Food Freedom

Socially Engineering Food Choices Doesn't Work

To say that Los Angeles merely failed would be putting it mildly.

|

Earlier this week, the nonpartisan RAND Corporation released a study that helps demolish the argument that governments (cities, in this case) can socially engineer away residents' obesity by restricting food freedom.

The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, focuses on a ridiculous, controversial, seven-year-old zoning ban on new fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. To say that the measure merely failed would be putting it mildly.

"Since the fast-food restrictions were passed in 2008, overweight and obesity rates in South Los Angeles and other neighborhoods targeted by the law have increased faster than in other parts of the city or other parts of the county," reads a RAND press release on the study.

Well then.

"The South Los Angeles fast food ban may have symbolic value, but it has had no measurable impact in improving diets or reducing obesity," said lead author Roland Sturm of RAND.

The RAND study results represent some of the best evidence to date that policies that restrict food freedom do no make people healthier. The failure and repeal of Denmark's so-called "fat tax" and damning research on mandatory menu labeling are two other convincing examples.

They also echo—and magnify—the results of an earlier RAND study by Sturm that I wrote about here in 2013. The earlier study, which also looked at the Los Angeles fast-food ban, was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

"Obesity in South Los Angeles, 30 percent in 2007, had climbed to 33 percent by 2012 despite the ban on new fast food restaurants," I noted in my column while discussing the larger implications of that earlier RAND study.

The new study's release is fortuitous, coinciding as it does with a flurry of increased scrutiny over an ongoing FDA proposal to mandate an "added sugar" label on packaged foods.

This latest example of social engineering is, like the fast food ban, a terrifically misguided idea, as I described last year.

There are plenty of good arguments against the FDA's proposal. Mandatory "added sugar" labeling may violate the First Amendment. Use of the term "added sugar" is misleading, as it creates a deceptive health halo around products like orange juice and apple juice, which are high in naturally occurring sugar but contain no added sugar. The "added sugar" label also raises this question: why stop at mandating added sugar on food labels? Why not added salt, added caffeine, and added allergens like soy and dairy? Why not label for added protein and added carbs?

Those are some of my arguments against the label. Others appear equally skeptical. As an L.A. Times piece published earlier this week notes, opposition to the FDA's proposal has emerged among strange bedfellows, including a Democratic governor of Massachusetts and a Republican governor of Wisconsin, and from as far away as Australia—where the national government also objected to the proposal.

Does the lack of an "added sugar" label mean food companies can just hide the ball when it comes to how much sugar is in their food? Hardly.

Thanks to existing FDA regulations, there are already at least three places on a food label where consumers can find out how much sugar is in a food. The mandatory Nutrition Facts panel already tells consumers exactly how much sugar is in a given serving. Ingredients rules requires that every component of a food, including sugar, be listed in descending order of weight. Another requirement for listing the carbohydrate content—which appears on the Nutrition Facts panel right above total sugar—tells consumers how many carbs, including sugar, are in that same serving.

If all of that information isn't clear enough, then it's incumbent on proponents of mandating still more information to explain how adding the term "added sugar" will fix everything and why all that other information is necessary if people aren't paying it any mind.

Oh, and they're not. One bit.

I appeared on KCRW's excellent To the Point program this week to discuss the added sugar proposal. Dr. Robert Lustig, the nation's leading sugar hater, was a fellow guest. Lustig garishly defended the FDA's proposal—really, it's worth a listen—while admitting during the program that only, um, fifteen percent of people even read food labels.

It's facts like those that demonstrate the FDA's "added sugar" proposal is merely a tool to punish food manufacturers.

"By forcing what amounts to an added-sugar warning on the label, the government is attempting to skew consumer demand," I told the L.A. Times this week.

We've seen the negative results such laws have produced—from the South Los Angeles fast food ban to Denmark's fat tax to various counterproductive menu-labeling efforts. There's no reason the FDA should make the same mistake here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

181 responses to “Socially Engineering Food Choices Doesn't Work

  1. from my cold dead hands (donuts, obv)

    1. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.jobs-check.com

    2. Bacon wrapped hot dog in a Crispy Kreme bun.

      1. Pork roll egg and cheese on a kaiser bun.

  2. Don’t confuse the argument with fact please! Progressive, nanny-state control-freaks know what’s best for you. The science is settled!

  3. Sec Def used to work at RAND.

    Stop my tax money from subsidizing the factory, GMO, land grant university shit food.

    1. But other subsidies are ok, eh?

      1. None are ok. But this article isn’t about public education, the ACA, the military industrial complex, wind power, or a whole host of other money pits.

        1. You singled out GMO food. That implies you are happy with non-GMO food subsidies.

          1. I am not happy with any subsidies, including non-GMO crops. My recollection is that GMOs receive an abundance of the substantial crop subsidies.

            Much of what we eat has zero subsidies. Much of the remainder likely doesn’t. Stuff we don’t eat is definitely subsidized. We make six figures. It is tax season. Fuck anyone that buys votes so they can raid our bank account.

