Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
HuckleB
HuckleB's Journal
HuckleB's Journal
December 5, 2015
Let's clarify for all time: The unvaccinated are not just a danger to themselves.
Why worry about the unvaccinated?
http://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/12/why-worry-about-the-unvaccinated/
To the Parent of the Unvaccinated Child Who Exposed My Family to Measles
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/open-letter-parent-unvaccinated-child-measles-exposure
Intentionally unvaccinated students putting other children at risk
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822181234.htm
The Choice Not To Vaccinate Doesn’t Only Affect You!
http://www.vaccinestoday.eu/vaccines/the-choice-not-to-vaccinate-doesnt-only-affect-you/
----------------------------------------------------------
This should be general knowledge. Let's make it so.
December 4, 2015
A really good conversation that might hit home in various ways to people in regard to long-term friendship changes.
Ta-Nehisi Coates and friend Neil Drumming discuss friendship over time and fame
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/573/status-update?act=2#playA really good conversation that might hit home in various ways to people in regard to long-term friendship changes.
December 4, 2015
"As long as we’ve been telling stories, we’ve been telling stories about drugs. At 4,000 years old, the Epic of Gilgamesh is generally considered the oldest known work of literature. And ultimately, it’s about drugs: the end of the tale fixates on a desperate, insecure king’s quest for a substance that can make him feel young again.
“There is a plant that looks like a box-thorn... if you can possess this plant, you'll be again as you were in your youth,” Gilgamesh explains to his undead boatman buddy Ur-shanabi, in what may be the earliest-documented fictional effort to score drugs. “This plant, Ur-shanabi, is the ‘Plant of Heartbeat,’ with it a man can regain his vigour.”
Gilgamesh then announces that he intends to test the stash out on an unsuspecting old shepherd, making him perhaps the only fictional hero to threaten to roofie the elderly with immortality, but that’s beside the point. The point is that the drug works both as narrative fuel and as a potent symbol (in the case of old Gilgamesh, it's his fear of death and the lengths he’ll go to confound it).
Ever since, humans have been taking drugs in fiction, usually as a vessel for exploring ideas about science, social order, or human nature. Our drug fiction has proven remarkably capable of both reflecting and dissecting the anxieties about the present in which it is written—we can learn a lot about the fears and aspirations of a given period by its characters' bad trips—and even of predicting the future.
..."
Soma, Spice and Substance D: A History of Drugs in Science Fiction
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/soma-spice-and-substance-d-a-history-of-drugs-in-science-fiction"As long as we’ve been telling stories, we’ve been telling stories about drugs. At 4,000 years old, the Epic of Gilgamesh is generally considered the oldest known work of literature. And ultimately, it’s about drugs: the end of the tale fixates on a desperate, insecure king’s quest for a substance that can make him feel young again.
“There is a plant that looks like a box-thorn... if you can possess this plant, you'll be again as you were in your youth,” Gilgamesh explains to his undead boatman buddy Ur-shanabi, in what may be the earliest-documented fictional effort to score drugs. “This plant, Ur-shanabi, is the ‘Plant of Heartbeat,’ with it a man can regain his vigour.”
Gilgamesh then announces that he intends to test the stash out on an unsuspecting old shepherd, making him perhaps the only fictional hero to threaten to roofie the elderly with immortality, but that’s beside the point. The point is that the drug works both as narrative fuel and as a potent symbol (in the case of old Gilgamesh, it's his fear of death and the lengths he’ll go to confound it).
Ever since, humans have been taking drugs in fiction, usually as a vessel for exploring ideas about science, social order, or human nature. Our drug fiction has proven remarkably capable of both reflecting and dissecting the anxieties about the present in which it is written—we can learn a lot about the fears and aspirations of a given period by its characters' bad trips—and even of predicting the future.
..."
