogus stuff in that scene, IMO. I think that a portion--even a significant portion of the Organic market has arisen as a means to take advantage of people who may be willing to pay more just for the idea, but that doesn't mean it's COMPLETELY bogus. Some of it is just a matter of being willing to pay more for something that cannot afford to be as cheap as GMO or Hormonized, perhaps largely by virtue of the fact that they are smaller operations. BTW the business my sister works for is a small, locally-owned business, and they buy on special and sell lower than the big names in health food. I will also say that the primary concern of most people involved in the Organic movement, etc, is not that GMO produce will immediately physically harm you, but that there is a proven, cumulative effect of ingesting varied sources of nutrition which have been tampered with for no reason other than greater profitability, and with certain, possibly subtle, side-effects having been swept under the rug or deemed acceptable by themselves. Anyone who believes that the increased health issues in this country are somehow NOT tied to our evolving diet is walking around with their eyes closed, essentially.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I will also say that the primary concern of most people involved in the Organic movement, etc, is not that GMO produce will immediately physically harm you, but that there is a proven, cumulative effect of ingesting varied sources of nutrition which have been tampered with for no reason other than greater profitability, and with certain, possibly subtle, side-effects having been swept under the rug or deemed acceptable by themselves. Anyone who believes that the increased health issues in this country are somehow NOT tied to our evolving diet is walking around with their eyes closed, essentially.

Please provide this proof the cumulative effect of ingesting GMO's is harmful. Genetic patents are evil, just like software patents and most intellectual property laws. However, the food is good and good for you. While profit is a motive, the true intent of GMO's is better nutrition and more food for everyone. The success of GMO's is partially due to the fact the crops are heartier, more robust, and need less help in the form of fertilizers and irrigation, thus offsetting the cost of the license. Keep in mind there is a growing community of "open source" GMOs, so things are getting better. Yes our health is tied to our diet, but for the first time in decades kids today are expected to be healthier and less obese than their parents. We are on an upward trend, thanks to science, agriculture, and the Internet.

Vision, better nutrition is achieved by turning on our heals and going back to the old way of raising crops or animals. I don't know where you get "better nutrition". You are, of course, correct about "more food".

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Vision, better nutrition is achieved by turning on our heals and going back to the old way of raising crops or animals.

which would be fine, as long as you are ok with only around 1/2 the people on the planet eating.

I don't know where you get "better nutrition". You are, of course, correct about "more food".

I am not arguing better, but EQUIVALENT nutritional value, and I think Vision was, too. It is better nutrition for the population if there is enough food for all, and I suspect that was his meaning. I'll leave it to him to clarify.

I was only illustrating a fact, slick. I wasn't suggesting a nastalgic solution. GMO is not the only way forward, it's just a money-maker.

So nutrition = eating enough, not nutritional value of specific food. Gotcha.

ideally, Thorne, it is all of the above. However, the purpose of GMO crops is NOT merely profit motive, it is productivity(as stated, with lowered use of certain fertilizers and such, in some cases). Now, if all farmers raised their productive yields, the profit would be short-lived, as prices would drop due to increased food supply. Right now, the profit motive IS there for farmers, and, of course, for the big producers of the seed, such as Monsanto and DuPont.

Fear of genetically modified crops is a bit irrational, it is like people think because they are genetically modified they somehow become radioactive or something. But in reality if you break them down to their separate ingredients, they contain exactly the same compounds and molecules as unmodified plants (perhaps just with greater abundance since they were modified to produce more).

It is like saying selective breeding of cattle has somehow turned meat toxic in some mysterious way that harms people even though we have been doing it for something like 2000 years now, when instead all it has really accomplished is making cattle more productive in various ways. By the way, in 1700 the average weight of a bull ready for slaughter was around 370 pounds, today it is around 2,400 pounds according to Wikipedia. Accomplished entirely by "selective breeding" AKA Artificial selection, it is not natural but somehow nobody was bothered by it for thousands of years. Genetically modified crops are the same thing only we have even more precise control over it.

I think the biggest risk with GM foods is the possibility to produce proteins that are allergenic or even toxic.