            1. corn gets a lot of subsidies, irregardless of whether it is GMO or not.

              It is worth noting that the most heavily subsidized crops are also the ones that are the most widely planted, which also makes them the most obvious targets for engineering.

              1. Depending on the source, the annual corn crop is between about 80% to 90% GMO. At least I know where my coerced tax dollars wind up.

              2. I would love to see logicians use irregardless as a synonym of necessary.
                Would be funny.

    2. Look, this problem wasn’t caused by government.

      It was caused by a lack of government.

      If those hungry people continued to drive pass the healthy food borders to eat unhealthy food we just need to expand those borders so that people can’t drive past those government dictated healthy food borders.

      We need more government not less.

      That or take away their cars so they have to eat what we allow within their districts.

      /Palin’s Butt Pug

  4. “only, um, fifteen percent of people even read food labels.”

    Well, mandate people to read labels. DUH.

    Also. Why do you hate fat people? At least progressives are trying. They’re out there. Doing something. Anything. They do it for the children and they do it for you and me. Yet, we mock them incessantly.

    Maybe we don’t hate progressives.

    Perhaps. Perhaps we loathe…ourselves.

    1. Fat orphans make the best sausage.

      1. Who the hell feeds their orphans enough to get fat?

        1. People who want the best sausage.

          1. I want the BEST sausage, PWEASE!! I consider it my RIGHT that Government Almighty should subsidize it for MEEEE!!! Otherwise, y’all are discriminating against me, obliviously… Fat orphans, ya say??!? Bring it ON, baby!!!

    2. “Well, mandate people to read labels. ”

      Yes, while they are waiting in line to mandatorily vote, they can be forced to read food packaging labels! And the rest of the year, the mandatory vote cops (armed to the teeth, of course) can lurk in supermarket aisles ensuring that every shopper reads the label before placing the product in his or her cart. I know “don’t give them any ideas.”

      1. Too late. Your message has already been transmitted.

      2. You have to read the label to buy the product.

        Or hide the price in the label and make the buyer find it.

        Or make the buyer answer a pop quiz on the label — read it, look away, answer one randomized question, how much sugar per serving, serving size, etc.

      3. Don’t forget the hotel shower police, too. Gotta watch that water use!

      4. Shhh… Let’s not encourage them to enact mandatory food label reading. You know how they will implement it? They will make you sign a fucking waiver at the cash register for each item you buy that has a label. Food shopping will have all the same paperwork as buying a house.

        I acknowledge that according to the FDA and the Surgeon Admiral that sugar, especially added sugar may increase my risk of obesity. I further understand that my purchase of [fill in product name here] contains [fill in amount of sugar in grams here] grams of sugar per serving………

        Right now, a receipt for groceries can be up to three feet long on a $35 purchase. This new law, will easily add another 300 feet per item. On the positive side, you could use this paperwork as toilet paper. On the negative side, the paper may be rough on your ass and toilet paper producers may go out of business. Just a few potential unintended consequences…

    3. taken together with the $15 an hour minimum wage, what you’re really creating here is a situation where only the elites who can read are able to buy fast food. Ssurely you didn’t mean to restrict the pleasures of life to the elite, did you?

      1. Ssurely you didn’t mean to restrict the pleasures of life to the elite, did you?

        Yes.

  5. Intentions always trump results.

    1. I have just formulated a compact form of a thought I’ve had for a while;

      The ends do not justify the means, but the results frequently indict them.

  6. released a study that helps demolish the argument that governments (cities, in this case) can socially engineer…

    What difference could reality possibly make?

  7. This is LA. The fat people are just driving out of their neighborhood to get fast food. The obvious solution (come on, people, do I have to think of everything?) is to increase the gas tax to encourage more walking. Remember, no matter what the problem is, there is always a government solution.

    1. They’d tax walking too if it would get in the way of their good intentions.

      1. They tax shading the sidewalk in Italy, so I’m sure the progtards could easily create a “public use” tax on walking here in the exceptional US o’ A.

    2. Nobody walks in LA

      1. Nevernonetheless. Tax it. Just in case.

      2. Ahem, I have to walk to my car when it’s parked out on the street.

        1. You should write a book.

          Great mOMentS in L.A.

    3. Only in America is eating too much considered a problem.

      1. I think it’s a bit more than America now. Europe is getting fatter too.

        It definitely isn’t a problem for me.

  8. What’s the original source for the 15 /hr minimum living wage?

    I want to send a big, gigantic, humongous ‘fuck you eat shit’ to the place and person (s) who kick started this insanity.

    I got a pamphlet in the mail from an NDP commie asking me to vote in favor of a ‘$15 wage hike’.

    That would represent a 45% increase from the current minimum wage and 35% to my payroll effectively putting me in a position to close down because the margins wouldn’t no longer make sense.

    Thanks for nothing American lefties.

