[mgoetze]

Do you eat meat? If so, do you know how animals are fed? Do you think all meat should be labelled accordingly?

[onoway]

If any of you have ever had pork or chicken or beef raised in accordance to the animal's natural style of living, you would know there is an enormous difference in the final product. Pork from animals raised in cages with barely enough room to stand up or lie down, fed artificially concentrated diet full of additives (antibiotics etc.) is tough, dry and flavourless unless drenched in all sorts of sauces and herbs. Properly raised and humanely slaughtered pork is full of juice and flavour and can almost be cut with a fork it is so tender. Even the ubiquitous Yorkshire, bred to have as little fat as possible, is infinitely better. If you happen to luck into pork from a Red Wattle or Berkshire raised naturally you are in for ambrosia.

This bill would ..if applied as is to animals and not plant foods.. say that animals raised in highly artificially confined and stressful environments with an equally restricted and artificial diet could be advertised as naturally raised. It's an example of the peevish Alice in Wonderland comment: ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." although what industry is saying is not what anyone not a "spin" doctor would recognize as having that meaning.

Ah yes, we can trust the governments or the industries to look after our interests..when a bunch of people die and the cause is clear and almost immediate. That's how we ended up with diseases such as mad cow disease, when animals such as cows and sheep were being fed ground up offal from slaughterhouses. When THAT experiment proved to be fatal to some people, the practice was stopped. If it had taken longer for the disease to develop it would have taken much longer to make the association and the practice would have been allowed for much longer; if it isn't clear and simple, politicians don't want to know. And at least in Canada, the government has actively dismantled almost all independent research and fired all the scientists who might have some research results other than those stridently promoted by industry...no matter what industry.

[onoway]

If any of you have ever had pork or chicken or beef raised in accordance to the animal's natural style of living, you would know there is an enormous difference in the final product. Animals raised in cages with barely enough room to stand up or lie down, fed artificially concentrated feed full of additives (antibiotics etc.) is tough, dry and flavourless unless drenched in all sorts of sauces and herbs. Properly raised and humanely slaughtered pork is full of juice and flavour, pork chops can almost be cut with a fork they are so tender without any special treatment. Even the ubiquitous Yorkshire, bred to have as little fat as possible, is infinitely better. If you happen to luck into pork from a Red Wattle or Berkshire raised naturally you are in for ambrosia.

This bill would ..if applied as is to animals and not plant foods.. say that animals raised in highly artificial environments with a highly artificial and heavilly chemically dosed diet could be advertised as naturally raised. It's an example of the peevish Alice in Wonderland comment: ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." although what industry is saying is not what anyone other than a "spin" doctor would recognize as having that meaning.

Ah yes, we can trust the governments or the industries to look after our interests..when a bunch of people die and the cause is clear and almost immediate. That's how we ended up with diseases such as mad cow disease, when animals such as cows and sheep were being fed ground up offal from slaughterhouses. When that experiment proved to be fatal to some people, the practice was stopped.If it had taken longer for the disease to develop it would have taken much longer for the practice to be stopped, and many many more people would have been affected. If it isn't clear and simple, with a direct (and fast) path from a to b, politicians don't want to know. And at least in Canada, the government has actively dismantled almost all independent research and fired all the scientists who might have some research results other than those stridently promoted by industry...no matter what industry.

As someone mentioned above, how long did it take for the politicians to do anything about tobacco? It's a very good analogy, it also was regarded as a wonderful product, endorsed by doctors for years. And..nobody was actively restricting research into tobacco. That said, I personally think if people want to smoke, they should be able to do so where they are not impacting other people without their consent, but they should know exactly what risks they are running, and most decidedly people should not be forced to use it daily in some form without their knowlege.

[mike777]

As I mentioned before I expect in a generation or two ...eating animal meat may become a minority thing such as smoking. Perhaps lab grown meat may become more tasty and popular as eating animals becomes less acceptable.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2015-August-06, 20:56, said:

Fair enough, but it keeps coming back to somehow human modified genes in a lab need to be labeled, genes modified by plants or stars or humans not in a lab do not.
At the very least this is discrimination, this is not equality

The types of modifications that can occur naturally are very limited. A mouse gene can't get into an elephant naturally -- the mouse would be crushed when they try to mate. And if you cross-breed two safe varieties of corn, you're not likely to get a new variety that's poisonous -- neither of them has a poison gene, so neither would the offspring.

When humans do genetic engineering, we can make almost arbitrary changes to the genome. This allows much more variation than is possible in nature, with more potential bugs if we get it wrong.

[mike777]

Again whatever mankind creates or destroys is fully part of nature. It is an act of nature. Nature crossbreeds in many surprising ways. Genes jump species.

Of course nature produces poisons and it kills and it destroys and it creates.

If we are going to label, let us do full disclosure if we are going to educate when it comes to modified genes, otherwise we impose a cost only on manmade in the lab gene modification. That is crony capitalism, that is my objection

Also pls see my posts on the "time" factor.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2015-August-09, 02:11, said:

The types of modifications that can occur naturally are very limited. A mouse gene can't get into an elephant naturally -- the mouse would be crushed when they try to mate. And if you cross-breed two safe varieties of corn, you're not likely to get a new variety that's poisonous -- neither of them has a poison gene, so neither would the offspring.