Krom, those are SO not the same. Have you ever edited a config file for a game and called yourself a hacker? How will this level of "hacker" do when they open a compiled EXE in a hex editor and are no longer working with contained systems designed to be easily modified? This is the difference, essentially. Guided breeding, or cross-pollination are fool-proof ways to modify our natural resources. GMO has gone beyond that, and as a sampling some of their first forays have been to incorporate pesticides into plants at a genetic level. It does not undergo exhaustive testing, and frankly I don't believe there is an official entity in the entire United States that knows what the ★■◆● they're doing when it comes to nutrition (remember, we're only fairly recently right back to breast milk being best for infants). It seems to be a melding of alchemy and politics, with the cutting edge of science thinking only of whether or not they can, with no thought for whether or not they should.

With the limited level of knowledge that people have attained to when it comes to nutrition and agriculture, any commercial forays into GMO can only be short-sighted and reckless.

On that note, Krom, my dad recommends looking up some lectures by "Jeffrey Smith" (YouTube) on GMOs.

Actually I often edit game dll, executable, data, even active process memory (all only for single player games though), and probably you have too if you ever used the D3 NoCD patch... The results are clear, repeatable, and predictable. The difference between hacking video games and genetically modified foods is basically only that a whole bunch of people don't understand the latter so they fear it and nobody cares about the former.

Krom you win the obtuse reply of the year award! Do I really need to rephrase, or do you just disagree with the point that I feel I made relatively well?

callmeslick wrote:

Guy who knows nothing of the subject wrote: I don't know where you get "better nutrition". You are, of course, correct about "more food".

I am not arguing better, but EQUIVALENT nutritional value, and I think Vision was, too.

No, better nutrition. That's the whole reason Golden Rice was invented 20 years ago. It's super rice.

flip wrote:I think the biggest risk with GM foods is the possibility to produce proteins that are allergenic or even toxic.

There is no mechanism for this to happen. Besides, the CDC already keeps comprehensive lists of allergens. The genes responsible for the allergens are known. Every GMO gets tested specifically for all the known allergens before it is approved for human consumption. When something funny comes up, the food gets scrapped. In fact, they are so cautionary that legitimately good GMO food has been shelved for over a decade because of false positives. They are still trying to get some of this perfectly safe food out to the public as we speak.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:How will this level of "hacker" do when they open a compiled EXE in a hex editor and are no longer working with contained systems designed to be easily modified?

This stuff drives me nuts. People have been fooled to think genetic engineers just modify stuff willy-nilly like fictional mad-scientists. They have a great understanding of what they are doing. The compiled EXE annalogy makes no sense because the genes themselves are the source code!

Obtuse seems to be the order of the day. Granted they know what they're modifying. I never said they didn't. I never said the seed, when planted, would destroy the earth. I'm saying they either don't know or don't care what the effects will be of the changes they feel are justified once it is introduced into the digestion of an animal or human. It's this whole order of things they are tampering with, and you can't make a separation there. I don't give a flying ★■◆● what they modify until it becomes part of that system and does something unexpected (at best) with it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm saying they either don't know or don't care what the effects will be of the changes they feel are justified once it is introduced into the digestion of an animal or human. It's this whole order of things they are tampering with, and you can't make a separation there. I don't give a flying **** what they modify until it becomes part of that system and does something unexpected (at best) with it.

I'm sorry, you are simply wrong. This type of engineering is extremely difficult and costly. There is no room for error. Everything the engineers do is meticulously planned out and run by panel after panel of investors, colleagues, bio-ethicists, etc. Each modified organism goes through a maze of tests to ensure it meets the desired goal. Remember, this is a product created by a corporation that needs to be controlled. These companies don't want their products growing in the wild so they make the organisms sterile. They want you to renew licenses every year and if you grow without a license you get a lawsuit. They don't want anyone getting harmed from their products because the lawsuit would end their business permanently. It takes nearly a decade of research and experimentation to make one GMO. These guys absolutely know what they are doing, care very deeply about it, and are extremely forward thinking.