    1. Stop being such a selfish prick Rufus and give them unfettered access to your piles of cash. .

      1. You mean the ‘piles’ of cash that gets expropriated to the tune of 20% for payroll taxes, 21% corporate in addition to personal income taxes (not to mention a 15% sales tax)? That pile, by the time it’s all said and done, is reduced to a hill of very cheap beans. I own more Canadian Tire money than real dollars.

        1. Do you guys have VAT up there?

          1. No.

            1. But IIRC, Pince Edward Island and (of course) Quebec first apply the 5% federal GST, then apply their tax on the result: taxing the federal tax!

              Plus they have an absolutely idiotic subscription tax: if you know there will be a tax increase in, say, six months, and sell a one year subscription, you have to apply that future tax increase to that portion of the subscription covered by it.

              Near as I can tell, there’s no longer any grace period before a tax rate change kicks in to allow stores to reprogram cash registers or for web sites to adjust their calculations. As soon as you know of any rate change, you have to apply it.

              And no web site or email newsletter or snail mail signup for future tax rate changes either.

        2. Dunno how many people you employ, but there are plenty of brain-deads in the Bay Area who have adopted the talking point ‘If you can’t pay them X, you deserve to go out of business!’
          Which easily translates from Proggy to English as: ‘Better they make the real minimum wage (zero) than what you’re now paying them!’

          1. “If they’re not worth hiring at X, they deserve to lose their jobs.” The party of compassion, ladies and gentlemen.

            1. But that is why we have welfare, who cares if people lose their jobs, the state will take care of them

              To take the progs logic farther, lets just raise the minimum wage to $150k/yr. Anyone not worth that will be taken care of by the state.

              Never mind the fact that this prevents people from building skills to one day increase their capabilities and worth

              1. Don’t forget that welfare must also provide a livable income. So, min wage =150k/yr and welfare = 15k/yr.

          2. I employ nine, plus a cleaner and two management (me and my sister). It feeds a dozen families.

            And that diseased, ignorant mentality has take root here.

            1. The best thing about progressivism is how innately narcissistic it is. Their crusades are entirely a matter of social signaling, and so their efforts tend to be lazy, showy, and usually ineffective. You can imagine the damage they’d manage if they truly believed in their own rhetoric, but I think they’d be lynched en mass before too long.

              1. If they really believed their spewings, they would destroy themselves in a flash in derp/anti-derp reaction. To whit:

                “Evil KochBrotherations steal the money from the blood sweated by orphans in jobs that have outsourced and then sit in the money in hot tubs letting off champagne farts!”

                Meanwhile, in their next FB post:

                “Kochbrotherations’ stocks are at an all -time which proves the economy has totally recovered and Obama is the GWEATIST PWESIDENT EVAH!”

        3. Everyone knows you just pass the taxes along to your customers. Taxing business is like bailing out the ocean, effectively there’s no limit to the amounts you can take.

          1. This is true, but in my business it’s a lot more difficult because of what the government did with subsidized daycare. It skewed costs and pricing. I can’t cut staff because of ratios regulation. I can increase my fees but there’s a limit to what parents will pay because the Quebec consumer is aware there’s a subsidized option. I can’t scale back hours too much; it at all. It’s so bizarre here I find myself making deals with parents to the point I offer the ‘subsidized’ price to keep them.

            So the idiot pieces of shit who claims ‘we don’t deserve to be in business’ may they forever live in a state of hysteria to the point they jump off a bridge.

            I have a drawer full of personal letters for parents who took the time to write letters of praise where one man thanked us for our ‘professionalism’, and ‘humanism’. He remembered the lengths we went for his son.

            I guess we don’t deserve to be in business.

            1. ‘from parents’.

            2. Well put.

              Then there’s the notion that if businesses “just pass the taxes along anyway,” the tax advocates are admitting to wanting to stick it to consumers.

            3. Rufus, it’s not as if the outcome should come as news to anyone:
              “Oakland minimum-wage hike puts child caregivers in a jam”
              “Workers who benefit from Oakland’s minimum wage hike might soon lose a service that enables them to work in the first place. It turns out the well-intentioned law is putting a financial squeeze on Oakland’s child care industry, leading some providers to panic”
              http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay…..135815.php
              (Nuts. Let’s see if there’s a non-paywall):
              http://inagist.com/all/577303370605580288/
              Better, but still missing some…

              1. Absolutely. But we have an added disruptive feature: The government sets the wage price for employees. That price, naturally, is arbitrarily set and private providers are forced to go along with it on some level or they will not be able to hire quality workers. Once they became unionized, it forever locked in those wages to the detriment of common sense.

                It’s not intelligent or fair on any level.

                It’s retarded is what it is.

          2. Yeah, I’m not unfamiliar with this argument. It’s not worth arguing with them. They would say that paying more for the product is worth the benefit of higher wages and in the same breath they would say that price controls are necessary.

