First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply People Who Think Everything is a Government Conspiracy
637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/7/15
One that's recent and kind of terrible, since I see it in the supermarket all the time, is the gluten-free band wagon. It's great to have the products for people with actual Celiac's disease, but a lot of people think it's now bad to eat anything with gluten in it even though they don't have the disease. The funny thing is that it's found in all wheat and grain based products so I question often, "What do people eat if they have no access to gluten-free?" I've had a few people come up to me in the past and ask, "Do you have anything that's not gluten-free..." due to how much the gluten-free products glut the shelves.

So all in all it's not fair to normal consumers...
Posted 12/7/15 , edited 12/7/15
"I don't understand it, therefore, conspiracy."

sounds familiar, don't it?

"I don't understand it, therefore, god."

Stupidity and insanity aren't that far apart.
5349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 12/7/15
I'm not a fan of Alex Jones kind of conspiracy..... It doesn't really make any sense.
5447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / Tacoma, WA. wind...
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
There is no such thing!


Oh shit I need to make a new foil liner for my hat......
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

DragonFan1 wrote:

One that's recent and kind of terrible, since I see it in the supermarket all the time, is the gluten-free band wagon. It's great to have the products for people with actual Celiac's disease, but a lot of people think it's now bad to eat anything with gluten in it even though they don't have the disease. The funny thing is that it's found in all wheat and grain based products so I question often, "What do people eat if they have no access to gluten-free?" I've had a few people come up to me in the past and ask, "Do you have anything that's not gluten-free..." due to how much the gluten-free products glut the shelves.

So all in all it's not fair to normal consumers...


I don't think I've seen anything relating to gluten and government conspiracies, but I wouldn't be surprised if people believe the government is trying to feed us gluten to make us weak and dumb or some crap like that.

My favorites are the ones that leave no choice. Some people believe that the government is trying to make us dependent on fossil fuels, and the same people are crying government conspiracy when the idea is to move toward alternative power and renewable energy. Alternative energy doesn't work! Solar energy is a myth!

World hunger is an easily solved problem but the government is trying to kill off poor people by making them starve! Charities are just disguised government operations to steal our money! Food waste isn't real! Humans have no measurable impact on the environment so I'll keep throwing away half-eaten plates of food and using three styrofoam cups per meal and doing this inane condom water-wasting challenge in the middle of a California drought. Obviously, agriculture uses the most water, so I can waste as much as I want and it doesn't count as waste.

Yeah, just ride your bike. But that's not going to happen. Those people are dumb and fat...
773 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M / Boulevard of Brok...
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
I'm with you on this one. Next thing you know breathing is going to be government conspiracy.
8016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
It's not that gmos are bad, it's that large amounts of gmos are being released with the function of both resisting pesticides but also absorbing them for a prolonged insect repellent. So no, gmos are not bad, but they can be. There are some scientist who go as far as to have some data that would say that the deaths of a lot of bees could be directly linked to pesticide infused pollen. Also if a plant is designed to absorb and develop with pesticides in it do you think just washing it off will get rid of it all. I am not a big concpiracy theorist, and this is certainly not the governments fault, but the dangers of pesticides are real....not even going to mention the large amount of mishandling in every level in our agriculture...
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

lukedollo wrote:

It's not that gmos are bad, it's that large amounts of gmos are being released with the function of both resisting pesticides but also absorbing them for a prolonged insect repellent. So no, gmos are not bad, but they can be. There are some scientist who go as far as to have some data that would say that the deaths of a lot of bees could be directly linked to pesticide infused pollen. Also if a plant is designed to absorb and develop with pesticides in it do you think just washing it off will get rid of it all. I am not a big concpiracy theorist, and this is certainly not the governments fault, but the dangers of pesticides are real....not even going to mention the large amount of mishandling in every level in our agriculture...


