GPS outage could cost $1 billion per day, study finds

[Markoni35]

Except when they don't. Sometimes big chunks of DNA are altered, duplicated, or removed. Yes, by "nature." And those big, single-event changes are often advantageous in some circumstances and disadvantageous in others, thus offering different conditions for natural or artificial selection to occur.

This "sometimes" of yours happens very rarely and in small quantities compared to the overall food supply we use. But when it does happen naturally, a lot of people can die. Same as when it's done artificially. Maybe in the past that wasn't a problem, since there were no standards, no laws, human life was cheap. But if you do it nowadays, on purpose, that's akin to the experiments that Dr. Mengele was doing on his prisoners.

Godwin's Law invoked! Not much more to say here, your mind is made up and appears closed to other opinions, or *gasp* science.

Nope, I'm just closed to illogical opinions. If you create something that alters DNA by introducing a new species, without a clear proof it won't cause problems, and release it as normal human food, it should definitely be labeled (if not banned for the first 20 years of tests). After all, the GMO seed manufacturers themselves have convinced us that DNA modifications were significant, so they can patent the changes. If the changes weren't big, they couldn't patent their products. But after patenting the seed, they released it without proper tests. The first independent test was made 4 years after the GMO food was already on the shelves. It just shows the level of corruption related to GMO. Oh, and this first independent test showed that GMO was dangerous.

But that's a legal case and the mechanism of liability in legal cases has *nothing* to do with how the science works. Put another way, I do not ask a lawyer abotu scientific concepts and do not ask a scientist for legal advice.
Or put another way: Please point to the scientific study that proves that glyphosate causes cancer. A legal decision proves nothing scientifically. I want the science.

Wow, what a strawman!! Basically you're saying that Monsanto lawyers are totally stupid and didn't think of asking the same question? And chemistry experts working for Monsanto don't know anything about pesticides, to help them. Right? Then you must be smarter than all of them. Of course they thought of it. Of course they've consulted experts working for Monsanto. They gave their best to prove that glyphosate didn't cause cancer. And they failed. Now they have to pay 2 billions dollars to their victims. On top of other similar cases they've lost before. And a few new ones waiting in the queue. Seems they've got used to losing the cases where glyphosate causes cancer.

A legal verdict. Like the OJ case. Like many other cases which proved one thing to a jury: lawyers can convince you of almost anything.

Oh, now you're saying this is a conspiracy against poor Monsanto? It's all just a bunch of lies. And inept Monsanto lawyers couldn't convince the jury into anything? But the prosecutors were masters of lying. Must be that entire world has conspired against Monsato? And maybe even against you, since you're defending them. Poor you.

 

[mailpup]

Please note: no more personal comments. Thanks.