            1. My sister said ‘it’s good higher wages because people spend more’.

              I gave her the stare of satan.

              I explained to her that most of it will end up being paid back in taxes anyway. It would not increase spending. I have a girl who makes $19 and she still complains. Never mind what it would do to our business.

              She took it back.

              1. We almost had a family fistfight when my aunt’s boyfriend accused my father of price gouging for raising prices during an emergency. Good times.

                1. Asshole.

                2. At least you just have distance with an aunt’s boyfriend, my entire family has are some of the most hard core progs. The type who only believe dems are good people and everyone else is downright evil. And after 30 years of getting dumped on my parents wonder why we don’t have a relationship.

          3. It is really odd that anyone sees that as an argument in favor of corporate taxes.

    2. If you can’t afford to pay your workers $15/hr, then your business obviously isn’t as vibrant as you thought. You can only operate by underpaying your workers. If paying them a fair wage means you have to close shop, that’s just the market at work.

      (a real argument I’ve heard)

  9. Rent seeker attempts to get federal regulation:
    ” a class-action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court claiming that dozens of brands of (primarily inexpensive) wines produced in that state contain “dangerously high levels of poisonous inorganic arsenic”
    Which you probably have heard by now…

    How about some detail:
    “the class action lawsuit was initiated by Kevin Hicks of BeverageGrades, “a private company offering lab testing, quality assurance and certification of alcoholic beverages for suppliers, restaurants, retailers and ultimately, the end consumer.”
    Think he might favor some regulatory limits which his company could confirm?

    And then:
    “the Wine Group, […] points out the highest level of arsenic cited in the lawsuit is “only half of Canada’s standard for wine, of 100 parts per billion.”
    And we know the Canucks are dying like flies, right Rufus?
    http://www.snopes.com/food/tai…..ZPIeyjq.99

    1. I detect a sinister link to Canadian Tire money.

    2. Yeah. It’s a real crisis up here.

      We incidentally polished off four bottles of wine last night (3 from California, 1 from Italy) and I feel blessed the arsenic didn’t kill me as I was able to get up and make my daughter apple pancakes as promised.

      Serious question: Is aresnic the same as sulphites?

      1. “Serious question: Is aresnic the same as sulphites?”

        You’re going to have to find someone who didn’t treat Chem as ‘the afternoon nap’.

        1. Of which there are plenty around here. But not me.

          True story: Me and four of my buddies weren’t allowed to take chemistry in high school. Something to do with what we did in physical science the year before.

          1. Ah, the old shit on the teacher’s desk trick?

            1. Bah. I wish.

              /wishes to not talk about it.

              1. Your secret is safe on the internet.

      2. Feeding your daughter apples with all the naturally-occuring arsenic they contain?! Also, formaldehyde.

        1. I think its in the seeds?

      3. No. Arsenic is a heavy metal, think of it as lead’s older meaner brother.

        1. More of a metalloid.

          1. I get those occasionally. Hydrocortisone helps.

      4. Serious question: Is aresnic the same as sulphites?

        No. The sulphite-wine thing is the equivalent of gluten. There’s a tiny fraction of people who have sulphite sensitivity (about 0.1% of the population), and a far larger one that imagine that they do. One tipoff of bullshit hypochondria is that they complain about red wine rather than white (whites generally have a higher sulphite level). Another is that they have no problems with dried fruits like raisins or apricots (VERY high sulphite levels).

        The arsenic thing is a wonderful convergence of scaremongers and lawyers.

        And red wine headaches are due to either drinking too much, imagination, or histamine reactions.

        1. …or listening to progressives moralize and tax ignorant gibberish about business.

          1. ‘talk’

            Freudian financial slip there.

        2. Arsenic = Vitamin As

  10. I can guess the reason. In the absence of fast food options people go to convenience stores and eat junk food instead. At least if you buy a burger and fries you get something that has some nutritional value along with the fat and salt and sugar. If you’re going to a convenience store, your probably just getting the fat and salt and sugar.

    1. Or maybe they’re fat simply because they choose to eat that way and availability isn’t the major issue.

    2. I am not gluten sensitive though the gluten free craze has been helpful because I am allergic to all grains except rice and I can eat at McDonalds… I just throw away the bun. But there is NOTHING I can eat at the convenience store. A 7-11 microwave burrito is concentrated evil with only the vague appearance of food.

  11. Not to spin this thread into another direction (I have to go in the garage and reconfigure it armed with hooks) but here’s an anecdote about single payer.

    My brother in laws father (a beast of a man who played pro soccer for Juve’s youth team, a captain in the Italian army during the war, the key project man for Montreal’s Metro system and all round Renaissance Man who had enough wise-man currency he had the power to go to the mob to negotiate with them) fainted and was sent to the hospital.

    At 12:30 am the hospital called my BIL and told him to come and get him because they needed the bed.

    He’s 92.

    Compassionate universal care right there.