I understand that gene modification affects the life of the modified organism. Some effects are probably not intended, but, as you said, many plants have been modified to be resistant to pests. Pesticides alone aren't enough and pose a much greater hazard than genetic modification when it comes to growing plants for food. We have to reply on a combination of genetic modification and pesticides to fight off pests, and the pests keep evolving to resist pesticides and bypass certain plant defenses. It's an ongoing battle that has to be fought. There are bound to be some casualties, but people need to look at the pros and cons.

To me, food waste and distribution issues are far more pressing than the unintended effects of GMOs. Of course, if bees are dying because of this, the priority goes up but, as of now, nobody is completely sure why they are dying. Having been in entomology, I'd go with climate change over pesticides, though.
Posted 12/8/15
Most of the time these stories or "plots" can be best taken with a pinch of salt, but, on an occasion, a conspiracy turns out to be true. Hard to say which and if with the limited intel a common person has!
8016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

Morbidhanson wrote:
I understand that gene modification affects the life of the modified organism. Some effects are probably not intended, but many plants have been modified to be resistant to pests. Pesticides alone aren't enough and pose a much greater hazard than genetic modification when it comes to growing plants for food. We have to reply on a combination of genetic modification and pesticides to fight off pests, and the pests keep evolving to resist pesticides and bypass certain plant defenses. It's an ongoing battle.

To me, food waste and distribution issues are far more pressing than the unintended effects of GMOs. Of course, if bees are dying because of this, the priority goes up but, as of now, nobody is completely sure why they are dying. Having been in entomology, I'd go with climate change over pesticides, though.


I will agree on some of these points, however, what you don't seem to understand is that the gmo's in question are in fact intentionally designed to absorb and resist pesticides.

I am actually going to school to become a geneticist (hopefully). I have absolutely nothing against GMO's, especially sense i hope to make some myself one day. What i do have a problem with is the reckless behavior companies like Monsanto have for the environment. there are things that are amazing that have come from Genetically modifying organisms, making plants withstand cold for example, however there are a lot of examples of just plain hazardous modifications. Pesticides are being integrated into the crops we use to make other foods, or being directly eaten, they are also using these crops to feed our livestock.

and in some cases, like corn, some of these plants have been modified in ways that remove just about all its nutritional value. the fact is we are not modifying plants to resist pests, we are modifying them to resist climate changes, to increase yield, some amazing modifications have led to things (although i believe this was through traditional graphing) like a pomato plant that grows tomatoes on top and potatoes for roots increasing diversity and yield for allotted amounts of space( however i must admit this does result in a faster consumption of nutrients in soil).

It is just when money enters the equation and instead of increasing the wages or amount of farm hands, we turn around and spray our crops with poison just so we can turn around and save large companies like mcdonalds and walmart the hassle of paying more for produce (that they will throw the bulk of away) that a problem emerges.

as i said before, the GMO conspiracy is not unfounded at all, however it does infuriate me when people attribute pesticides to all GMO's I can not blame them for the misconception seeing as there are many GMO's designed for use with pesticides and those are the plants largely used in the united states to produce our... produce.

I wont even touch the ramifications of run off from the pesticides, how many increases in public health issues have come about sense the large scale introduction of pesticides, or how we have a horribly monopolized agricultural system in place.
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

lukedollo wrote:

I will agree on some of these points, however, what you don't seem to understand is that the gmo's in question are in fact intentionally designed to absorb and resist pesticides.

I am actually going to school to become a geneticist (hopefully). I have absolutely nothing against GMO's, especially sense i hope to make some myself one day. What i do have a problem with is the reckless behavior companies like Monsanto have for the environment. there are things that are amazing that have come from Genetically modifying organisms, making plants withstand cold for example, however there are a lot of examples of just plain hazardous modifications. Pesticides are being integrated into the crops we use to make other foods, or being directly eaten, they are also using these crops to feed our livestock.

and in some cases, like corn, some of these plants have been modified in ways that remove just about all its nutritional value. the fact is we are not modifying plants to resist pests, we are modifying them to resist climate changes, to increase yield, some amazing modifications have led to things (although i believe this was through traditional graphing) like a pomato plant that grows tomatoes on top and potatoes for roots increasing diversity and yield for allotted amounts of space( however i must admit this does result in a faster consumption of nutrients in soil).