When humans do genetic engineering, we can make almost arbitrary changes to the genome. This allows much more variation than is possible in nature, with more potential bugs if we get it wrong.

I think you are missing Mike's bigger argument (if I understand him correctly) that humans are part of nature and therefore anything that human's do should be considered natural. This is a valid question in biology, and it is the argument that many libertarian types use to justify ignoring government guidelines on endangered species, acid rain, etc.

It would then follow that engineered seeds would be considered natural - which fits in nicely with Monsanto's thinking.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2015-August-09, 08:10, said:

I think you are missing Mike's bigger argument (if I understand him correctly) that humans are part of nature and therefore anything that human's do should be considered natural. This is a valid question in biology, and it is the argument that many libertarian types use to justify ignoring government guidelines on endangered species, acid rain, etc.

It would then follow that engineered seeds would be considered natural - which fits in nicely with Monsanto's thinking.

yes, thus the mythology of Dr. Frankenstein as an act against nature and God. That is what is really going on here.

Again as for the rest see my posts on time in this thread.

[barmar]

So cars, computers and oil wells are "part of nature"?

By that reasoning, EVERYTHING is part of nature, and thus the term is totally meaningless. That's not how anyone actually uses it. Technology created as a result of human ingenuity is considered to be different in kind from things created by unthinking, natural processes.

For example, previous climate change cycles (e.g. the ice ages) were natural. Climate change caused by human use of fossil fuels for energy is not natural, even though humans are part of nature.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2015-August-09, 18:26, said:

So cars, computers and oil wells are "part of nature"?

By that reasoning, EVERYTHING is part of nature, and thus the term is totally meaningless. That's not how anyone actually uses it. Technology created as a result of human ingenuity is considered to be different in kind from things created by unthinking, natural processes.

For example, previous climate change cycles (e.g. the ice ages) were natural. Climate change caused by human use of fossil fuels for energy is not natural, even though humans are part of nature.

so a bird's nest or a beaver dam or a bee hive is not part of nature? They are all part of the thinking process. If you create something by thinking, it is not part of nature or an act of nature, it is not natural?? I have no idea why creating by thinking of stuff makes it not fully part of nature.

of course cars, etc are a part of nature, as much as when a star goes supernova is part of nature.

Of course manmade climate change is part of nature, it is fully an act of nature and by nature.

I understand many believe man made stuff is part magic or supernatural or the work of the devil but that is not science.
-------------------------

"96% of the universe's contents pass ghostlike and unnoticed through the minuscule remaining fraction" that does not mean it is not part of nature.

"As for the nature of consciousness, that is one question which science has not yet fully worked out" that does not mean it is not part of nature.
-----------------------
"Natural foods” and “all natural foods” are widely used terms in food labeling and marketing with a variety of definitions, most of which are vague. The term is often assumed to imply foods that are minimally processed and all of whose ingredients are natural products (in the chemist's sense of that term), but the lack of standards in most jurisdictions means that the term assures nothing. In some countries, the term “natural” is defined and enforced. In others, such as the United States, it has no meaning"
https://en.wikipedia...i/Natural_foods

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2015-August-09, 19:48, said:

so a bird's nest or a beaver dam or a bee hive is not part of nature? They are all part of the thinking process. If you create something by thinking, it is not part of nature or an act of nature, it is not natural?? I have no idea why creating by thinking of stuff makes it not fully part of nature.

of course cars, etc are a part of nature, as much as when a star goes supernova is part of nature.

Of course manmade climate change is part of nature, it is fully an act of nature and by nature.

I understand many believe man made stuff is part magic or supernatural or the work of the devil but that is not science.
-------------------------

"96% of the universe's contents pass ghostlike and unnoticed through the minuscule remaining fraction" that does not mean it is not part of nature.

"As for the nature of consciousness, that is one question which science has not yet fully worked out" that does not mean it is not part of nature.
-----------------------
"Natural foods” and “all natural foods” are widely used terms in food labeling and marketing with a variety of definitions, most of which are vague. The term is often assumed to imply foods that are minimally processed and all of whose ingredients are natural products (in the chemist's sense of that term), but the lack of standards in most jurisdictions means that the term assures nothing. In some countries, the term “natural” is defined and enforced. In others, such as the United States, it has no meaning"
https://en.wikipedia...i/Natural_foods

Rather than say man-made versus natural, a (much) better way to categorize change is to say it is either random or nonrandom. Non-random genetic mutations occur independently of man; on the other hand, only man can create non-random mutations.

Whether or not non-random mutations are part of nature is immaterial - all that matters is the method of change.

[mike777]

fair enough


1) why does the method of change matter?
2) I would still think mankind could make random mutations, they need not be only non random
3) I am not sure about your point that only man can create non random mutations, not sure about that point. I would think mutations could come out of order rather than chaos...I would have thought that gene modification by non mankind means need not always be random.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2015-August-10, 14:43, said:

fair enough


1) why does the method of change matter?
2) I would still think mankind could make random mutations, they need not be only non random
3) I am not sure about your point that only man can create non random mutations, not sure about that point. I would think mutations could come out of order rather than chaos...I would have thought that gene modification by non mankind means need not always be random.

