Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register
The Offical Matrix Groupchat is online! >>CLICK HERE<<

OA120: OA Shills For Monsanto! (w/guest Natalie Newell of "Science Moms") (Patreon)

Published:
2017-11-10 03:02:16
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

Today's episode features Natalie Newell of the documentary "Science Moms" discussing GMO labeling and science awareness.

First, we begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment that updates some previous stories, including good news from the Jane Doe v. Wright decision discussed in Episode 117 and some clarification regarding the Manafort indictment from Episode 118.

After that, Natalie Newell joins us for a lengthy discussion on GMOs in light of legislation passed in 2016 requiring uniform national labeling.

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Here is the press release regarding Jane Doe's abortion.
  2. The GMO labeling law we discuss is the "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Act of 2016," 7 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq.
  3. And you can (and should!) check out "Science Moms" by clicking here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Psilly Rabbit, if you think that farmers weren't using pesticides and fertilizers 200 years ago (or even 2000 years ago) you are sorely mistaken. Certainly waste reduction is an important part of feeding the world, but so is increased productivity. We will never be able to eliminate all waste. Trying to tackle global hunger from many angles at once is a much better strategy than demonizing an incredibly useful tool because you theoretically could solve the problem through some other method. Saying we don't "need" something is a silly reason to rule it out completely. We don't "need" most things, that doesn't mean we should categorically reject them. Wether people's rejection is based upon a fear of human health or environmental health, it still needs to be based in fact. And all this point many of the environmental concerns are taken way out of context and used for pure fearmongering.

Anonymous

I'm also very interested in any evidence you have that these permaculture systems can consistently produce as efficiently as conventional agriculture. All of the evidence I've seen for "alternative" systems has been weak at best.