11
122

[–] explorevoat 11 points 122 points (+133|-11) ago  (edited ago)

I am so tired of the "Koch Boogeyman."

Stories about them are often inaccurate, and they are often presented as a "unique" problem of big money in politics that is only or mainly on the Republican side.

Here are people that gave more to Super-PACS than the Kochs in 2014 (Includes Democrats and Republicans):

Thomas Steyer $73,725,000.00 Fahr, LLC Founder San Francisco CA

Michael Bloomberg $20,008,628.23 Bloomberg LLP Executive New York NY

Paul Singer $9,291,490.01 Elliot Management New York NY

Robert Mercer $8,070,000.00 Renaissance Technologies Co-CEO East Setauket NY

Fred Eychaner $7,900,000.00 Newsweb CEO Chicago IL

J. Joe Ricketts $4,870,000.00 Self-employed Little Jackson WY

George Soros $3,560,000.00 Soros Fund Management Chairman New York NY

Richard Uihlein $4,235,000.00 Uline CEO Chicago IL

Sheldon Adelson $5,000,000.00 Las Vegas Sands Chairman Las Vegas NV

James Simons $3,000,000.00 Euclidean Capital President New York NY

Also - These are the biggest GMO companies. You might notice Koch Industries is not one of the biggest.

Monsanto (US) $4,964m 23%

DuPont (US) $3,300m 15%

Syngenta (Switzerland) $2,018m 9%

Groupe Limagrain (France) $1,226m 6%

Land O' Lakes (US) $917m 4%

KWS AG (Germany) $702m 3%

Bayer Crop Science (Germany) $524m 2%

Sakata (Japan) $396m <2%

DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) $391m <2%

Takii (Japan) $347m <2%

This article is sensationalist and leaves out other relevant information. The title of this submission is clickbait and implies the Koch Brothers did this alone for only the amount of money named. Lots of companies were against this, lots of companies spent more than Koch Industries and its subsidiaries, and lots of companies are more into GMO.

--edit-- This post is just trying to give factual information and context sorely lacking in the linked article. I do not belong to a "GMO side" to those who sent PMs.

Why not also talk about GMO humans, coming soon!

7
53

[–] binky 7 points 53 points (+60|-7) ago 

The title also assumes the only reason GM labeling didn't pass is lobbying.

2
27

[–] explorevoat 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago  (edited ago)

It is fascinating to watch people being downvoated for presenting true information in a neutral fashion. It is my opinion that it is unhealthy to disagree with the truth, as it is a strategy that never seems to work long term for its adherents.

---edit There is an interesting response to this post but it needs to be read completely, and the links followed: reed says,

While I do agree that he shouldn't have been downvoated, mocking people for believing in the "Koch Boogeyman" is far from a "neutral fashion".

I want to respond to reed:

My friend, I want to make clear this opinion to follow is shared with the best of intentions. I feel it might be beneficial to ask the question, "why does reed believe explorevoat is intent on mocking people who believe in a villainous version of Koch Industries presented in the article?"

Lets make sure of the facts - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mock <--- what does it mean if reed says I "mock" people??

Look it up - "Mock" is a harsh word you accused me of doing to people!

Lets look at my real words in my real post - explorevoat says,

I am so tired of the "Koch Boogeyman."

I stated I am tired of the James Bond villain version of Koch Industries. Here, I said how I feel. No one else is mentioned.

Stories about them are often inaccurate, and they are often presented as a "unique" problem of big money in politics that is only or mainly on the Republican side.

I give some evidence that justifies why I feel tired. Then I go on to list facts that apply to this story and bear witness against the absurdity of the clickbait article. Go back and look up "mock" again - never did I do that to readers. I talked about how I felt, then listed a bunch of possibly boring facts.

Can you show me where I did the things you claim? Or is this about your feelings, and not what I actually said?

6
0

[–] weezkitty 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago 

It almost certainly was. There is little other reason actually ban labeling. Especially against states right

16
10

[–] Schismatic 16 points 10 points (+26|-16) ago 

But guys the KKK isn't bad because the black panthers are racists too!

I'm tired of this bullshit, it's one thing to call liberals out as hypocrites (there are tons) and another thing to say that something someone is doing is okay, because other people are assholes too.

The problem remains that Unions,Corporations and Billionaires have the ability to spend billions of dollars in order to influence the political process.