GMOs are safer than organic foods, old school farming, and everything of the sort. Genetic engineering is far safer than traditional plant breeding and animal husbandry. And as far as "something unexpected" goes, well, there are plenty of unexpected mutations happening all the time in nature without human cause. Microorganisms evolve way, way faster than people. Besides, more damage has been done by our ancestors facilitating the movement of invasive species to new lands than any geneticist could ever do. Killer bees are the product of selective breeding, not genetic engineering. Want to keep doing things the old way? Your fears are unfounded. Learn about microbiology and dispel them.


Also, I've been eating GMOs for years and I'm healthier than I've been since my 20's!

Gotta love how Sgt Thorne must be "afraid" of GMOs. I've heard of studies done which resulted in rather nasty side-effects from consumption of GMO grains, and a lot more. That's enough to make one think twice. But now that I know they cure cancer (at least I think that's where Vision was going with that), I'll definitely take up biochemistry in my spare time and have another look at it.

flip wrote:I think the biggest risk with GM foods is the possibility to produce proteins that are allergenic or even toxic.

unless sensitized by excess exposure, the proteins will never become allergenic, and they aren't introducing ANYTHING, that I'm aware of, to the edible parts of the plants. Most GMO work is around resistance to certain herbicides used to supress weed growth(and hence, enable weed free fields that yield higher), or to certain parasitic infections.
Now, somewhere in here, someone mentioned hormone treatment of meats(chickens, beef, etc), and to my mind that, along with excess antibiotic usage, is dangerous to the consumer. However, my points here have been toward the absolute hysteria around GMO crops(largely grain crops) for utterly no reason whatsoever.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I've heard of studies done which resulted in rather nasty side-effects from consumption of GMO grains, and a lot more... But now that I know they cure cancer (at least I think that's where Vision was going with that), I'll definitely take up biochemistry in my spare time and have another look at it.

Post the studies of the side effects. Even with side effects, those need to be considered in the larger risk assessment picture. And I believe you said our health problems are related to our diet, correct? Well if that is the case, the GMOs are the long-term path to greater health and less disease. As we learn more about the body and genetics we will eventually be able to engineer food designed specifically for human consumption. And when I say specifically, I mean imagine eating foods that not only provide all the vitamins and minerals you need but also the compounds that cells need to repair themselves and live longer. There isn't any food in the world that currently fits that description. It would put the supplement and much of the pharmaceutical industry out of business, haha. We can make foods to help everyone on the planet. Don't forget, we in the West are spoiled with the amount of nutritious food available to us.

callmeslick wrote:but, WHY are you skeptical. You are aware that nothing of nutrional substance is modified, right? It's all about disease and/or pest resistance and tolerance of herbicides.

First off, how do you know that inserting foreign genes in a way that nature would never be able to itself do doesn't affect the structure of the crop? Something's different. I can no longer eat soy since most of it is GMO now. If I'm lucky to find soy that is truly organic and not modified, no problem. And your forgetting that all that Roundup sprayed on the plants gets into the food supply we eat. That's not good for us either.

callmeslick wrote:widespread panic and stupidity over stuff people don't know isn't surprising....and, yes, a LOT of people are more liberal than I.

Sh*t, I lived through the 1950's, when all those know-it-all scientists said they knew best. Turned out, they damn near killed us and a whole host of animal life on the planet with pesticides they told us was safe. Even medical science was no better with not damaging us with their "treatments". No, let's just say that I have a healthy skepticism with "scientists" who they say they know for sure something is OK for us.

callmeslick wrote:once again, the only fear was 'unsalability' in the 'organic' market, a market which, by the way, is COMPLETELY bogus, having seen it in action.

The problem with the GMO rapeseed plant is that once it's out in the wild, it spreads and it can't be gotten rid of, ever, because it crosses with other types of crops. That would destroy the livelihood of quite a few farmers. We even had the Japanese reject a whole shipment of wheat from the NW because a farmer found GMO seed in his wheat crop, seed that shouldn't have been there in the first place. No, GMO's can't be contained, no matter how much Monsanto "assures" us it can be controlled.

tunnelcat wrote:First off, how do you know that inserting foreign genes in a way that nature would never be able to itself do doesn't affect the structure of the crop?

because I have a Master's Degree in Biology, and know that a soybean is a soybean. They aren't messing with the genetics that produces the beans, but in the leafy part of the plant.