December 4, 2015
"The idea that “natural” products are safe and effective has been so effectively marketed to us that many don’t recognize it as a fallacy. Much of the supplement industry is built around an appeal to nature. Supplements are described as natural, gentle, and “holistic”. Medicine, especially prescription drugs, is the opposite. They’re “chemicals”. They’re risky and dangerous – just look at that list of side effects! Supplements are packaged beautifully, have impressive claims, and are for sale at Whole Foods. Drugs are hazardous: They may come in a plain vial, with warning labels, detailed information sheets, and cautious statements about their effectiveness. Is it any wonder that many consumers, when faced with health concerns or medical issues, instinctively think of supplements as a safer alternative? Purveyors of supplements and alternative medicine have leveraged this fallacy so effectively that it’s even guided the regulations that allow their sale. Regrettably, the result is a marketplace that puts consumers’ interests last. The supplement industry has completely stacked the odds against the consumer, challenging their ability to make informed decisions about their health. Most supplements on the market have never been properly tested for safety or effectiveness. And those that have been tested have largely been shown to be ineffective – or in the case of products like vitamins, often unnecessary. And while there are undoubtedly some ethical companies out there, the industry is regularly revealed to resemble a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Despite this, the industry has gone from success to success – in terms of sales, at least. In 1994 supplement sales were about $4 billion in the US. It’s now a $37 billion industry that is remains only lightly regulated – or largely unregulated. With recent action taken against fraudulent products, there are more questions than ever about how to force the supplement industry to make consumer protection a priority. A new paper in Drug Testing and Analysis makes a provocative suggestion: Local and state governments already regulate another hazardous product: tobacco. Can lessons learned from the tobacco wars improve the safety of supplements?
Whether you’re a supplement user or not, one thing we can probably all agree on is that these products should be manufactured to high quality standards. Setting aside any efficacy questions, consumers should get what they pay for, and be able to trust that what’s on the label is actually in the bottle. Adulterated supplements, or supplements that contain undeclared ingredients (from potential allergens to houseplants) are fraudulent and prohibited – yet they continue to appear on the market. Why this occurs isn’t unexpected. Current regulation doesn’t require manufacturers to demonstrate quality before products are sold, nor does it to hold manufacturers to account when things go wrong. That’s the reality with supplements today. And we can trace the cause (in the United States, at least) to a pivotal piece of legislation.
Supplement regulation: A travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham
While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) effectively sets the worldwide standard for pharmaceutical regulation, the same cannot be said for its regulation of supplements. The overall quality of supplements sold in the United States is unclear. Adulteration, virtually unheard of with drug products, is a regular complaint with supplements. This shouldn’t surprise, as the FDA is at the mercy of legislation deliberately designed to prevent effective oversight. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) was an amendment to the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that established the American regulatory framework for dietary supplements. It effectively excludes manufacturers of these products from many of the requirements that are in place for prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Amazingly, it puts the requirement to demonstrate harm on the FDA, rather than the onus on the manufacturer to show a product is safe and effective. A weak regulatory framework, which doesn’t require pre-sale testing of product quality and finished product specifications, might be expected to result in a weaker commitment to quality. Yet consumers are not aware of this. After two decades of DSHEA, many consumers believe that supplements are approved by the FDA, that supplements are tested for product quality, and that adverse events are disclosed to consumers. DSHEA does not require this, and there is no assurance to consumers it is occurring.
...
Just like the gradual public health push for tobacco legislation, recent actions at the federal and state level are encouraging – legislators are recognizing the fallacy of supplement safety, and are finally moving to put consumer protection ahead of industry interests. The industry’s inability to keep adulterated products off the market does itself no favours, and public support may dwindle if it’s recognized that the industry, to date, really hasn’t taken product quality seriously. What we argue for here at SBM is a consistent approach to quality and safety, where claims of effectiveness are backed by good evidence, and health professionals and consumers can use these products in science-based ways. The challenge we face is that the supplement industry will fight this tooth and nail. It took decades for tobacco. Comparing supplements to tobacco is definitely provocative. But given what we don’t know about supplement quality and safety, the comparison may be more apt than it appears."
----------------------------------------------
Let's hope things keep getting better here.
Holding the supplement industry to account: Can we learn from tobacco regulation?