0
18

[–] theGozarian 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If I read that that title to anyone unbiased, or better yet someone who didn't even know who they were or what gmo is, they would most likely assume that the kochs alone spent money on stopping the labeling of them. I don't think you actually responded to what his point was, which is ironic.

4
12

[–] explorevoat 4 points 12 points (+16|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Please show where I presented a value judgement, deeming anything to be "bad" or "good" regarding influencing the political process. I think you had an argument you wanted to make in advance which responds to things I did not say. Did you see what you wanted to see in my post or is it actually there? At most you might make the argument that I imply that being more informed is good. How does your response to my post make sense given that? I think you misunderstood me. I am going back and re-reading and Schismatic replied to an imaginary version of my post. There is an insight here for why making common ground can be hard. Where did I,

"say that something someone is doing is okay, because other people are assholes too." "call liberals out as hypocrites" argue that, "guys the KKK isn't bad because the black panthers are racists too!"

None of the above applies to my post remotely, my point was we need more relevant information, and that Koch Industries is often showcased as a sort of "Dr. Evil" organization, a stand-in main character, even when they are a bit player or have nothing to do with the events at all. I did not say Koch was "okay." We should just be better informed.

0
2

[–] jpw42 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The problem remains that Unions,Corporations and Billionaires have the ability to spend billions of dollars in order to influence the political process.

The problem is that people do not see it as necessary to fully educate themselves and there for fall pray to the PR that the Unions, Corporations, and Billionaires spend money on.

0
1

[–] juslen 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If only taxpayer money could be used to influence politicians! Oh wait... Come on, the joke is that corporations aren't people, but whether you like it or not, corporations, unions, politicians.. they all cater in one way or another to the people. If you want to blame it on money.. get ready to abandon any political or economic system which will always be dominated by people seeking positions of power and influence. And they will always get there by catering to the ignorant masses. So if you want to bring an end to corruption, you have to be ready to purge society of the dumb and ignorant.

0
3

[–] BoiseNTheHood 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Meanwhile, mention George Soros and libs either clam up or scream "FALSE EQUIVALENCE!"

0
2

[–] PeptoBismolMonk 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Glad to see some additional information being added to the discussion. Yes they may be the most 'talked about topic', but we must look at who is having the greatest effect/affect.

18
40

[–] kingkongsdingdong 18 points 40 points (+58|-18) ago 

Could you please not submit such shitty opinion articles to /v/news? Go promote your anti-GMO agenda elsewhere.

1
25

[–] bill.lee 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago 

It's certainly within the posting requirements. Primarily, there are two options when we see content we don't like. The first is to post articles you do find worthy. The other is to address where you find the flaw. Personally, when I saw this headline I didn't think it was anti or pro-GMO. I thought it was anti lobbying and pointing out how bribery influences the political process. That would be the point I'd argue: did the $299,000 sway votes or not? I found that to be the point of the article.

4
8

[–] Broc_Lia 4 points 8 points (+12|-4) ago 

It's a request not to post shitty articles, not a demand for articles they find shitty to be deleted.

7
1

[–] kingkongsdingdong 7 points 1 points (+8|-7) ago  (edited ago)

Except from the first few paragraphs:

As the Hill reports, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), who authored the bill, called mandatory labeling laws — which have already passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine — unnecessarily costly given that GMOs have been deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“Precisely zero pieces of credible evidence have been presented that foods produced with biotechnology pose any risk to our health and safety,” Pompeo said. “We should not raise prices on consumers based on the wishes of a handful of activists.”

Well, sure. Then there is the curious case of a lobbyist who back in March proclaimed that Monstanto's weedkiller "won't hurt you", only to promptly refuse drinking it on live it adding "I'm not stupid."

They mention how the FDA claims that GMOs have been proven safe, and then they counter with the lobbyist who won't drink weed killer as evidence to argue that GMOs arent safe. The article continues to be nonsense.

12
5

[–] warpdesign 12 points 5 points (+17|-12) ago  (edited ago)

Seconded.

6
11

[–] bill.lee 6 points 11 points (+17|-6) ago 

It's within the rules of the sub. I'd also note the rule about being civil. Certainly post what you like and express your thoughts how you please, but I feel that's slightly pushing the bounds civility.

0
2

[–] Nitrous 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

A opinion is just that. A opinion. His/hers submission being "shitty" is your opinion, which is no greater than anyone else's opinion.

Also by the post it brought out good factual information from the community. A good conversation that brought over 100 comments. So its my opinion this post was good. It brought up great discussion. Which is what this is all about, right? It's the whole reason you are here is it not? If you want strictly news than why do you choose to use a community site?