I can no longer eat soy since most of it is GMO now.

why, pray tell. There is utterly NO difference between a GMO soybean and an organic one. And, since they are resistant to RoundUp, the usage of the stuff can go way down over time, as you eliminate the weed plants over a lot of acreage.

Sh*t, I lived through the 1950's, when all those know-it-all scientists said they knew best. Turned out, they damn near killed us and a whole host of animal life on the planet with pesticides they told us was safe. Even medical science was no better with not damaging us with their "treatments". No, let's just say that I have a healthy skepticism with "scientists" who they say they know for sure something is OK for us.

skepticism is fine, but unreasonable conclusions based on fear is not.

rapeseed cross-pollinates with wheat? Gotta link for that one?

You're forgetting superweeds that are now resistant to Roundup. What's next, an new herbicide for us to ingest along with our food? We can't even create stable code in our computers and devices. So mucking with the genetic code is a good idea? No thanks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... 2F20130425

Rapeseed hybridizes with up to possibly eight other crops, including broccoli and mustard. Containing it is impossible. We're creating transgenic plants we can't control the spread of either. It grows freely along our roadways even. I was talking separately about not being able to control GMO plant spread with my wheat reference.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ified-crop

http://realfoodforager.com/runaway-gm-canola-plants/

sorry, but there is NO EVIDENCE in any of those articles about rapeseed crosspollinating with anything other than other rapeseed(canola) plants. None.
So, once again, panic sets in and wheat is somehow menaced by canola.
To your other question above....what happens post- RoundUp? Yes, we likely do develop a different herbicide, but the beauty of GMO is that such a cycle of resistance and all is FAR less when you have the edible species protected against the herbicide? Why? Because the initial doses of the herbicide can be far higher, and thus far more complete in weed devastation compared to low doses over time, which is what had to be done for non-GMO crops.

by the way, those references you linked to above might have the highest concentration of the usage of the words, "possibly", "maybe' and "perhaps" that I have ever seen in a supposed 'scientific' article? Really? That's the best you have to justify this argument. Also, you never clarified for me why you 'can't eat' GMO soybeans. A soybean, is a soybean, there cannot be a single valid reason for you not to be able to eat them. It seems you simply can't bear to consume them out of unreasonable fears that the Organic Foods mafia has drilled into you.

Oh, and before you think that I am solely concerned with profit and land yield over the environment, I would remind you that my land is VERY near to the Chesapeake Bay, and that I am very involved in the protection of the Bay and Seaside wetlands. If I saw any, and I mean any, valid data that showed that this agricultural practice was in any way degrading the habitat of the Eastern Shore, the practice would be banned on all my properties. But, I don't. In fact, the opposite is true. Invasive species and harmful weeds(often one and the same) are down, run-off pollution is down(less need for season long herbicide application) and yields are up(great for a hungry world, and the folks who gamble vast sums annually to grow crops on land that is mainly rented).

I don’t eat soy either….but mostly because it sucks ass…

Sorry...

tunnelcat wrote:First off, how do you know that inserting foreign genes in a way that nature would never be able to itself do doesn't affect the structure of the crop?...And your forgetting that all that Roundup sprayed on the plants gets into the food supply we eat. That's not good for us either....No, GMO's can't be contained, no matter how much Monsanto "assures" us it can be controlled.

You are right, inserting genes does affect the structure of the crop... exactly as the engineers plan it. And what is this nonsense about doing things nature can't? Nature is pretty bad at stuff. Ever notice how over 99% of species that ever lived on this planet are extinct? Could you get away with that job performance at work? Nature has also created an environment where most things try to kill us. So, no, I'm not a huge fan of Nature's work, haha.