It is just when money enters the equation and instead of increasing the wages or amount of farm hands, we turn around and spray our crops with poison just so we can turn around and save large companies like mcdonalds and walmart the hassle of paying more for produce (that they will throw the bulk of away) that a problem emerges.

as i said before, the GMO conspiracy is not unfounded at all, however it does infuriate me when people attribute pesticides to all GMO's I can not blame them for the misconception seeing as there are many GMO's designed for use with pesticides and those are the plants largely used in the united states to produce our... produce.


I do understand. The interplay of plant traits and pesticides is necessary to resist pests. Pesticides alone aren't enough, and neither is genetic modification. We are now working on biological pest control in entomology. It's a huge field. I worked with modified trichogramma wasps during my time in the entomological quarantine. The objective was to use various modified and unmodified trichogramma wasp species to control scale insects on citrus trees to determine which one was most suitable for the task.

If we cut back on our 40% food waste, I'm sure there will be significant changes. But this requires a fundamental change in how consumers perceive food, which isn't likely since Americans are spoiled brats. The problem is the consumers aren't willing to make this change, then they attack the corporations for coming up with solutions to keep their sales up in spite of the flawed perception of what constitutes edible food. The best part is that they keep throwing their money at the corporations while yelling at them.

Less food waste means less land needed on which to grow food, since we don't need as much food. Less food waste means less monetary waste. Less food waste means reduced water waste, since so much water is used for agriculture. Less food waste means we have an easier time focusing on quality rather than quantity.

Yes, I will agree that Monsanto does, indeed, take part in some questionable practices and that it seems to bully farmers and show utter disregard for the environment. A smaller problem is still a problem, but it's able to be solved at least partially by solving the big problem of food waste.
33051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
Everyone here are clearly lizard people doing the governments bidding. I know what you are up too lizard people... I'm watching you

11750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Online
Posted 12/8/15

Somewhat_Insane_Monkey wrote:

This thread is a government conspiracy to make us think that government conspiracies are ridiculous.


This is exactly what I wanted to say when I saw this thread. Bravo.
8016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

Morbidhanson wrote:
The problem is the consumers aren't willing to make this change, then they attack the corporations for coming up with solutions to keep their sales up in spite of the flawed perception of what constitutes edible food.

Less food waste means less land needed on which to grow food, since we don't need as much food. Less food waste means less monetary waste. Less food waste means reduced water waste, since so much water is used for agriculture. Less food waste means we have an easier time focusing on quality rather than quantity.

Well I personally believe that it is money based issues we face here, clearly it is a monopoly on the agricultural system and for the most part food outlets. We also have to face the fact that it is true that most of the lobbying done to get our political figures in office is done largely by food companies.

I personally would say that this is a means to ensure no new policies are made to stop the very clear "crimes" against human health they commit. You see, I understand selling a product and doing what makes it easier to sell that product, however that should not come at the cost of human health, and that should also not come at the cost of lawsuits. (Monsanto is the most known company because of the lawsuits they fling at farmers who grow non Monsanto crops, this is a complicated thing because seeds will freely travel and end up on the corner of another farmers land who does not grow Monsanto crops and Monsanto requires you sign contracts that state you will only grow the seeds they provide you and no other crop can be grown on your property, you may also not do something known as seed milling, a act that enables you to use the seeds from your previous harvest something farmers have always done, making you required to buy the seed every single crop cycle. not to even mention the requirement to buy round up with the purchase of these seeds in contract. so when a farmer has a plant growing on the edge of the property Monsanto has been known to literally sue farmers into bankruptcy or until they agree to start growing the crops they sell.)
I will now provide some links, some are on Monsanto's actual website.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/

You can trust that a company will only state things that benefit the image they try to uphold. I mean, for christe sake taco bell claims this.

https://www.tacobell.com/food/nutrition
Posted 12/8/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

Now, people are against renewable energy because it's a government conspiracy. .


lol, really?

that's so interesting! where did you get that from? i want to read the full thing.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.