    1. Oh, Canada!

    2. As opposed to what insurance companies do?

      The last 3-4 years of her life, my mother had a lot of problems. First heart surgery, then she got cancer.

      They kicked her out of the hospital right after her heart surgery. She couldn’t even stand, yet they kicked her out because the insurance company wouldn’t pay for any more days.

      And it was the same story with the cancer treatments. She’d get so sick she literally couldn’t stand up, but the hospital would kick her out because her insurance wouldn’t pay any more, so we’d have to take her right back to the emergency room and admit her again.

      Literally the only thing that wasn’t a complete nightmare in the 3 years was the hospice care, which the state actually paid for/ran.

  12. Of course these social engineering strategies work! They engineer lots of money into the hands of select special interest groups. That’s the point, isn’t it?

  13. But it’s the good intentions that count, not the outcome! Isn’t it?

  14. culturally conformist engineered libertarian magazines don’t work either

    1. Jimm|3.21.15 @ 11:37AM|#
      “culturally conformist engineered libertarian magazines don’t work either”

      So you’re hoping your stupidity will win out?

      1. yes, intellectual dilettante…..if you can, tell me why i’m wrong..good luck!..don’t worry you’ll get there someday

        1. Jimm|3.21.15 @ 2:36PM|#
          …”if you can, tell me why i’m wrong..good luck!..don’t worry you’ll get there someday”

          If you can, tell me why I should waste time with twits like you..good luck!..don’t worry you’ll get there someday”

          1. tell me, since you apparently choose to waste your time by replying in the first place……you have the answer inside you…wow ….you’ll get there…..you would a great future Reason writer

      2. look up the term “non sequitur” and then relate to your “comment”…smile, you’ll get there

        1. You’re the one that chimed in with a non-sequitur – not to mention a pointless attack on the best magazine in the history of the woooorld – to begin with.

          /blows whistle. Calls foul.

          1. and upon further review it is shown that you can’t follow an argument…of course i chimed in w/non-sequitur…that was my criticism of his reply silly….pointing that out is not a critique..wow, just wow..you must work for Reason

  15. Restricting food choices and stupid zoning laws aren’t going to do any good, but I don’t have a problem with total added sugars being explicitly listed. Yes, idiots will still think it’s somehow more healthy to drink 16 oz of OJ or apple juice than soda, but at least it’ll be easier to figure out how much sugar has been added to my food & drink. As it currently stands, if I’m eating lo carb I have to add carbs, subtract dietary fiber, read the label for all the various forms of sugars and their order by weight (glucose, maltose, dextrose, sucrose, lactose, high fructose corn syrup, fructose, yadda yadda yadda) and take a random stab at guessing how sugary stuff has been added to item x.

    Just give me the information and let me make my own decisions. How is that not the default libertarian position?

    1. The default libertarian position rarely involves mandates. If they dont list the info you want, dont buy.

      *THAT* is the default libertarian position.

      1. “*THAT* is the default libertarian position.”

        Read the article, That is not the author’s position. He argues instead that food regulation doesn’t reduce obesity. He argues that only 15% read food labels. He argues that once added sugar labels were mandatory, then perhaps labels warning about added salt, added caffeine, and added allergens.

        I think the author is being disingenuous, as is routine for him. If it were established with certainty that if food regulation did reduce obesity, would a Libertarian support it? I hope not. If 90% read food labels would a Libertarian support it? I hope not, yet somehow these are relevant to his ‘argument.’ Intellectual fraud is what it is.

        1. I think the problem is libertarians have two approaches they can take.

          Since proggie authoritarians are generally stupid and oblivious to human nature their shallow and poorly thought out plans tend to be a disaster. It is hard to resist practical arguments showing the folly involved.

          There is also the moral/ethical angle which is more traditionally libertarian. The problem is most people have been trained to believe nannyism and political whim is inherently moral/ethical.

          Since your average person is oblivious to the immoral nature of these policies it is tempting and maybe even practical to focus on the stupidity of the policy instead of its immorality.

          I am of a mixed mind myself. It is exhausting to have to detangle the practical problems of every policy and focusing on that opens you up to charges like those above that you would oppose the plans even if they were good ideas. At the same time until Americans have their moral compass re-installed it may be the most practical approach to limiting the damage.

    2. The healthiest food doesn’t come with labels.

      Vegetables, fruits, and meats aren’t labeled in my experience.

      If it comes in a box don’t eat it.

  16. Speaking of social engineered food choices, WHO has found Monsanto’s Roundup Ready to probably cause cancer. Monsanto and the US government disagree. Encouraged by Monsanto, the US government recently upped the tolerated level of the chemical in question.

    1. mtrueman|3.21.15 @ 12:10PM|#
      “Speaking of social engineered food choices, WHO has found Monsanto’s Roundup Ready to probably cause cancer.”

      You’re full of shit.

      1. trenchant to the end….lol

        1. Jimm|3.21.15 @ 2:44PM|#
          “trenchant to the end….lol”

          Yes, calling obvious bullshit is somehow frightening to twits.
          Fuck off.