0
0

[–] kingkongsdingdong 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This article is extremely opinionated. I think it would be much more appropriate in the politics sub than the news sub. I was under the impression that this sub is for factual news, not commentary.

0
2

[–] weezkitty 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I see this is a serious problem. Not because I am anti-GMO but because it is a states rights issues. Also, even though GMOs are safe now, if that is found to change in the future, it would be very hard to get this ban off the books.

0
1

[–] kingkongsdingdong 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That is my one complaint that it impedes on states rights.

4
25

[–] CatNamedJava 4 points 25 points (+29|-4) ago 

It was easy to pass because it follows legal precedent. As GMO have not been seen a major health concern or nutritional issue, it falls under a "lifestyle" labeling. The courts have been against this requirement(1st amendment I believe was the quoted). This labeling would be similar to laws requiring all food to be marked kosher or not. Companies are free to label GMOs if they want but requiring it is a unnecessary burden. Plus something this demanding on supply chains should really be done on a national level.

0
1

[–] Ripper 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Most items that are deemed kosher are blessed by Rabbis though. Companies pay Jewish rabbis a crap ton of money to bless tankers so they can be deemed kosher. It's not the same.

1
4

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Are you implying that regulators employed by the government are a better class of human and not subject to corruption? At least with community based regulation there's competitors to go to if one of them turns out to be corrupt.

8
22

[–] Extropy 8 points 22 points (+30|-8) ago 

Please get over your anti-GMO superstitions. There is no magical life-force inside of plants that is being disturbed by genetic engineering. Plants are machines that can and must be improved through science.

2
8

[–] reed 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

I think many see problems with the pesticides used on GMO crops, and the lack of species diversification inherent to their use, rather than the three letter acronym in their description.

2
9

[–] Succotash 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

No the educated see problems with this. The people against GMOs generally think these plants are some sort of Frankenstein monster made of stem cells from aborted babies. The phrase GMO is the bogeyman to the organic crowd and the conservative crowd. Even though the organic label still allows some pesticides.

The educated crowd knows that pesticides in general are going to be bad. They are designed as a poison, enough of it probably isn't going to be good for you. The educated crowd also knows that we need some sort of pesticide to raise crops. We used some pretty nasty stuff in the past, and roundup used on GMOs is a lot less dangerous than others. What the educated crowd has found as an issue is the denial that there is some risk from using a pesticide.

2
2

[–] 1smartass 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

the lack of species diversification inherent to their use

That's a meaningless word salad you made on your keyboard. I'd say on a scale of 1 to 100 in how much you know about horticulture, biology, genetics, agriculture, you're at 2.

0
0

[–] explorevoat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

reed, I agree with you that there are definitely potential problems with GMO seeds. One of them being mono-culture and genetic homogenization amplifying disease vulnerability and consequence. However, how do we feed 12 billion people in 2050? It is complex. Would the Earth accept a "one-child policy" like China had? How do we feed 20 billion people in 2100? How about a two-child policy? We need policies based on rational responses to difficult realities, but temper them with emotions in the long run. If someone has more than their quota of children we do not kill them or some other barbarous relic from our overly violent history as a species, but we might require sterilization. These are hard questions, but if you let the population grow GMOs are a requirement. How many humans can be on this planet before something breaks? Replacement pregnancy levels as a law seems prudent at some point.

2
-1

[–] Avnomke 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Use of pesticides and lack of species diversification are just as big problems for non-GMO crops as GMOs.

3
2

[–] Calibas 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, giving major corporations enormous power over politics and science has worked out so well. Let's just sit back and do nothing as they use GMOs to manipulate the very ecosystems of the planet to line their pockets. And that's exactly how GMOs are being used, to further monoculture.

Also, let's ridicule people who see a problem with this! We'll act like they're the crazy ones...

4
0

[–] Sorahzahd 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

Agreed. It's absurd how people want to hand over control to companies that have shown time and again to be corrupt and dangerous, with zero regard for health and safety standards.

The amount of gullible tweens in this thread is way way too high.

0
1

[–] 33degree 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The problem is the 400% increase in pesticides.

0
0

[–] HoloIsLife 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

But which pesticides? They're not all equally bad.

0
0

[–] MaMaPyCb 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

All food we eat is GMO. The issue really is what the large corporations are doing with both the intellectual property rights BS and also the direct modification and monoculture.