Non-randomness is an act of will. Man alone in the natural world is capable of creating willful genetic changes.

[mike777]

I am not sure nonrandomness of genetic changes must take an act of human will, but perhaps you are correct

[barmar]

mike777, on 2015-August-10, 14:43, said:

1) why does the method of change matter?

I explained earlier. The kinds of genetic changes that man can make intentionally are quantitatively and qualitatively different from the kinds that can occur naturally.

As an analogy, nature can make radioactive uranium, but it can't make an atomic bomb out of it.

[el mister]

barmar, on 2015-July-21, 10:11, said:

If not the government, then who?

We could have an independent group like Consumer Reports or Underwriters Laboratories, but without government backing they wouldn't have any teeth.

FDA's testing requirements may be onerous, which is why drugs that are available in other countries are not available here. But that doesn't mean that regulation in general is wrong, it just means their requirements may be too strict. Is that even enshrined in law, or just FDA tradition? It's probably an overreaction to past problems like Thalidomide, DES and Vioxx.

Drug approval requires the substance to be safe and efficacious in man, and the FDA has metastasised into a bloated, self-sustaining monster in over-seeing this process. Unregulated growth of a regulatory body. Phase 1 of that process, is the drug safe?, has to be done by a government organisation - obviously. Phase 2 and phase 3, though (does the drug work?), could see some serious scaling back. Cutting them completely is a free-market fantasy, but certainly some sort of relief from the weight of the FDA in efficacy studies could help drug discovery.

[mikeh]

onoway, on 2015-August-08, 16:16, said:

This bill would ..if applied as is to animals and not plant foods.. say that animals raised in highly artificially confined and stressful environments with an equally restricted and artificial diet could be advertised as naturally raised. It's an example of the peevish Alice in Wonderland comment: ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." although what industry is saying is not what anyone not a "spin" doctor would recognize as having that meaning.

How ironic. You don't seem to recognize that you are a humpty dumpty yourself. You distort the meaning of words at least as much as do those against whom you rant. I'd pay a lot more attention to the points you seem to be trying to make if you didn't make ludicrous overstatements, portraying all who don't agree with you as evil or manipulative, while you see yourself as a shining beacon of the truth. You come across as a zealot and zealots rarely garner converts.

[mikeh]

onoway, on 2015-August-08, 16:38, said:

If any of you have ever had pork or chicken or beef raised in accordance to the animal's natural style of living, you would know there is an enormous difference in the final product. Animals raised in cages with barely enough room to stand up or lie down, fed artificially concentrated feed full of additives (antibiotics etc.) is tough, dry and flavourless unless drenched in all sorts of sauces and herbs. Properly raised and humanely slaughtered pork is full of juice and flavour, pork chops can almost be cut with a fork they are so tender without any special treatment. Even the ubiquitous Yorkshire, bred to have as little fat as possible, is infinitely better. If you happen to luck into pork from a Red Wattle or Berkshire raised naturally you are in for ambrosia.

Do you have any idea of what it would cost to attempt to have 'natural lifestyle' animals as our source of dietary meat?

Say what you like about the evils of the free market (I am far from a libertarian, btw), but one thing is clear: if anyone could come up with a way to produce the ambrosia of which you speak at a price competitive with 'industrial farming', it would have been done.

Unless and until we, as a species, are prepared to significantly reduce our population, only the middle-class and above are likely to be able to pay for the costs of 'naturally raised' livestock.

Which, btw, do not live remotely 'naturally'. Nor are they products of unmediated evolution. The Red Wattle to which you refer was the product of an intensive breeding program.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2015-August-11, 00:36, said:

I explained earlier. The kinds of genetic changes that man can make intentionally are quantitatively and qualitatively different from the kinds that can occur naturally.

As an analogy, nature can make radioactive uranium, but it can't make an atomic bomb out of it.

again this is not true....indeed it did make a bomb as you say naturally. there was an explosion that was not manmade on earth. Saw this on PBS I think a few months ago.

Not to mention there are nuclear explosions all the time in the stars.

Again I think all of this is just a manifestation of the Dr. Frankenstein mythology. It is an excuse to justify a cost via crony capitalism.

Man is part of the supernatural world not just natural world and is going against God and nature by modifying genes in the lab. What man is doing is dangerous compared to MOther nature. Man is doing the devils work.

The opposing viewpoint is Man is fully part of nature and whatever man creates by will or not is fully a part of the natural world, as much as a bird's nest or beaver dam. Nature destroys and creates, it kills and it creates life.


Science does not fully understand will or consciousness but that does not mean it is not fully part of the natural world or "different from what occurs naturally"

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-August-11, 00:36, said:

I explained earlier. The kinds of genetic changes that man can make intentionally are quantitatively and qualitatively different from the kinds that can occur naturally.

As an analogy, nature can make radioactive uranium, but it can't make an atomic bomb out of it.

Perhaps not, but it can make a nuclear reactor.