          1. why obvious? dilettante boy…

          2. but i am impressed you can actually spell f**k…good for you

      2. To think that not so long ago, you were such a vibrant and witty contributor to these pages.

      3. “”Speaking of social engineered food choices, WHO has found Monsanto’s Roundup Ready to probably cause cancer.”

        You’re full of shit.”

        Irrelevant. From Bloomberg wire service:

        “(Bloomberg) — Monsanto Co.’s best-selling weedkiller Roundup probably causes cancer, the World Health Organization said…”

        1. mtrueman|3.21.15 @ 6:36PM|#

          “(Bloomberg) — Monsanto Co.’s best-selling weedkiller Roundup probably causes cancer, the World Health Organization said…”

          Compared to
          “Speaking of social engineered food choices, WHO has found Monsanto’s Roundup Ready to probably cause cancer.

          Let me help you, you pathetic piece of shit:
          “Roundup” /= “Roundup Ready”.
          Do you see that now? Are you stupid enough to ignore it once again?

          1. “”Roundup” /= “Roundup Ready”.”

            Thanks for the update. That was truly stupid and I feel ashamed.

    2. “Though it’s sure to raise consumer concerns, some ? like Monsanto ? say it’s unwarranted since no new data are included in the research, and previous studies have all deemed glyphosate relatively safe in the doses humans take it in.”
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/al…..hey-right/
      Somebody found that one of the ingredients, in sufficient dosage, can possibly cause cancer, just like dome chemicals in every glass of water you drink.
      But to lefty assholes, why that means “Monsanto’s Roundup Ready to probably cause cancer”.
      Right?

      1. Lefty assholes love Monsanto. The President promoted several former execs to USDA and FDA positions. And Congress likes subsidizing the GMO crops sprayed with glyphosate.

        1. Chumby|3.21.15 @ 12:40PM|#
          “Lefty assholes love Monsanto.”

          Got a citation?

          1. Obama signing the “Monsanto Protection Act”

            Jimmy Carter writing an op-ed to the NYT defending GMOs.

            PBS being sponsored by Monsanto.

            1. Chumby|3.21.15 @ 1:04PM|#
              Obama signing the “Monsanto Protection Act”
              You mean the one that keeps lefties from shutting down farms with frivolous lawsuits? The one that lefties hate and rail against?
              Sorry, I think you’re confusing cronyism with lefty desires.

              1. The top lefty signed it. So I stand by that. I agree it is also crony capitalism. But I don’t think Obama would sign a law protecting the Gun Owners of America even if they promised campaign money.

                Jimmy Carter used to be the top lefty. Support letter to lefty rag NYT is another data point.

                Arguably PBS is the most lefty tv station and they accept the money.

                1. Chumby|3.21.15 @ 1:26PM|#
                  “The top lefty signed it.”
                  And ‘way more opposed it. The same guy bailed out banks; do lefties now love ‘banksters’?

                  “Jimmy Carter used to be the top lefty. Support letter to lefty rag NYT is another data point.”
                  Uh, Jimmy Carter wasn’t so much “left” as “lost” and still is. Got a cite on this?

                  “Arguably PBS is the most lefty tv station and they accept the money.”
                  They take money from Kochs’, too.
                  Sorry, you’ve fallen off the ledge here.

                    1. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08…..ering.html

                      Not a word about Monsanto.

                    2. So a pro-GMO stance is a neutral (negative?) position on Monsanto?

                  1. We aren’t talking about banks. We are talking about GMOs.

                    Would PBS accept sponsorship from the NRA?

                    1. “Would PBS accept sponsorship from the NRA?”

                      Can you push those goalposts into the next county?

                    2. So you are saying PBS will accept any corporate sponsorship?

                  2. I believe Bill Clinton supported GMOs and Hillary recently advocated for them last June at a biotech conference in San Diego.

                    That puts the “D” Presidents over the past 35 years plus the 2016 frontrunner all in the pro-GMO camp.

                    And all are lefty assholes.

                    1. Chumby|3.21.15 @ 2:52PM|#
                      “I believe Bill Clinton supported GMOs and Hillary recently advocated for them last June at a biotech conference in San Diego.”

                      Here’s what you claimed:
                      “Lefty assholes love Monsanto.”
                      You’ve now noted Obo, who signed a law the lefties hated, you’ve mentioned PBS accepted funds from Monsanto and noted three other Ds who are not “shocked” by GMOs.
                      You are obviously confused.

                    2. The top lefty loved it. As did the previous top lefties. And does the current wannabe top lefty.

                      Not shocked? Now who is moving the goal posts?

                      I think you are confusing lefty with green.

                    3. Rufus J. Firefly|3.21.15 @ 3:49PM|#
                      “I don’t get this ‘supported GMO’s’ crap. Who gives a crap Bill – or anyone else – supported it?”

                      Before Chumby changed the subject and moved the goal posts, the claim was “lefties love Mansanto”.

