14 year old anti-GMO activist pawns Kevin O’Leary



She's hot, would smash, don't care what age she is.

Also, kid is very smart, but she is clearly just parroting stuff but she is too young to understand it.
 
rusvik said:
She's hot, would smash, don't care what age she is.
Click to expand...

ahh inb4 pedobear


Edit: Sorry should have been inafterpedobear.gif

Edit2: Why didn't they show her actually beating O'leary? Or even a clip? Pix or it didn't happen
 
Yeah she's still too young, couldn't really bring some solid arguments aside from the labeling thing.

In a couple more years she'll be more knowledgeable, and definitely more smashable.
 
I give her credit for holding her own, but this is hardly pawning Kevin O'Leary. The positives to making and testing GMOs far outweigh the negatives, and O'Leary did a very good job articulating them.
 
lul, Kevin's accusing her of being a shill when it's pretty evident he's one for Monsanto. He kept on making the claim that she's "anti-science", when she kept on refuting the point that she simply wants labeling and better testing.

The only problem with her position is "mandatory" labeling, which insists the government use force, which is immoral and ineffective.

What is effective is exposing the potential harms of GMO and allowing people to decide for themselves.


Edit: I know we're all fanboys of Kevin, but this is certainly an issue he's clearly wrong. It's very evident there's a certain bias going on here. Monsanto, the same group that helped produce agent orange.
 
dreamache said:
The only problem with her position is "mandatory" labeling, which insists the government use force, which is immoral and ineffective.

What is effective is exposing the potential harms of GMO and allowing people to decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't see how mandatory labeling is immoral and ineffective. We already have many mandatory rules about labeling, info that people look for all the time: minimum font size, product weight/volume, ingredients listed in a specific order, nutritional information, bar codes, etc. I don't think adding one more bit of info to this mix would render it any less effective.

Besides, how can people decide for themselves regarding products containing GMOs if the products aren't labeled as such? It's a bit of a contradiction.
 
Fatbat said:
I don't see how mandatory labeling is immoral and ineffective. We already have many mandatory rules about labeling, info that people look for all the time: minimum font size, product weight/volume, ingredients listed in a specific order, nutritional information, bar codes, etc. I don't think adding one more bit of info to this mix would render it any less effective.

Besides, how can people decide for themselves regarding products containing GMOs if the products aren't labeled as such? It's a bit of a contradiction.
Click to expand...

But as stated in the video, many products contain GMOs so it would end up becoming a welcomed term. I can't see people changing their shopping patterns to overpriced organic foods instead once they know there are GMOs everywhere.
 
knownerror said:
But as stated in the video, many products contain GMOs so it would end up becoming a welcomed term. I can't see people changing their shopping patterns to overpriced organic foods instead once they know there are GMOs everywhere.
Click to expand...

Many products contain salt and sugar. The vast majority of us ignore this info except for those people that are concerned about such things.

I simply do not understand this train of thought. It's completely illogical to me.
 
Typically, people will follow whatever the cultural norm is once labeling becomes manditory.

Every product/company that sells non-GMO products already labels them as such. They see non-GMO branding as their golden star. In a environment where GMO labeling is manditory, they are no different than everyone else because products will naturally shift from GMO or a mix of GMO & non GMO products to only non-GMO food.

Back in the late 70s, the US government did the same thing with fat content labeling because the American Heart Association decided that naturally high in fat foods (Butter, Tallow, ect) were bad for you, and that artificial foods low in fat were good (Margarine, vegetable oil, ect). Over 10 years the US saw a near-complete elimination of naturally high fat foods for fat free and other lower fat foods. The end result was a rapid increase in heart decease, because low and behold 20 years later they figured out the studies were wrong.

GMO labeling would essentially end the usage of GMO crops in the US over time. Many people like this idea, but essentially you're circumventing normal market forces with fear over GMOs, provided of course by force of government.

What are the benefits of GMOs?

High disease resistance
Low water consumption
Low pesticide requirements
High yields (and profits to farmers)

The negatives? A few dozen studies that say they could be bad for you, even though each study was paid for by an organization involved in protesting or trying to benefit from non-gmo plants.

As it is now in the US you have a choice - Look for companies that sell organic and non GMO foods, there are plenty out there. If GMO labeling becomes a reality you will have no choice. The result will be higher food costs, higher crop environmental impacts due to increase of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and higher drought/blight risks. Food in the US is subsidized heavily through USDA payments to farmers. GMOs increase the average farmer's bottom line by 50% on average. Tell me what happens when you increase their cost? Who will be paying (Hint hint, taxpayers).
 
knownerror said:
But as stated in the video, many products contain GMOs so it would end up becoming a welcomed term. I can't see people changing their shopping patterns to overpriced organic foods instead once they know there are GMOs everywhere.
Click to expand...

Already took place in Europe due to mandatory GMO labeling. GMO foods in Europe are outpaced greatly by non-GMO foods, and because of that the entire food production cycle has passed the cost to consumers between GMO and non GMOs.
 
schockergd said:
What are the benefits of GMOs?

High disease resistance
Low water consumption
Low pesticide requirements
High yields (and profits to farmers)

The negatives? A few dozen studies that say they could be bad for you, even though each study was paid for by an organization involved in protesting or trying to benefit from non-gmo plants.
Click to expand...

7rWQ2U6.gif


btw how did your roundup crop go this year?
 
schockergd said:
Already took place in Europe due to mandatory GMO labeling. GMO foods in Europe are outpaced greatly by non-GMO foods, and because of that the entire food production cycle has passed the cost to consumers between GMO and non GMOs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the notice. Gotta love taking two steps back in science.
 
It is impossible to feed the world without GMO's. Although I believe that this process affects our environment and may cause harm to us.

Although pesticides should be barred from entire world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom