@bobknight33,
What color is the sky in your universe?
I ask you because your angry statements are actually diametrically opposed to reality.
The republicans are grasping control with both hands and a net, while the democrats are failing miserably at their attempts to stop the power grab....

Examples from just this week, the republicans just added to the budget (which, BTW, is simply not how they system works, and is simply a way to blackmail the government into capitulating to their plans or they'll just 'shut down the government' again, wasting billions more...again)....
1)an increase in the amount corporations can donate to them by 10 times, because republicans think corporations don't have enough say in our government and want to give them 10 times more voice (but not citizens)
2)a removal of the protections against wall street frauds and cheating that were hard won in the last few years, apparently attempting to ensure we have another avoidable 'recession' as soon as possible, and ensure that those responsible are not ever prosecuted for their frauds, but are 'bailed out' instead...again...
3)removal of minimum standards for public school lunches, because they believe poor children don't need vegetables, vitamins, protein, or micro nutrients, carbs and sugars are just fine for them.
EDIT: 4) and just to prove they don't really want smaller, localized government and don't want more power for the states and less for the fed, the republicans have also 'countermanded' the local people's vote in DC on legalized marijuana, making it illegal again there (contrary to the actual vote that was over 60% PRO legalized recreational marijuana).
If only Obama would use the line item veto, it wouldn't be an issue, but he won't (because he's not a power hungry dictator, contrary to Faux News 'reporting').

America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism. At least socialism is designed to benefit the populace, what we are getting from the republicans is designed to benefit their pocket books and corporate America, not the people.

As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy.

Eat your vitamins! hurrgghh!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've been hearing some dissenting voices on the sunscreen argument. The idea being that sun *burns* are what damage the skin, and some amount of sun tan actually prevents that. Also, the health benefits of vitamin D - though there's been some research that sunscreen doesn't block it. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/does-sunscreen-block-vitamin-d-20130617-2odov.html

If I had a Northern European complexion I would use it, my choice is to just avoid the rays.

I think he did. He said the study shows a 1.5% to 3% difference between the two groups, though i think he should have referred to how significant that is, statistically speaking - i.e. what are the uncertainties, cos if it's ±2% uncertainty then the results are practically meaningless. He also said that the study only took sun-time into account, and spoke about the habits associated with people that avoid sun altogether - difficult to exercise and be active without exposing yourself to sun. He mentioned vitamin D deficiency - which is synthesised by sunlight in humans, and deficiency has an impact on all kinds of health issues. Finally he mentioned that there wasn't a control group - average people who neither hid from the sun nor bathed in it, because that would help them narrow their uncertainties or identify critical problems with the study.

There are a couple of good points about this video, a couple of bad ones, and several things he didn't mention that he should have.
The good - yes people usually use too little, and don't reapply as often as they should, they also don't realise that water resistant doesn't mean water proof, and don't reapply after going in the water.

The bad - he didn't debunk that study at all - conducting perfect studies are next to impossible, that doesn't mean this study was not useful in guiding decision making. Then he turned around, and without even referring to a study, said that sunscreen is "good", as if we should completely disregard a large study done across many years, but take his word for something 'because he says so'. There is actually no proof that sunscreens are good, only that they reduce the rate of burning if used as directed, and they may reduce the rates of some cancers, but the important thing is that the wavelengths that are causing the burning are not necessarily the ones that are doing the most DNA damage - so sunscreens should only be used as a last resort, the DNA will still suffer UV damage no matter what SPF you use if you stay out too long in the hot part of the day (usually 10-4).

Things he didn't mention - if you leave sunscreen on too long and continue to stay out in the sun, the UV rays react with the sunscreen in the deeper layers of the dermis to form free radicals (which can be cancer forming compounds). So using it improperly could potentially increase your risk of getting cancer.

This is not even to mention the numerous dodgy compounds that are often in sunscreens that have had very little testing done on them over the long term to ensure they are safe for human use. Or the fact sunscreens (even broad spectrum ones) provide very little UVA protection, and little to no infrared protection (which also causes damage).

So in my opinion, sunscreens have the potential to be good, but a far better option is to get your sun when the sun is not at it's hottest so you get enough vitamin D, then the rest of the day, cover yourself with effective clothing/wide brimmed hat if you are outside. If you absolutely have to be outside and it is impossible to wear proper clothing then follow his advice and make sure you use the sunscreen as directed, as this is far more important than going for an SPF higher than about 15. Just be prepared to buy a lot of sunscreen because you will be very surprised how much you have to use to cover yourself properly.

What Neil deGrasse Tyson and some of the other scientists/doctors (myself include) have are saying is that the IDEA of GMO's is a great one. The fact that we can engineer our foods to get the traits we want or add additional beneficial traits is an incredibly useful tool. We've already engineered rice that is able to produce vitamin A, which has been a huge help for places with vitamin A deficiencies and we can engineer potatoes to absorb less fats and oils when we fry them, there is also a professor at SUNY-ESF who is using GMO's to try and save the American Chestnut tree from extinction.

GMing is simply another tool in humanity's struggle to survive. First it was finding which foods were safe to eat, then it was breeding organisms within species to make inbred organisms that had the traits we wanted (think cattle, dogs, cats, corn, banana's; some of these things are more inbred than the Hapsburgs), then we starting creating our own hybrids across different species, and now we have GMO's.

However, what I object to is the current corporate use of GMO's to exploit farmers over patents, and breed for traits that people do necessarily need. NdT I'm sure is not advocating for that, but is advocating for the use of transgenic organisms/GMO's to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

GMO's are probably the most powerful tool we have to curb world hunger, and mal-nutrition, and it could also be the thing that allows humans to venture beyond the solar system. What the Sift seems to be objecting to, and the rest of the "developed" world is the use of GMO's by greedy corporations who care more about turning a profit than solving world problems (there isn't very much money in feeding the needy and hungry). They are the one's making what appear to me more or less useless and potentially dangerous GMO's. Turn your anger away from GMO's specifically and narrow it to the ill use of GMO's by greedy corporations.

Lastly, the argument that "we don't know what they'll do" is for the most part unfounded, there are a decent amount of studies (find them yourself sorry) which show that GMO's in general won't cause harm (though it really depends on what you're trying to make). The same argument was made about the LHC "We don't know what will happen when we turn it on!" but everyone was fine.

Hear, hear...A lonely voice of sanity, crying-out in a wilderness of the self-deluded...

I'd offer...Who gives a fiddler's fuck whose missile hit whose fight club incubator? Missiles found stacked neatly at two United Nations Relief and Works Agency school buildings to-date, and as far as that shit goes who is to say it wasn't the UN who brokered the bomb deal and sent the blue-helmet fucks to deliver 'em?

I have a suggestion: Israels' a big boy now (the 'dybbuk' have come a long way since 1947)... How about the rest of the world back the way back from The Never Ending Storyline of Real-Jew/Fake-Jew vs Persians (2700+ years and counting??) and let all interested parties duke it the fuck out? Oh and by all means, think of the children, consume more news-corp spin, and go out and get yourselves some solar-powered Vitamin D maybe??

I know...Let's identify and list 24/7-365 the names and addresses on news-tickers worldwide of the DAMAGED WHITE PEOPLE who manufactured the ordinance and continue to bank Hanover Phist on regional conflicts worldwide (while stealing $$ from the planet's wage-slaves) and eliminate ALL THOSE motherfuckers??


...'and the world, will be a better place'

*backup=[...snipped...]


Her name is Yoshimi
she's a black belt in karate
working for the city
she has to discipline her body

'Cause she knows that
it's demanding
to defeat those evil machines
I know she can beat them

Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots eat me
Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots defeat me

Those evil-natured robots
they're programmed to destroy us
she's gotta be strong to fight them
so she's taking lots of vitamins

'Cause she knows that
it'd be tragic
if those evil robots win
I know she can beat them

Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots defeat me
Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots eat me

Yoshimi

'Cause she knows that
it'd be tragic
if those evil robots win
I know she can beat them

Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots defeat me
Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots defeat me

Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots eat me
Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots eat me

Yoshimi

Yeah dude, It's a single-celled protein-drank combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins and minerals...everything the body needs.

Kalle,
Please ignore the troll above, he is not representative of the sift.
That said...vegemite on ANYTHING??? The totally nasty 'vitamin and caster oil like' paste is inedible to anyone not raised on it...as I'm sure are many American tastes.