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/holding-the-supplement-industry-to-account-can-we-learn-from-tobacco-regulation/"The idea that “natural” products are safe and effective has been so effectively marketed to us that many don’t recognize it as a fallacy. Much of the supplement industry is built around an appeal to nature. Supplements are described as natural, gentle, and “holistic”. Medicine, especially prescription drugs, is the opposite. They’re “chemicals”. They’re risky and dangerous – just look at that list of side effects! Supplements are packaged beautifully, have impressive claims, and are for sale at Whole Foods. Drugs are hazardous: They may come in a plain vial, with warning labels, detailed information sheets, and cautious statements about their effectiveness. Is it any wonder that many consumers, when faced with health concerns or medical issues, instinctively think of supplements as a safer alternative? Purveyors of supplements and alternative medicine have leveraged this fallacy so effectively that it’s even guided the regulations that allow their sale. Regrettably, the result is a marketplace that puts consumers’ interests last. The supplement industry has completely stacked the odds against the consumer, challenging their ability to make informed decisions about their health. Most supplements on the market have never been properly tested for safety or effectiveness. And those that have been tested have largely been shown to be ineffective – or in the case of products like vitamins, often unnecessary. And while there are undoubtedly some ethical companies out there, the industry is regularly revealed to resemble a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Despite this, the industry has gone from success to success – in terms of sales, at least. In 1994 supplement sales were about $4 billion in the US. It’s now a $37 billion industry that is remains only lightly regulated – or largely unregulated. With recent action taken against fraudulent products, there are more questions than ever about how to force the supplement industry to make consumer protection a priority. A new paper in Drug Testing and Analysis makes a provocative suggestion: Local and state governments already regulate another hazardous product: tobacco. Can lessons learned from the tobacco wars improve the safety of supplements?
Whether you’re a supplement user or not, one thing we can probably all agree on is that these products should be manufactured to high quality standards. Setting aside any efficacy questions, consumers should get what they pay for, and be able to trust that what’s on the label is actually in the bottle. Adulterated supplements, or supplements that contain undeclared ingredients (from potential allergens to houseplants) are fraudulent and prohibited – yet they continue to appear on the market. Why this occurs isn’t unexpected. Current regulation doesn’t require manufacturers to demonstrate quality before products are sold, nor does it to hold manufacturers to account when things go wrong. That’s the reality with supplements today. And we can trace the cause (in the United States, at least) to a pivotal piece of legislation.
Supplement regulation: A travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham
While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) effectively sets the worldwide standard for pharmaceutical regulation, the same cannot be said for its regulation of supplements. The overall quality of supplements sold in the United States is unclear. Adulteration, virtually unheard of with drug products, is a regular complaint with supplements. This shouldn’t surprise, as the FDA is at the mercy of legislation deliberately designed to prevent effective oversight. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) was an amendment to the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that established the American regulatory framework for dietary supplements. It effectively excludes manufacturers of these products from many of the requirements that are in place for prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Amazingly, it puts the requirement to demonstrate harm on the FDA, rather than the onus on the manufacturer to show a product is safe and effective. A weak regulatory framework, which doesn’t require pre-sale testing of product quality and finished product specifications, might be expected to result in a weaker commitment to quality. Yet consumers are not aware of this. After two decades of DSHEA, many consumers believe that supplements are approved by the FDA, that supplements are tested for product quality, and that adverse events are disclosed to consumers. DSHEA does not require this, and there is no assurance to consumers it is occurring.
...
Just like the gradual public health push for tobacco legislation, recent actions at the federal and state level are encouraging – legislators are recognizing the fallacy of supplement safety, and are finally moving to put consumer protection ahead of industry interests. The industry’s inability to keep adulterated products off the market does itself no favours, and public support may dwindle if it’s recognized that the industry, to date, really hasn’t taken product quality seriously. What we argue for here at SBM is a consistent approach to quality and safety, where claims of effectiveness are backed by good evidence, and health professionals and consumers can use these products in science-based ways. The challenge we face is that the supplement industry will fight this tooth and nail. It took decades for tobacco. Comparing supplements to tobacco is definitely provocative. But given what we don’t know about supplement quality and safety, the comparison may be more apt than it appears."
----------------------------------------------
Let's hope things keep getting better here.
December 4, 2015
Another piece covering some of the same area.
http://www.skepticnorth.com/2012/04/antivax-101-tactics-and-tropes-of-the-antivaccine-movement/
December 4, 2015
"...
Why am I mentioning this? The reason is simple. Over the years, I think I’ve come to learn just about every antivaccine trope, canard, strategy, and argument there is. At least, I know all the major ones, nearly all of the minor ones, and even quite a few of the obscure ones. As a result, I’m rarely surprised anymore, even when of late antivaccinationists have taken to referring to supporters of science-based medicine as “vaccine injury denialists,” a term antivaccine activist Ginger Taylor notably used in “The Role of Government and Media,” a chapter in the anti-vaccine book Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, which was edited by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland. Now, Taylor uses the term frequently on her blog in a hilarious bit of Pee-Wee Herman-like, “I know you are, but what am I?” (That actually might be a topic for another post entirely.) So when I see people writing about the tropes and tactics favored by the antivaccine movement, I know I’m quite qualified to judge whether they know what they’re talking about or not, as I’ve spent nearly a decade in the trenches on Usenet and in the blogosphere.
...
Kata is the author of a recent article in Vaccine entitled Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Her opening sets the stage:
..."
The larger research piece Orac discusses is behind a pay wall for most people, but it goes much deeper, and he does list a number of the usual tropes here, although "too many, too soon" and "alternative schedules are justifiable" should be added. Suffice it to say that I was a bit surprised to see the same old tropes pulled out on DU the past two days. This study came out in 2011, but it appears that nothing has changed for the true believers, and they remain as consistent in their steadfast dangerousness as ever.
I won't be around much today. So have a good one.
Tactics and tropes of the antivaccine movement revisited, reluctantly
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/24/tactics-and-tropes-of-the-antivaccine-mo/"...
Why am I mentioning this? The reason is simple. Over the years, I think I’ve come to learn just about every antivaccine trope, canard, strategy, and argument there is. At least, I know all the major ones, nearly all of the minor ones, and even quite a few of the obscure ones. As a result, I’m rarely surprised anymore, even when of late antivaccinationists have taken to referring to supporters of science-based medicine as “vaccine injury denialists,” a term antivaccine activist Ginger Taylor notably used in “The Role of Government and Media,” a chapter in the anti-vaccine book Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, which was edited by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland. Now, Taylor uses the term frequently on her blog in a hilarious bit of Pee-Wee Herman-like, “I know you are, but what am I?” (That actually might be a topic for another post entirely.) So when I see people writing about the tropes and tactics favored by the antivaccine movement, I know I’m quite qualified to judge whether they know what they’re talking about or not, as I’ve spent nearly a decade in the trenches on Usenet and in the blogosphere.
...
Kata is the author of a recent article in Vaccine entitled Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Her opening sets the stage:
Vaccinations are a significant public health achievement, contributing to dramatic declines in morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases [1]. However, by reading certain websites, one might be persuaded to think the opposite – that vaccines are actually ineffective, useless, or even dangerous. These are merely some of the arguments posed by the anti-vaccination movement, an amorphous group holding diverse views that nevertheless shares one core commonality: an opposition to vaccines. The popularity and pervasiveness of the Internet today has facilitated the transmission of such beliefs.
Many people search online for health information, and the information found impacts patient decision-making; it is therefore essential to understand what is shared online. This paper provides an overview of how the new generation of the Internet (Web 2.0) and its emphasis on user-generated content has combined with characteristics of the current postmodern medical paradigm, creating a new environment for sharing health information. The anti-vaccination movement has taken advantage of this milieu to disseminate its messages.
..."
The larger research piece Orac discusses is behind a pay wall for most people, but it goes much deeper, and he does list a number of the usual tropes here, although "too many, too soon" and "alternative schedules are justifiable" should be added. Suffice it to say that I was a bit surprised to see the same old tropes pulled out on DU the past two days. This study came out in 2011, but it appears that nothing has changed for the true believers, and they remain as consistent in their steadfast dangerousness as ever.
I won't be around much today. So have a good one.
December 3, 2015
"...
After a spate of setbacks for the anti-genetic engineering movement, including the FDA’s approval last month of a faster-growing, genetically engineered Atlantic salmon, the organic industry (which finances most of it) is leading an assault on university scientists who research and advocate for genetically engineered crops. Devoid of any systematic scientific evidence to back up claims of organics’ nutritional, health or environmental superiority, industry executives and their fellow travelers are disparaging modern genetic engineering (which organic categorically rejects) by leading a variety of smear campaigns.
...
But the opposition were neither persuaded nor persuadable, and pounced. The anti-genetic engineering activists and their organic industry benefactors subjected Folta to a vile hate campaign. He became the object of professional and personal harassment, his email accounts were hacked, and he and his wife were threatened with physical violence, simply because his expertise and advocacy run counter to the organic industry’s narrative (and financial well-being). On November 4, Folta announced that he was “bowing out of the public science conversation,” a loss to us all.
Other scientists were maligned simply for writing articles about genetic engineering for a science website. In a hatchet job published in the Boston Globe, Harvard University professor Calestous Juma was accused of “failing to reveal a connection” to Monsanto. The connection? A single email from a Monsanto executive asking Juma and other scientists to write an article on their area of expertise. Neither Juma nor any of the other scientists was paid and none championed or even mentioned Monsanto. But in the eyes of the anti-genetic engineering Mafia and their sympathizers in the media, a simple email exchange constitutes a nefarious “connection.”
...
A splendid editorial in the prestigious journal Nature Biotechnology got to the nub of the issue: “Smear campaigns against those speaking out against scaremongering on [genetically engineered] crops highlight why support for scientists involved in public outreach is so important.”
..."
Certainly, the article offers hope that the organic is really struggling to get its marketing across, and its increasingly vile acts are those of desperation. I'm not so sure that's true, however. Still, good piece.
More on Big Organic's anti-scientist shenanigans
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/12/02/how-organic-agriculture-evolved-from-marketing-tool-to-evil-empire/"...
After a spate of setbacks for the anti-genetic engineering movement, including the FDA’s approval last month of a faster-growing, genetically engineered Atlantic salmon, the organic industry (which finances most of it) is leading an assault on university scientists who research and advocate for genetically engineered crops. Devoid of any systematic scientific evidence to back up claims of organics’ nutritional, health or environmental superiority, industry executives and their fellow travelers are disparaging modern genetic engineering (which organic categorically rejects) by leading a variety of smear campaigns.
...
But the opposition were neither persuaded nor persuadable, and pounced. The anti-genetic engineering activists and their organic industry benefactors subjected Folta to a vile hate campaign. He became the object of professional and personal harassment, his email accounts were hacked, and he and his wife were threatened with physical violence, simply because his expertise and advocacy run counter to the organic industry’s narrative (and financial well-being). On November 4, Folta announced that he was “bowing out of the public science conversation,” a loss to us all.
Other scientists were maligned simply for writing articles about genetic engineering for a science website. In a hatchet job published in the Boston Globe, Harvard University professor Calestous Juma was accused of “failing to reveal a connection” to Monsanto. The connection? A single email from a Monsanto executive asking Juma and other scientists to write an article on their area of expertise. Neither Juma nor any of the other scientists was paid and none championed or even mentioned Monsanto. But in the eyes of the anti-genetic engineering Mafia and their sympathizers in the media, a simple email exchange constitutes a nefarious “connection.”
...
A splendid editorial in the prestigious journal Nature Biotechnology got to the nub of the issue: “Smear campaigns against those speaking out against scaremongering on [genetically engineered] crops highlight why support for scientists involved in public outreach is so important.”
..."
Certainly, the article offers hope that the organic is really struggling to get its marketing across, and its increasingly vile acts are those of desperation. I'm not so sure that's true, however. Still, good piece.
December 3, 2015
"...
After a spate of setbacks for the anti-genetic engineering movement, including the FDA’s approval last month of a faster-growing, genetically engineered Atlantic salmon, the organic industry (which finances most of it) is leading an assault on university scientists who research and advocate for genetically engineered crops. Devoid of any systematic scientific evidence to back up claims of organics’ nutritional, health or environmental superiority, industry executives and their fellow travelers are disparaging modern genetic engineering (which organic categorically rejects) by leading a variety of smear campaigns.
...
But the opposition were neither persuaded nor persuadable, and pounced. The anti-genetic engineering activists and their organic industry benefactors subjected Folta to a vile hate campaign. He became the object of professional and personal harassment, his email accounts were hacked, and he and his wife were threatened with physical violence, simply because his expertise and advocacy run counter to the organic industry’s narrative (and financial well-being). On November 4, Folta announced that he was “bowing out of the public science conversation,” a loss to us all.