                    4. You’re right. PBS is against them. Would bever accept a dime from them. Jimmy Carter took a strong stamce against them. As did Bill and Hillary. You caught me. And PBS is libertarian/conservatove becauae of Koch and Krauthammer.

                    5. “I think you are confusing lefty with green.”

                      Green, leftist, Islamist, these are used interchangably among the Reason’s more challenged commentators.

                    6. Mtrueman

                      Not so much. In the Venn diagram, there is some crossover with green, leftist, and prog. I’d cede that progs are againat Monsanto as well. But your non-green leftist, not so much.

                      Just my opinion based on several cites.

                    7. I don’t get this ‘supported GMO’s’ crap. Who gives a crap Bill – or anyone else – supported it?

                      GMO has been with us for thousands of years.

                      Sheesh.

                    8. GMO is the vernacular for bioengineered crops. It is generally understood that other crops have been selectively bred (or naturally propogate) so the are not identical to the “parent” plants.

                      So yes, the Double Standard open pollinated organic sweet corn we have grown is “modified” but not in the same sense of splicing in genes to protect it against defoliants such as Roundup.

                    9. There is nothing uniquely risky about transferring genes using bioengineering techniques versus using cross-breeding. If anything it is safer, because you’re only crossing in ONE specific well-understood gene, as opposed to mixing in millions of genes from a wild relative.

                    10. I agree.
                      We normally used to grow organic squash. The variety is yellow crookneck. One year we also grew organic pumpkins. The variety was Howden. If you grow them too close to each other sometimes squash and pumpkins can cross pollinate and you can end up with squmpkins. But because this was not bioengineered seed there was also a more dangerous possibility. And this is what happened: the squash and the pumpkins crossed pollinated and they grew sharknados. Thankfully I had a rape whistle with me and was able to contact the local constabulary before anyone was killed. I now only plant GMO seed.
                      True story.

                    11. I once planted my yellow crooked neck squash too close to the green squash.

                      That year I grew a lot of yellow and green swirled squash.

                      They were very tasty and no one in my family has grown horns.

                      I guess we are just a hardy breed of people with genetic protection from GMO monster squash..

                    12. “GMO has been with us for thousands of years”

                      We all know that, of course. Just don’t tell Dr. Mullis.

                  3. And PBS also has Krauthammer (had?) on a program. I could list the counters of Nina Totenberg, Evan Thomas, Bill Moyers, David Brooks, Mark Shields, etc.

                    They may not be 100.00% lefty asshole but they are definitely lefty asshole and they take the Monsanto cash.

                2. “But I don’t think Obama would sign a law protecting the Gun Owners of America even if they promised campaign money.”

                  I would say that it is simply a matter of how much, not where it came from.

      2. “Somebody found that one of the ingredients, in sufficient dosage, can possibly cause cancer, just like dome chemicals in every glass of water you drink.”

        I love it when you get all white-coaty and scientific on us. You even baffle us with some jargon. Dome chemicals etc. Angling for a post with your friends at the FDA?

        1. mtrueman|3.21.15 @ 5:50PM|#
          “I love it when you get all white-coaty and scientific on us. You even baffle us with some jargon. Dome chemicals etc. Angling for a post with your friends at the FDA?”

          I love ignoramuses attempting to be grammar Nazis.

          1. “I love ignoramuses…”

            And here was me thinking opposites attract.

            1. mtrueman|3.21.15 @ 7:14PM|#
              “I love ignoramuses…”

              Shitstain, do not quote me and change the words.
              Now, ignoramus, have you learned the difference between Roundup and Roundup Ready plants?

              1. “Now, ignoramus, have you learned the difference between Roundup and Roundup Ready plants?”

                No, maybe if you go over it again, it might help.

                1. No, it won’t.

                  1. You ever consider the possibility that while Roundup probably causes cancer, Roundup Ready probably CURES cancer? You heard it here first. And you were my inspiration. Whatever faults you have Sevo, you make an excellent straight man – a butt of jokes. You have the grace to take it well, and you never fail to deliver a nice set up.

                    1. Oh, shut up, you fucking piece of shit.
                      Do you think anyone here finds that carp amusing? Do you enjoy demonstrating a total lack of logical thought?
                      Fuck off; you’re tiresome.

                    2. “Do you think anyone here finds that carp amusing?”

                      Yes, I found that carp highly amusing. That’s all that matters in the end. If you know of any other carps you find more amusing, please let me know. I wouldn’t want to miss out.

                    3. “Sevo, you make an excellent straight man”

                      And ignoramus like you might hope someone buys that. Instead, I’m the one that makes you dance.
                      Dance, twit, dance.