If that is all true (and I read through much of the linked study and made little sense of it since I'm not a nutritionist and only took one semester of advanced molecular biology, it was particularly technical and hard to follow), then golden rice seems to be the exception.
As I read it, 55-70% the RDA was the maximum vitamin A that could be expected, with the range being quite large. (oddly they cite a 200 gram rice dose given in the study has 1.3mg b-carotene/3.8 to get .34mg retinol, then a 100 gram dose is estimated to provide 55-70% EAR , then they say a 50 gram dose, a more reasonable amount for children to eat, would provide the same amount as the 100 gram dose did?) Even if it can supply 1/2 the daily allowance of vitamin A (which I'm not sure it can from the study you cite), that still does not make it 'safe' to release into the 'wild', or 'better' than natural, easy to grow alternatives as unknown long term side effects have not been studied. It may be better than doing nothing, or even better than natural alternatives, but without long term studies we simply can't know. That's my main point.
$10K a year is not much for a farm to make, most small farms make far more than that, but also need to spend all they make to keep going. That limit seems to say they DO intend to charge most farmers for this seed eventually. If that's $10K a year profit, I'm OK with that.
I would say we should hold up potentially life saving technology until we know the unintended side effects, we should not experiment on the needy (or the public in general) and claim it's in their best interest. We certainly should not do it in secret, as in non-labeled gmo's.
Monsanto is not the only bio-tech company that acts like this, just the most public. Most GMO creating bio-techs are pitbulls about protecting their 'intellectual property', even when it floats onto someone's property without their knowledge.
I stand corrected, she did say that. I missed it. I do not claim they don't have higher yields, I think that's their whole point and I think they do a decent job of producing more. I just don't see that higher yields are worth the possible long term damage and I think more, longer term, double blind studies need to be done by disinterested parties. Long term side effects can take a long time to show up, and with something this new to the food source, it deserves careful consideration, not profit driven usage.
Again, 'golden rice' is an exception if you are correct. My limited experience is with Monsanto corn and soy, which seem to be in a different category. Most GMOs are not made with variety, and ARE made to have a clear adaptive advantage, so I made an assumption that 'golden rice' would be the same. My bad. Even with that though, the genes WILL end up mixing with some other non-gmo rice, making it difficult or impossible to ensure your crop is not gmo of that's what you want. They may not dominate, but if they end up causing cancer in 10 years, and by then 99% of rice is 'contaminated', then what? I just think safety (edit: I meant to say forethought) is the better part of valor, and better that a few go without today than open the possibility of all going without tomorrow when patience and thoughtful examination can prove safety. Of course, I'm not going blind of vitamin A deficiency or starving from lack of corn...so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter.
To a few of your other points, if gmo's are safe, prove it (Monsanto and the like) and do it incontrovertibly and publicly, then we'll all want them. If the argument is that 'stupid hippies have convinced everyone they're bad, so we have to sell them in secret', that argument doesn't hold water in my mind. Monsanto could certainly afford a public service campaign if the science was in, but the LONG term studies aren't done yet.
Teaching someone to grow peppers or other vegi's seems easier than modifying a crop and spreading the seeds, it takes about 5 minutes and adds variety. I think that's better than treating them as un-teachable and experimenting on them.
...and I agree with the scientists in sciencemag, destroying the test fields isn't helpful and answers nothing.

Monsanto does not own Golden Rice. Also many subsistence farmers in third world countries grow rice, because it is a cheap dietary staple. Asking them to switch to producing a totally different crop in order to fight vitamin deficiency is unrealistic.

Look, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed journal publication showing that Golden Rice is an extremely good source of vitamin A, with one cup providing 50% of the recommended daily amount. I can also provide other citations supporting this claim if you'd like. So, if you have references to actual peer-reviewed scientific research (rather than unfounded claims by anti-GM activists) refuting the efficacy of Golden Rice, let's see them.

As for your claim that the initially free distribution will be rescinded, that seems unlikely. The licenses under which Golden Rice is being distributed explicitly allow farmers to freely save, replant and sell the seeds from their crop for as long as their annual income remains under $10,000. Also, most of the patents relevant to the production of Golden Rice are not internationally valid, so they cannot be used to sue people in third world countries. And all the patents that are internationally valid have been explicitly waived by the patent holders. Is there still some remote possibility that poor farmers will end up getting screwed? I guess. But it seems bizarre to me to just hold up potentially life-saving technology because its possible (though highly unlikely) that it will be used to exploit farmers. Also, I should note that Monstanto does not own Golden Rice. They merely own one of the patents for a process involved in the creation of Golden Rice.

On your third point, Rachel explicitly says "You know that GMO’s actually don’t have higher yields either." It's in the video, at 5:45. Watch it again. So she is claiming quite clearly that they do not produce higher yield, which is false. And it is simply not true that all the research showing higher yield comes from corporations. For instance, see this paper published in Science. The authors do not claim affiliation with any major GM corporation. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There has been volumes of independent research on GMOs.