Other scientists were maligned simply for writing articles about genetic engineering for a science website. In a hatchet job published in the Boston Globe, Harvard University professor Calestous Juma was accused of “failing to reveal a connection” to Monsanto. The connection? A single email from a Monsanto executive asking Juma and other scientists to write an article on their area of expertise. Neither Juma nor any of the other scientists was paid and none championed or even mentioned Monsanto. But in the eyes of the anti-genetic engineering Mafia and their sympathizers in the media, a simple email exchange constitutes a nefarious “connection.”
...
A splendid editorial in the prestigious journal Nature Biotechnology got to the nub of the issue: “Smear campaigns against those speaking out against scaremongering on [genetically engineered] crops highlight why support for scientists involved in public outreach is so important.”
..."
Certainly, the article offers hope that the organic is really struggling to get its marketing across, and its increasingly vile acts are those of desperation. I'm not so sure that's true, however. Still, good piece.
How 'Organic' Agriculture Evolved From Marketing Tool To Evil Empire
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/12/02/how-organic-agriculture-evolved-from-marketing-tool-to-evil-empire/"...
After a spate of setbacks for the anti-genetic engineering movement, including the FDA’s approval last month of a faster-growing, genetically engineered Atlantic salmon, the organic industry (which finances most of it) is leading an assault on university scientists who research and advocate for genetically engineered crops. Devoid of any systematic scientific evidence to back up claims of organics’ nutritional, health or environmental superiority, industry executives and their fellow travelers are disparaging modern genetic engineering (which organic categorically rejects) by leading a variety of smear campaigns.
...
But the opposition were neither persuaded nor persuadable, and pounced. The anti-genetic engineering activists and their organic industry benefactors subjected Folta to a vile hate campaign. He became the object of professional and personal harassment, his email accounts were hacked, and he and his wife were threatened with physical violence, simply because his expertise and advocacy run counter to the organic industry’s narrative (and financial well-being). On November 4, Folta announced that he was “bowing out of the public science conversation,” a loss to us all.
Other scientists were maligned simply for writing articles about genetic engineering for a science website. In a hatchet job published in the Boston Globe, Harvard University professor Calestous Juma was accused of “failing to reveal a connection” to Monsanto. The connection? A single email from a Monsanto executive asking Juma and other scientists to write an article on their area of expertise. Neither Juma nor any of the other scientists was paid and none championed or even mentioned Monsanto. But in the eyes of the anti-genetic engineering Mafia and their sympathizers in the media, a simple email exchange constitutes a nefarious “connection.”
...
A splendid editorial in the prestigious journal Nature Biotechnology got to the nub of the issue: “Smear campaigns against those speaking out against scaremongering on [genetically engineered] crops highlight why support for scientists involved in public outreach is so important.”
..."
Certainly, the article offers hope that the organic is really struggling to get its marketing across, and its increasingly vile acts are those of desperation. I'm not so sure that's true, however. Still, good piece.
December 3, 2015
Why do we do this to ourselves? Why can't we wait to know who did it and why?
Yeah, I get it. We're nervous. We're scared.
Isn't that what we should fight against? Shouldn't we work to make our impulse response be: "Let's wait. We need more information. Let's grieve, but let's also take care of the other issues that also matter."
Or something like that. I know. I'm good at cliches. Or not, depending on your POV.
Take care, everyone.
December 3, 2015
It's from ocean pout.
In a First, the FDA Clears Genetically Modified Salmon for Eating—It Just Took 20 Years
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/in-a-first-the-fda-clears-genetically-modified-salmon-for-eating-it-just-took-20-years/
More on the fish:
Don’t Fear the Frankenfish: The FDA approved a genetically engineered animal for human consumption. The campaign against it is based on fear, not facts.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/genetically_engineered_aquabounty_salmon_safe_fda_decides.html
Anti-Environmental Opposition to GMO Salmon
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-environmental-opposition-to-gmo-salmon/
A genetically modified salmon is just a fish
http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-a-genetically-modified-salmon-is-just-a-fish
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