                    4. Actually, it’s always you who responds to me.

      1. Frank, there’s tons of cites, but trueman is a stranger to the truth and doesn’t even get the *product* right.
        Absolutely nothing is being said about Roundup Ready crops; the claim is Roundup has a constituent that can possibly cause cancer in sufficient dosage.
        Some of the cites are honest enough to note “The report is from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the France-based cancer research arm of the World Health Organization.”
        Here’s one of the cites:
        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..cinogenic-

        1. Yes, this is not really news. Glyphosate has replaced some herbicides that are definitely, very, very toxic to humans. The question has been “how safe is glyphosate?” Nobody however has really been arguing that gyphosate is 100% safe and you can drink a gallon of it without harm.

          I’d argue that maybe having a slightly greater risk of cancer over a lifetime is a lot safer than dying right now due to a nerve toxin.

          Anyway, the fact that crops are tolerant to glyphosate doesn’t mean that the crops will give you cancer.

          1. Just living long enough will give you cancer. Cancer is by and large a disease of extreme (compared to historical norms) old age.

            1. “Just living long enough will give you cancer. Cancer is by and large a disease of extreme (compared to historical norms) old age.”

              Hmmm, maybe cancer prolongs life. It’s all making sense now. I would like more of your science, please.

          2. What is “news” is that WHO has repeated an old claim, so it’ll get ink from troglodytic lefties like trueman.
            I’m sure the ‘natural food’ web sites are going nuts about now with the same sort of accuracy we got here.

            1. It’s impossible to not eat a GMO. It’s just that genetic modification used to be done by trial and error and now can be done much more precisely. I like to point out to GMO scaredies that cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and Chinese kale are all the same damn plant species. It just took farmers messing with their genes for centuries via selective breeding to get what they like rather than a controlled one shot.

              1. There is nothing natural about an orange carrot. The dutch are just patriotic.

              2. GMO is about splicing genes of dissimilar species. That is not what farmers have been doing for centuries. If you read a bit more deeply on GMO, the differences should be apparent.

                1. mtrueman|3.21.15 @ 6:15PM|#
                  “GMO is about splicing genes of dissimilar species. That is not what farmers have been doing for centuries. If you read a bit more deeply on GMO, the differences should be apparent.”

                  Says the guy who can’t tell the difference between a pesticide and a plant.

                2. There are no genes that are unique to certain species. ALL genes are combinations of the same four base pairs, and all species genomes are novel combinations of genes in different arrangements. Humans share 99% of our genome with chimps and 65% with bacteria. There is no part of a gene that identifies which species it came from. What makes us human isn’t that each of our genes is tagged with a little “human” label. It’s the unique COMBINATION of genes and variations of genes, and the arrangement of those genes that makes us human. There is thus no such thing as a “human gene” or a “mouse gene” or a “soybean gene” or a “corn gene”.

                  1. Not only that, in nature genes transfer from one species to another.

                    Its the same process as used in GMO, but random and messier. And far likely to result in something dangerous, as its in the wild.

    3. Cite please.

      1. Have you checked your newspaper? If you can’t find anything there, try putting the words ‘Monsanto’ in an Internet search engine. You might find what you’re looking for.

        1. mtrueman|3.21.15 @ 5:36PM|#
          “Have you checked your newspaper?”

          Yes, I have and you’re full of shit.

        2. Because everything that randomly pops up in an internet search is reliable.

          1. Avoid the internet if you don’t trust your judgement. Go to your parent or teacher if you want a cite. I can’t be bothered.

            1. mtrueman|3.21.15 @ 7:21PM|#
              “I can’t be bothered.”

              So you admit to lying once again?

              1. You really feel the need to ask?

                1. Do you really need to dance again?

            2. So you don’t feel the need to come up with a credible source for your information. Good to know.

              1. “So you don’t feel the need to come up with a credible source for your information.”

                I assume you are just as capable as I am in digging up cites. If you feel there are circumstances that make it difficult for you to do your own research, I may make a special exception in your case.

  17. what Clarence answered I am dazzled that a person can earn $4602 in 1 month on the internet . site here…. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  18. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!….

    http://www.NavJob.com

  19. The fast food radius ban was a really crazy idea. If somebody wants a quick dinner they would simply drive a little farther to get some food, obese or not. Everyone has a choice in eating fast food or grocery store food. The government interference in food is totally unnecessary and controlling and the fda should stick to the safety of our food than restrictions. Same goes with the added sugar idea, at least sugar is healthier than the corn syrup food manufacturers use as a sugar supplement.

  20. TODAY ONLY : Get Your Own Mac Book Pro With $1000 Visa Gift Card .Get It Here

    http://goo.gl/LpNgjp

  21. I dunno. I live in a rural-ish area.

    Within 5 miles, my only fast food choice is a “Dairy Cream”. Within 10 miles there’s a McDonalds, a Hardee’s, and a Captain D’s. 25 miles there’s a White Castle and a Jack in the Box.

    Despite those 2 being my favorite fast food places (well, I actually prefer Krystal but we don’t ahve them here anyway), I don’t go there all that often because it’s a long drive. And it’s a good 45 minutes to get to a Dunkin Donuts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.