7
12

[–] kabogle 7 points 12 points (+19|-7) ago  (edited ago)

I don't get it. If they're safe why do these companies want to hide if something is GMO? Most people won't care at all.

Edit: wow really getting jumped on for a simple question. For the record I probably eat GMOs and don't worry about it even a little. It was just a simple question.

4
18

[–] kingkongsdingdong 4 points 18 points (+22|-4) ago 

Look at how stigmatized GMOs already are. If you start labeling things as GMO, people will further the notion that there is something wrong with these crops when they have been proven again and again to be safe.

3
4

[–] explorevoat 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

GMOs have multiple benefits and drawbacks, as do most things. I am just so tired of the sensationalist presentation of almost every topic online. There is no room for nuance about complicated issues in many cases.

0
3

[–] kabogle 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You're overestimating the average consumer. Around here we have entire grocery store aisles just for frozen pizzas.

0
1

[–] 33degree 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If you start labeling things as GMO, people will further the notion that there is something wrong with these crops when they have been proven again and again to be safe.

So should we be able to label where meat is from? If the meat you're eating is from China, do you want to know?

3
10

[–] Rostin 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago 

There's a difference between wanting to "hide" something and not wanting to be forced to add a label to your products.

1
7

[–] kabogle 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Don't products already have labels?

4
-3

[–] Sorahzahd 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

Actually, no, they're literally identical.

2
9

[–] Dark_Shroud 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

The problem is the amount of people who misunderstand what GMOs are.

It's become the new boggy man just like MSG was in the past. To the point that food we know is safe to eat was still locked up as people were starving to death in Africa.

http://articles.philly.com/2002-09-23/news/25362241_1_food-donations-village-leaders-malawi

I can go on giving various examples of products and companies.

But the bottom line is people get scared and do stupid acts based on feelings instead of finding out facts.

So now we're seeing companies like Chipotle saying no to GMO products. When you start asking people & companies why part of the response is politically based and Monsanto is the devil.

https://www.eater.com/2015/5/5/8524043/chipotle-non-gmo-what-does-that-really-mean

2
3

[–] kabogle 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Makes sense. I appreciate the info and links, I will check it out. Still not convinced that mandatory labeling is a big deal though. GMOs are so pervasive now, it's not like your products will be at a disadvantage for containing GMOs. Every other product will too. Do you know many people that check labels for MSG before buying something?

1
2

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

If they're safe why do these companies want to hide if something is GMO?

If GMOs are so dangerous, why do people not insist on only buying certified GMO free food?

5
9

[–] escapefromredditbay 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago 

congress are some pretty cheap fucks.

6
0

[–] Broc_Lia 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago 

While that's probably true, almost certainly the reason this was so low is because the legislation hadn't a hope in hell of passing to begin with: There's no evidence of GMO health risks to legislate against.

2
5

[–] escapefromredditbay 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

GMO health risks? well if your going to start off with that, very large other topic.

but, whatever take on it is, consumers have the right to know what there eating and decide for themselves from there.

2
6

[–] jackofdiamonds 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

These laws are silly to begin with. Literally every single thing that we eat has been artificially genetically modified by humans. If any state gets to pass "Mandatory GMO Labelling" laws, then all they are doing is forcing every single item of food sold in stores to contain an informationally useless label. It's like forcing people to label food as appropriate: "This contains carbon."

0
2

[–] weezkitty 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So what? If a state wants to be stupid, let them. California requires almost everything to be labeled that it can cause cancer.

0
0

[–] rwbj 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

GMOs and artificial selection are not the same thing. Artificial selection is the breeding of naturally compatible organisms. For instance a mule is the product of a donkey and a horse. GMOs take incompatible organisms and selectively splice certain components. For instance a recent GMO was canned largely due to negative reaction to what they were doing. They were going to take genes from a pig and put them into oranges. GMOs are still an incredibly new technology. The first GMO released on the market was the "Flavr Savr" tomato, released in 1994. And it took years for us to reach the state where we are today in the US with GMOs being in practically everything.

Please note this is intended solely as a simple factual correction. You'll note all sources are from normal generally reputable sites, and not radical agenda sites. There's an enormous amount of misinformation on both sides of this debate and while I think the technology behind GMOs could be incredible, I'm not sure the current extreme commercialization of it is necessarily putting the public good as the #1 priority, as it should be.

1
6

[–] tylahedras 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

"The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015"

Hehe

load more comments ▼ (17 remaining)