If you don't like herbicides and insecticides in food then you should be 100% behind GMOs. This is one of the things they address. With insecticides, rather than spraying poison that kills all sorts of bug indiscriminately, you can modify a plant to resist a specific type of pest. That modified plant might be poisonous to the insect but those added compounds might not be toxic to people, or if they are, they are in quantities too small to harm us (bugs are tiny!). GMOs reduce the need for herbicides because we make the plants compete with the weeds. Every try to grow a garden? You might spend a lot of time pulling weeds out of beds. But weedier crops reduce that type of work and it is poison free. Imagine instead of dandelions or crab grass in your yard you had all these annoying delicious tomatoes and strawberries everywhere!

Science in the 1950's looks weak compared to today because scientific knowledge and progress advances exponentially. We have lived with GMO's for two decades now and there are no known disasters, pandemics, or even epidemics related to them. We also know considerably more than when this endeavor first started. Things get safer and more refined with time as more and more scientists and engineers get involved.

Hey, if she doesn’t want to consume GMOs that’s her right, but where I have to draw the line is making that decision for other people.

Actually, Vision is talking out of his ass. This does in fact tie in with his future of humanity BS, which can't work if nature is better than people's "improvements" on it, or humans always become high-minded and are humbled. Serious errors have been made in the past, and humanity is not above it now for all that CERTAIN PEOPLE have accomplished. I remain hopeful for what "we" could do, but grimly aware of what "we" are doing, and are going to continue doing. Science is awesome, but people are not. The wheel will come around again.

To speak metaphysically, I am certain that no one is capable of even approaching comprehending creation to the degree necessary to meddle without botching it. People's knowledge is imperfect, and their inner motives even more imperfect, while their situation (distractions, economic motivators, vices, deceptions) complicates their chances to a hopeless degree. It's a train-wreck waiting to happen, and the amount of damage is tied to the amount of energy put into it.

Spidey wrote:Hey, if she doesn’t want to consume GMOs that’s her right, but where I have to draw the line is making that decision for other people.

Totally agree. While refusing to eat GMOs doesn't put you in the same category as the anti-vacc crowd, there may come a time decades from now where that choice becomes impractical. I can easily see the agriculture industry changing in such a way that a market arises for "vintage foods" not unlike the organic movement. The difference, I suspect, is by the time this happens people will just shrug and say "who cares about vintage seeds?"

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Actually, Vision is talking out of his ass.

Ah! Gloomy Gus rears his head again. You are right, I am talking out my ass. However, I strongly suspect I am right about a few things. Time will tell.

We are not a train-wreck waiting to happen. Such negativity you have! Humanity today is in better shape than we have ever been. The world as a whole is more tolerant and peaceful than any other time in history. It is precisely the accomplishments of the certain few that both inspire and create frameworks for a better tomorrow. Yes people's knowledge is imperfect, but that is irrelevant. We have an imperfect knowledge of space, rockets, robotics, geology, astro-biology, and dozens of other things, yet we have robots digging up rocks and shooting them with lasers on Mars right now. ROBOTS SHOOTING LASERS ON G0DDAMN MARS! Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know enough to do great things. In the past 20 years we have learned how to make new body parts from stem cells, make new organs with 3D printers, clone animals (and make them glow in the dark!), and all sorts of other things. Are our replacement parts as good as the originals? No, not yet. But in time they will be as good as Nature's -- and then we will make them better. Remember, I'm talking about just the past 20 years of progress. It's silly to think we won't be any better at this in 200 years.

And as far as people's motives go, well, given enough time we will be able to change that too. This last sentence sounds evil I'm sure, but think of it this way: right now there are millions of people on drugs for a variety of mental health issues ranging from depression to anger management to concentration problems. Eventually we will know enough to fix these problems permanently. How many people suffering from mental illness right now would jump at the chance to stop giving their money to drug companies and be cured? We might even be able to find a vaccination for "evil" (if we see evil as a mental illness).* I know that sounds far fetched but 20 years ago you probably wouldn't believe in a "smartphone." I have a hard time believing it today and I own one.


*I would totally get cured of evil.

Spidey wrote:I don’t eat soy either….but mostly because it sucks ass…

Sorry...

I bet you eat a fair bit of it.....indirectly.

You mean through my nose…

Yes, I don’t mind the small amounts that are in a lot of foods.