On your last claim, about monocultures, you are again mistaken. Golden Rice is not a single variety. The International Rice Research Institute (a non-profit, not owned by any major corporation) has created "Golden" versions of hundreds of different rice varieties, so potentially Golden Rice can be as diverse as regular rice. Also, if rice plants are separated by a few feet, then cross-pollination becomes extremely unlikely. Rice is typically self-pollinating. So as long as a small separation is maintained, GM and non-GM crops can be grown in the same location without any significant gene flow between them.

Anyway, gene flow is only a danger if the GM plant has a clear adaptive advantage in its environment (if its pest resistant, e.g.), but that is not the case with Golden Rice, so even with gene flow Golden Rice won't end up dominating non-GM rice evolutionarily.

@Sotto_The issue is the power and influence one corporation has over the world's food supply and those who would use their influence in the Department of Agriculture and the Supreme court to implement sweeping legislation or hinder the free will of the small, medium, large or other farmers who would have nothing to do with Monsanto's seeds or who wish only to use sumbunall of their products, not whether a farmer is given their rice for free in an ethical fashion to grow some proprietary rice (ever try to grow rice? S'pretty dependent on climate and seasons, rainfall and other environmental conditions, not to mention the hectares it requires to cultivate) as opposed to say leafy greens of all kinds, sweet potatoes, squash, all of which are much more easily cultivated AND, have shorter seed to fruit times as well as requiring much less space AND, are chock-full of Vitamin A.
We don't even mention here Paprika, Red Pepper, Cayenne, Chili Powder, which are WAY higher in Vitamin A and pretty much grow like weeds when cultivated by morons.

Shaky and hollow point your study cited as well, to support what is obviously a fishy prospect providing this option to poorer countries when you consider the back-door dealing that a corporation like M practices and their track-record of driving small farmers out of business with endless litigation and an army of lah-yahs, investigators, all petty thugs and criminals on their payroll.

A no-brainer? Yeah, if you spout the party-line and din't use your brain but instead cited an "official' study from a 'recognized', 'expert's' journal.

Again, loaded language in your closing with the assumption that most opponents and vocal activists of GMO crops are science deniers. Broad, brush-strokes my friend.
Labels.

I for one want these motherfucker's labs under extreme scrutiny and their science tested and re-tested by those not on their payrolls or whose interests do not include stocks in their concerns. I also want heirloom seeds, regardless of yields, whose fruits produce fertile seeds.

MOST GMO crop's fruited seeds are as sterile as your argument, the genetic markers tweaked similarly to insure that the market on common-sense and centuries-honored methods be cornered and rendered inadequate.

And it seems so is what you say, false that is...
From what I've seen, the argument that 'golden rice' cures vitamin A deficiency is false. There's simply not enough vitamin A in it. It is useful as a supplement, as are many other things less dangerous to the food supply.
Yes, it is distributed to farmers for free, at first. Then, once other varieties are no longer available, they begin charging for it, and suing anyone that doesn't pay to grow their crop (the only one left to grow). Is that a difficult concept to understand? It's the same business plan crack, meth, and heroin dealers use, get you hooked for free, then charge you once you're hooked. They certainly did that with their corn.
She did not claim they do not produce higher yields, she said the science that claims they do is only produced by the companies that benefit. Those are different claims. When only the one benefiting from positive results does the science, it's not trustworthy, ever.
If 'golden rice' replaces the other multiple strains of non-gmo rice because it offers SOME vitamin A, then there's a disease that kills all 'golden rice' (as always happens when variety is homogenized for profit and convenience) then what? There's NO rice for anyone. That's what's happening with chickpeas, the staple food for a HUGE portion of the population. One strain was adopted for profit and convenience, and it's now failing world wide. Wild chickpeas, incredibly hard to find now, offer the only solution to the failing commercial chickpea, and it may be far too late. If we lose rice too, we'll lose a large portion of the population of the planet. Now, with that possible outcome, is it worth it to experiment with GMO rice and exclude other strains? (those who grow GMO rice are usually forced to grow ONLY GMO strains to 'avoid cross contamination'.)
Most vocal activists are NOT science deniers, they are people pushing for legitimate, responsible science where the populace is not the guinea pig for corporate experiments. That is NOT responsible science.
Most of what this girl advocates is labeling, which can not be legitimately argued against. Like others said, if GMO's were good, they would WANT you to know they're in there. If they could PROVE it was good, they would. The science isn't in on long term effects, or on short term collateral unintended effects, so the products should not be for sale, certainly not without a label warning those using it that they are experimental and unproven. At least that's how I see it.